We’re at a weird place in our cultural evolution. We seem to think not only that unpleasantness is undesirable, but that we have the power to get rid of it.

We see it in campaign names like “Make Poverty History” and “The Plan to End Homelessness”. We talk about no one having to suffer or go without.

Reducing the amount of suffering and injustice in the world is, after all, what it’s all about. But eliminating it? Aren’t we being a little naive here?Darkness

Beyond naivete, I think this idea that we can/should blot out everything we consider ‘bad’ is quite dangerous.

It makes it too easy to forget about the agency of whoever’s on the receiving end of our problem-eradicating work.

For example: my husband works in health care and sometimes, someone simply says no to the treatment he knows will help them. In the problem-eradication model, he would force them. Chase them down. Harass them until they break down and agree to do what, in his opinion, is best.

How likely is this to work, in the long term? Is it even possible to help someone in spite of themselves? Is it the best use of scarce resources?

If you were a patient who wasn’t interested in the help being offered, how would you feel about this approach? If you were another patient eagerly waiting for help, how would you feel about the amount of time and energy your would-be caregivers poured into the uninterested one?

Might we see the uninterested patient, years down the road, more incapacitated or in more pain than they had to be? Sure, maybe. But without the possibility of that happening, how can we ever have free will?

Freedom of choice inevitably comes with the responsibility to live with the consequences. Unless we’re prepared to eliminate freedom of choice, we need to get a bit more comfortable with watching people live with the fallout from their own actions.