The Quantification of Need

I'm an avid follower of Humans of New York, which is run by this dude called Brandon Stanton in New York. Recently, something Brandon did made me smile more than his page normally does.

A bit of background here: Humans of New York is essentially a photoblog of random people in New York, whom Brandon stops in the streets and speaks to. The pictures are then uploaded with captions which reveal a little bit of their lives: stories which are witty, funny, touching, moving, sweet, sad, and just plain human. It's a great way of showing us that everyone we pass in the street has a life, a story and of bringing people together. The people who comment on these threads are some of the most accepting and amazing people I've found on the internet. ANYWAY little fan outpouring aside, what happened in this instance was that Brandon came across a mother and her son, Rumi, selling cowboy supplies on the pavement, in order to save up for a horse, because "Rumi's biggest dream is to own a horse."

Now most of us, if you guys are anything like me, would just smile at this piece of absolute adorableness, and the hope, and the maternal love, and the general awesomeness reflected in this picture and story and move on.

Not Brandon.

He decided, since owning a horse in New York is a little difficult/expensive, to send Rumi on a Wild West Adventure, and asked followers of his page to donate some money. The goal was $7000. It was raised in 15 minutes. A total of $32, 167 have been raised, and the rest is going to the New York Therapeutic Riding Centre.

Which is all wonderful (SO MINDBLOWINGLY WONDERFUL OH MY GOD I LOVE PEOPLE), but that is not the point of this post.

The point is that some of the people who have commented in places where this story has been reported seem...upset. Because Rumi is not a starving orphan. Because going on a Wild West adventure is not a basic need. Because he has a house and a loving mother and therefore does not deserve to have strangers spend money on him to fulfill his little first world wish.

Excuse me?

I understand that the world is in a bad way. There are people suffering for the food I'm snacking on while typing this post. There are people dying for the most basic amenities. There is, after all, this picture.

But does that mean we cannot help anybody who isn't that far gone?

Must we hunt down the most despairing soul to give our charity to? Must we feel guilty every time we buy a new phone, because someone is dying for lack of a morsel, or every time we help a Rumi instead of a homeless man because his need is less than that of a man on the street? Should I feel bad that the person I helped wasn't as bad off as the next one?

Must need be quantified?

It would be great if the world was a utopian socialist heaven where everyone had all they needed and could get down to the business of wants. It is not. It is probably not going to be. It is not even heading in that direction.

But when we do decide to help somebody, whether it's by driving a kid down to Six Flags and watching her leap for joy, or donating to Greenpeace or Blue Cross, we shouldn't be told that we didn't help the right person.

What does that argument even mean?

That we can't help someone until every person worse off than them has been helped?

That we can't fight for animal rights until the rights of every human have been granted and guaranteed?

That your need/want is not important as long as there are needier people?

Please. Their needs may exist, but so do these. Yes, there are people who need a lot more. Yes, we should help them. Yes, you will get more moral brownie points for helping those people.

But when someone is in front of you, and they need something, and you can help them, you do that. And when someone else does that, you don't diss them for it. People help those they want to help, support the causes they want to. Because even if somebody else has it much worse, that doesn't really change the fact that you have what you have.

~Sam