How to balance relief vs. reform

Reform is better than relief. If we can change the system for the better, we should do that—obviously.

Except, it isn’t obvious.

It is harder to reform something, and there’s no guarantee it leads to better results. Meanwhile, real people suffer.

Relief deals with the tangible problems of now. Which is important because pain and suffering exist in the present, not in some hypothetical future.

Imagine: There's a river that supplies water to a town. Someone is actively poisoning it upstream.

Some people want to install expensive water filtration systems in every home (relief), while others decide to find the source of the poison (reform). Both matter. We need clean water now (relief) while also stopping the source of the problem (reform).

Yet in the modern world, we see people unknowingly supporting systems that harm them, while others rush to defend the people poisoning the source! It’s the modern “drinking the Kool-Aid”.

This is evident in how people follow public figures. Any substantial following includes a group of unwavering supporters. Even when a controversial figure proposes an idea that might be harmful, their devoted followers defend them, calling them geniuses. This blind support can hinder both meaningful reform and effective relief efforts.

We live during the richest period in human history (even though it may not feel like it due to income inequality). How can we allow people to suffer needlessly? How can we allow opinions to override helping actual human beings? But simply throwing money at problems and hoping they will go away doesn’t permanently reduce suffering.

There has to be a balance between reforming everything and providing relief. There’s inherent value to both. We have to help people now and we have to change things for the better. One doesn’t make sense without the other.