With the tangible resources and the abstraction of wealth currently available in this world, when I see someone in trouble, my first question should be, "How can I help?" If the answer I receive is within my means, my second question should be, "And if I help, what then?" If the "what then" requires additional assistance that is also within my means, I should ask the second question multiple times; and if each successive "what then" is within my means or requires no additional assistance, I should perform a compassionate cost-benefit analysis and act upon it. If any "what then" requires additional assistance outside of my means, I should verbally note this inability, and together we should explore alternatives (for both assistance and options), and then continue asking, "What then?"

This process sounds complex; and it can be. For many, this process sounds unrealistic; but that should be determined by the "within my means" qualifier, and not automatically assumed. For many, it is easier to let another individual, (or the system), take care of the problem, believing "it is not my place;" and in some circumstance, this may be valid, but should be argued. For most, this process is intimidating because it requires sincerity without destructive emotion; and it is difficult to face this fear with reasoned composure.

Considering all these factors, I believe the list below is a fair representation of my options for responding, (whether they ask or not), to someone who is in trouble:

• I can choose to be oblivious to all or selected difficulties and/or individuals; especially those that do not noticeably impact me in this moment.
• I can acknowledge selected difficulties and/or individuals, and do nothing. After all, "What can I do?"
• I can judge, blaming the individual for the difficulty, and do nothing. "It's their problem."
• I can blame bad luck, circumstance, and/or the system for the difficulty, and do nothing.
• I can judge, blame, and exert control, thus keeping the individual in their place.
• (As much as it is within my means), I can throw money (or minimally invasive effort) at the difficulty (and/or the individual), and hope that it (and/or they) will go away.
• I can ask the individual, "How can I help?" and if it is within my means, comply.
• I can empathize and exert control, thus kindly keeping the individual in their place.
• I can prioritize individuals and ask "how can I help?" and follow up with "what then" until...
• I can focus on larger-scale circumstance and system, asking myself and others, "What must we do?" and follow up with political and ethical ("what then") discourse that may result in progress or may result in divisiveness, and may or may not reach a cost-benefit analysis followed (or not) by action and short-term progress.
• I can continue to individually work within the system, by asking myself "how can I help?" and "what then?" and follow up with analyses of costs and benefits, leading to productive action and short-term progress, and repeat until... well... Forever.*

As a community, or society, or nation, we typically choose a response that involves control and divisiveness. The same is frequently true for an employer, often true for a parent, and almost always true for an involved ego with power / money.

(If I substitute "another individual" or "other individuals" for "the individual" in the bullets above), these options for response also apply to mutual problems.

In my mind, this creates a sameness between another individual in trouble and mutual difficulty.

Even if you disagree that another individual's problem is your problem, consider what might happen if you treated it as such.

I understand that I cannot be all things to all people, but I can strive to be (conditional upon personal means), and continuously work to improve on prioritization. By doing so, most importantly, I will move away from judgement, blame, and ego, and move toward empathy, compassion, and resolution.

When I make a mistake or find myself in trouble, I most definitely have empathy and compassion, and I typically, immediately, start working toward resolution. The only difference between my trouble and your trouble is, you're not me; but from your perspective of your trouble, you are me. This should not be difficult to understand.

In my mind, this creates a sameness between your sense of me and my sense of me.

In my mind, this creates a sameness between your trouble and my trouble.

In my mind, this creates a sameness between you and me.

With the tangible resources and the abstraction of wealth currently available in this world, when I see someone in trouble, my first question should be, "How can I help?"... ...

*(NOTE ON FOREVER: In this world, I believe my Forever is finite; and on our current trajectory, I also believe Humanity's Forever is finite. We may extend Forever if or when those with wealth and power recognize that survival is contingent upon a drastic deconstruction and reconstruction of our system. [See this suggestion.] If this epiphany does not come soon, we may discover that Forever has become Too Late.)