Why We Struggle to Care: The Emotional Limits of Modern Life

The Compassion Gap: How Our Brains Limit Global Empathy

Humans are social creatures by nature. We evolved in tight-knit communities where survival depended on strong bonds with our immediate group—our “pack.” This evolutionary history influences how we feel about the world today, and it explains why we often struggle to feel deeply about issues, events, or people outside our immediate circle. In many ways, our emotions are wired to prioritize those closest to us, but the modern world challenges this instinct constantly. We’re bombarded with information about global events, social issues, and the lives of people we’ve never met. Yet, the further something is from our direct experience, the harder it is for us to feel a strong emotional connection to it. This isn't a flaw; it's a reflection of how we’ve evolved, but understanding this dynamic can help us navigate the emotions of modern life more effectively.

  The Evolution of Our Emotional Connections

Thousands of years ago, our ancestors lived in small, close-knit groups where everyone depended on each other for survival. These groups, often consisting of family and a few others, made up our entire social world. In such an environment, emotional investments were practical. Caring about your immediate community made sense because it directly affected your well-being. Helping a member of your group meant contributing to the group's survival, which in turn increased your own chances of survival. Emotional energy was a finite resource, and it was used where it mattered most—on people who could immediately impact your life.

Fast forward to today, and our social groups have expanded dramatically. We are no longer confined to small, isolated communities. The internet, social media, and the 24-hour news cycle connect us to events and people far beyond our local neighborhoods. While this interconnectedness offers opportunities for empathy and global awareness, it also creates a struggle: How do we feel about people and events that are so far removed from our direct experience?

  The Challenge of Feeling for Strangers

When something happens to someone close to us—a friend loses a job, a family member falls ill, or a neighbor faces a crisis—we usually know how to respond emotionally. We care, we feel empathy, and we often take action to help. But when a natural disaster strikes on the other side of the world or when we hear about systemic injustices affecting people we've never met, we can feel emotionally paralyzed or detached. This isn't because we lack compassion, but rather because our brains are wired to focus on what's immediately relevant to us.

For example, consider the phenomenon known as "compassion fatigue." This happens when people become desensitized to suffering after being exposed to it too often, especially when it involves people or events far removed from their personal lives. Charity organizations and news outlets often struggle with this dynamic. The more frequently people see images of starving children, war victims, or other humanitarian crises, the less emotionally responsive they become. This doesn't mean people stop caring entirely, but rather that they reach a saturation point where their emotional bandwidth is exhausted. Our emotional systems aren't built to handle the constant bombardment of distressing global news that modern technology delivers.

  The “Us vs. Them” Mentality

Another reason we struggle to feel strongly about things outside our immediate pack is the way our brains categorize people into "us" and "them." Our evolutionary ancestors needed to distinguish between people who were part of their group (and therefore deserving of trust and empathy) and outsiders, who could potentially be threats. This "us vs. them" mentality persists today, even though the risks associated with outsiders have changed.

In the modern world, we're still prone to feel more empathy and concern for those we consider part of our "us" group, whether that’s family, close friends, or even people who share similar beliefs, values, or backgrounds. This in-group bias can make it harder to empathize with people outside our immediate social or cultural circles. For example, someone might feel deep sorrow and outrage when a tragedy strikes their hometown, but feel indifferent—or even resistant—when hearing about similar tragedies in another country or affecting a group they don’t identify with. It’s not that people are inherently selfish or uncaring; it’s that our brains are wired to prioritize those who seem most like us or who are closest to us.

While we are doing better and better at realizing that we are all more similar than different, the current state of politics is undermining this. Political and ideological divides have heightened the tendency to categorize people into opposing camps, often pitting groups against each other in ways that amplify the "us vs. them" mentality. Whether it’s through media narratives, social media algorithms, or political discourse, we are constantly reminded of our differences rather than our shared humanity.

This division isn’t just an abstract concept—it affects how we feel about issues and people on a deeply emotional level. If a political group or individual is framed as part of the “them” group, it becomes easier to dismiss their struggles or concerns as unimportant, even when they may be facing similar challenges or hardships as people in our own group. For instance, it’s common to see people feeling more empathy for victims of a natural disaster in a country or region that aligns with their values or identity, while showing indifference or hostility toward similar victims in a place they view as politically or culturally “other.”

This polarization can also cause us to resist empathizing with groups we perceive as ideological enemies. For example, if someone identifies strongly with one side of the political spectrum, they may feel discomfort or even anger at the idea of empathizing with people on the opposite side, seeing their struggles as self-inflicted or deserved. This is particularly evident in today’s political climate, where discussions about social issues, healthcare, and even natural disasters often become entangled with partisan politics.

As a result, instead of seeing shared human experiences—such as suffering, fear, or loss—we may focus more on ideological labels and differences. This reinforces in-group favoritism and makes it even more difficult to extend empathy beyond our immediate circle of similar people.

On a positive note, increased awareness of this dynamic has led many people to actively challenge their biases. The globalized world, exposure to diverse perspectives, and movements for social justice have all pushed us to recognize our common humanity. We see more and more people working to overcome these innate biases, making a conscious effort to expand their empathy and concern to people who are different from them in race, religion, nationality, or politics. But it’s an ongoing struggle, and the divisive nature of today’s politics can often pull us back into more rigid, tribal thinking.

Understanding the root of this “us vs. them” mentality—how it served a purpose in our evolutionary past and why it still shapes our emotional reactions today—can help us break free from it. We may never fully eliminate this bias, but by acknowledging it and actively working to expand our emotional circles, we can cultivate a deeper empathy for others, even those outside our immediate pack.

  The Problem with Scale: Why Big Numbers Numb Us

The human brain also struggles with scale, especially when it comes to processing suffering. We can easily empathize with one person’s pain, but when confronted with the suffering of thousands or millions, our ability to emotionally connect falters. Psychologists call this the "identifiable victim effect"—we are more likely to feel deeply for a single person with a face and a story than for large, faceless groups.

Take, for example, how people respond to individual stories of hardship versus large-scale tragedies. A news story about one family displaced by a house fire can evoke strong emotional reactions, leading to donations and community support. But when we hear about thousands of people displaced by a natural disaster or refugee crisis, the sheer scale can make us feel overwhelmed and helpless. As a result, we may distance ourselves emotionally because the problem feels too big to comprehend, let alone solve. This isn't because we don't care about the suffering of large groups—it's that our brains are simply not equipped to process the emotional weight of such vast numbers.

  Technology and the Overload of Information

Another reason we struggle with how to feel about things outside our immediate circle is the sheer volume of information we’re exposed to daily. In the past, our emotional reactions were largely reserved for people and events we directly encountered. Now, technology has made it possible to be constantly aware of everything happening everywhere, all the time. Social media feeds, news alerts, and online discussions expose us to global suffering, political conflicts, and environmental crises in real-time. While this connectedness can inspire empathy and action, it can also overwhelm our emotional systems.

The term “information overload” describes the experience of being bombarded with more data than we can meaningfully process. When we are overwhelmed by constant streams of news, it becomes harder to prioritize what to care about. For example, we might start the day feeling concerned about climate change, then get swept into news about a local crime, followed by a viral story about an injustice happening in another part of the world. Our emotional energy becomes spread thin, leaving us unsure of where to direct our attention and empathy.

This overload can also lead to numbness. When everything feels urgent and emotionally charged, our brains may simply shut down to protect us from emotional burnout. It’s easier to disconnect than to feel deeply about every injustice or crisis happening around the world.

  Social Media and Performative Empathy

Social media adds another layer of complexity to how we process emotions related to people and events outside our immediate circle. On platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, we often feel pressure to respond to global events with public displays of empathy or concern, even if we don’t feel a strong personal connection to them. This phenomenon, sometimes referred to as "performative empathy," can create a disconnect between how we outwardly express concern and how we actually feel inside.

For example, after a high-profile tragedy, social media timelines may fill with people sharing thoughts, prayers, or activism hashtags. While many of these responses are genuine, others may be driven more by a desire to be seen as caring or socially aware. The pressure to participate in these public displays can create confusion about our own emotional responses. We might wonder if we genuinely care about an issue or if we’re just following social norms. This disconnect can make it harder to engage with global events in a meaningful, heartfelt way.

  Final Thoughts

In a world that constantly exposes us to events and people outside our immediate circle, it’s no wonder we struggle with how to feel. Our brains are wired to prioritize the well-being of those closest to us, but the modern world demands that we expand our empathy and concern to a global scale. While this can be challenging, understanding the evolutionary roots of our emotional responses can help us navigate these feelings more effectively. It’s important to recognize our emotional limits and practice self-compassion when we feel overwhelmed. Don't just ignore that emotion, take care of it! When you feel overwhelmed, focus more on your core group, take a break from outside information for a bit, or talk to someone who keeps things in perspective. It’s okay to acknowledge that we can’t care deeply about everything all the time. By prioritizing the causes and issues that resonate most with us, we can channel our emotional energy into making a meaningful difference without burning out.