Suspending Gratification

...part of Stewardship

A debate on the difference between an animal and a human being caught my attention recently. One argued: "Animals don't think." "But how can we be sure they do not think?" asked another. The compromise outline on the difference between animals and human beings was stated thus: "Animals respond instinctively; they do not suspend their drives for another day. Human beings on the other hand rationally suspend their needs and desires with an objective of gratifying them at an appropriate time!"

Close to a billion people globally are on forced suspended gratification by starvation. Populations facing starvation have not consciously opted to be hungry in order to enjoy life on another day. But just what should the world of compassion invest in?

Poor communities' alienation from their land, lack of access to efficient agricultural technology, poor government agro-policies, and skewed global market systems reduces agricultural productivity.  Farmers can exercise the right of consciously suspending "immediate gratification" if offered wider choices. Unless causes of famine are addressed, hungry populations are denied the ability to exercise stewardship through suspended gratification.

James Shikwati

Please post your response to James in the Community Forum or email getintouch@stewardshipcommunity.com and your response will be posted for you. Your name can be withheld if you prefer.

 

---