Why has it been so hard to get public attention focused on the humanitarian crisis in east Africa, where millions are at risk of starvation?
It is not simply a matter of lacking information. It is true that the devastation facing the region has been underplayed in the media, not least because the problems are incredibly complex.
Fragile countries such as Somalia and South Sudan face religious and ethnic conflict, political volatility, insurgencies, climate change and a world skewed in favour of developed states.
It also does not help that the current American president is not only threatening to cut billions in humanitarian aid but also sucks up media attention every time he tweets or leers.
Then, Emmanuel Macron somehow managed to forget more than a century of brutal French colonialism followed by neglect and marginalisation of immigrants from former colonies.
Instead he blamed African mothers for the continent’s problems by repeating the convenient fiction that they have too many children.
However, the problem is obviously more complicated than Trump’s failings, Macron’s prejudiced inaccuracies or media neglect.
Knowledge in itself is never enough to spur people to respond compassionately.
Even when people are informed, constant exposure to bad news stories can lead to compassion fatigue
In December 2013 Bill Gates said on his Facebook page that "with the technology we have today, and with the innovations that are still to come, anyone with an internet connection, a few dollars to give, and the time to do a little digging can become a more-informed donor. These days, effective philanthropy is for everyone."
It is a curiously naive statement, which fails to recognise that most people are not spending their time online finding out how to be better donors.
In fact the internet may have encouraged so-called slacktivism, where clicking or liking something substitutes for action.
Or worse, given the algorithms that govern what we get to see on our social media, our news feeds may never mention the developing world because none of our friends or family are interested, either.
Even when people are informed, constant exposure to bad news stories can lead to compassion fatigue.
No one likes feeling guilty, especially because they are more fortunate than others. It usually spurs us into action to relieve the feeling. Unfortunately, that action is often to rationalise why we cannot help.
For example, take the common complaint that you cannot be sure whether the money you donate is being spent properly.
It is true that charities and nongovernmental organisations have been embroiled in various scandals in recent times, but given that there are so many blameless organisations who practise transparency, as an excuse it rings somewhat hollow.
Dunbar’s Number
Perhaps from an evolutionary perspective, feeling genuine concern for people outside our immediate community is a challenge.
Robert Dunbar, the Oxford academic, popularised what has become known as Dunbar’s Number – the idea that the optimal number for any community is about 150, and that our ability to care and connect diminishes in proportion to how far above that number we rise.
Centuries ago, a community of 150 meant that not only did everyone know everybody but it was quite likely that you were related to a significant proportion of your community, too, which led to high levels of pro-social behavior.
The real challenge is to encourage humans to care for those outside their circle of family and friends. It seems to be ingrained in human nature to care for an in-group and actively discriminate against an out-group, or at best, to be indifferent to them.
The most effective ways to combat that are to foster empathy, or alternatively, to instill a deep moral imperative to help.
In the past the desire to help African countries was fostered because most Irish families either had a cousin or some other relative who was a missionary.
African countries were on our radar because Aunty Kitty, the nun, was out there helping mothers deliver babies who were irresistibly cute and who would starve without our help.
Contrary to what Bill Gates believes, information without a sense of human connection does not necessarily lead to action
It may have inadvertently led to dreadful stereotypes of white superiority and African helplessness, but most people over 50 remember as primary school children very willingly parting with their pennies to help black babies in Africa.
Nowadays very few of us have a missionary aunt. Contrary to what Bill Gates believes, mere information without a sense of human connection does not necessarily lead to action.
Nor has our age developed ways of ingraining in people that they have a duty to help, but a constant barrage of information about potential threats often just overwhelms.
It leads many to retreat offline to our families and family-like groups of friends, which ironically enough, often correspond to Dunbar’s Number and pose the same danger of favouring our in-group.
Pennies for the black babies certainly cannot solve the problems of the modern era. But organisations such as Trócaire, which is holding a nationwide collection in churches this weekend, are working in partnership with local people to address structural causes. It is slow, difficult, essential work.
It would take an advanced degree of rationalisation to justify not donating. Hey, you might even resist the temptation to slacktivism and go online to do so.