I’ve said this many times before, but in case you are new to my articles, I think we live in a pretty great place. I’ve traveled all over the country, as well as out of the country a bit, and I find that our area is beautiful, the people are hard-working and friendly, and we have an abundance of things to do. If you like the outdoors and are into hunting, hiking, and rolling hills, we have them. Coffee houses, craft beer, and farm stands? Yes, please!

That being said, I’m sure we’ve all seen the rise in local crime, and the world seems to be getting colder (figuratively) and meaner. We could all use a bit more compassion, which we’ll define as concern for others. So, let’s think big for a minute. What if compassion could be scaled exponentially? What would that look like, and how could this be achieved?

We usually associate compassion with an individual or between two individuals. It is not something that we think of as connected to large groups of people, cities, or even countries. But if we are to move forward, and frankly, continue to exist as a species, we need to start thinking bigger and better when it comes to looking out for each other. In their Greater Good article “How Do We Scale Up Compassion?” Amy Richards and David Addiss ask whether epidemiology, the science used to understand how disease spreads through populations, can help explain how compassion might spread through organizations, communities, and societies. Their idea is simple: if suffering clusters in certain places and among certain people, maybe compassion can be studied, strengthened, and spread just like the flu.

Authors Richards and Addiss credit Buddhist scholar Thupten Jinpa with proposing the original challenge. At a 2018 compassion education conference, Jinpa observed that compassion training had gained popularity and scientific support, yet was not making any real difference in the world. If we were to create meaningful change, Jinpa believed compassion needed to be scaled on a much higher level and move beyond something that was personal. Richards and Addiss decided to take up that challenge by asking whether the tools of epidemiology could help compassion science think big.

We have already defined compassion as caring for others, but part of compassion is noticing the suffering of others and being moved to relieve it. This expanded definition matters because compassion is more than sympathy, which may simply recognize another person’s pain, and more than empathy, which may involve feeling with another person. Compassion includes a response. Compassion is where awareness meets concern, and concern leads to action. A compassionate person does not just walk by a drowning person and feel sad. A compassionate person reaches out an arm to help.

This is where things get tricky. Compassion becomes harder to define when the focus moves from individuals to systems. Can an organization be compassionate? Can a school, company, city, or government be compassionate like a single person? Common sense says that organizations do not have the capacity to be warm-hearted, but maybe that isn’t entirely true. Institutions can recognize suffering, set priorities, allocate resources, design policies, and create conditions that either relieve or worsen human suffering. So, collective compassion may not depend on whether an institution is able to “feel” compassion, but on whether it is organized to notice suffering as something can be measured, and respond to it consistently.

This is where epidemiology comes in. Epidemiologists study patterns. Who is affected, where disease appears, and what factors increase or reduce the problem. Richards and Addiss suggest that similar questions can be asked about compassion. Where is compassion abundant, and where is it scarce? What organizational habits make people more likely to respond to suffering? Which policies make compassionate action easier, and which systems make it more difficult to act? Instead of treating compassion as a singular act of kindness, an epidemiologic approach would treat it as something that can be observed, mapped, measured, and possibly strengthened.

If it can be observed in this manner, then it should also be able to be scaled. An individual would see a problem, reflect on it, make an emotional judgment, and then decide to act to alleviate the problem. Unfortunately, this won’t work with large institutions. To scale compassion, institutions require structure and policy that make compassionate behavior easy to notice, act on, and sustain.

In Part 2 of this article. We will discuss practical steps to scale compassion. While we all wish for the world to be a better place, it’s time to put thoughts and words into action. John Lennon had it right: “All you need is love.” Now we just need a plan and to take the next big step.

FYI, I’m taking on new clients for fitness and wellness coaching. If you have a sincere interest in either or have questions, feel free to reach me at dave.bellomo@gmail.com.