Whenever the discussion comes to the topic of wealth inequality, some people are quick to pull out statistics showing the overall increase in average wealth and well-being over the past 100 years. “Here”, they suggest, “over time, things have been getting better and better for billions, so why do you complain?! Is it a problem that for some, the gains have been bigger than for others?” I am quite tired of this line of argumentation. Because it disregards human nature.

How often do you catch yourself thinking how glad you are that your life is so much better and comfortable than your grandmother’s or grandfather’s life? You might occasionally express this in words, but how often do you truly feel that way? Now, how often do you catch yourself envying the wealth (or the things bought with that wealth) of another person? Maybe someone you know personally, or a public figure.

I think you see my point: Historical improvements to global wealth and average life-quality matter for statistics, but they don’t matter for what people feel. People don’t compare themselves with previous generations and keep praising their ability to watch TV and drink Coca Cola. People compare themselves to other people of their times. And THAT is why a rise inequality and the tension that follows has to be considered a threat to societies.

Should people be more thankful for what they have today in comparison to what their ancestors had in regards to quality of life? Some might think so, and pointing to statistics is their way to make their case. Factually and morally, that seems to be the most accurate perspective. But that’s just not how humans work. They feel short moments of thankfulness for what they have and enduring periods of dissatisfaction about what they don’t have.

That’s why there is no point in trying to argue inequality away with pointing out how much better things have become for the majority of people. This is like telling people they should stop downloading pirated content from the Internet. Yes, maybe they should. But if they won’t, it does not matter how much you think they are morally obliged to do so. You still have a problem.

The urge to believe in something is part of human nature. No one can live a long life without having a belief in something. At least, I am not aware of anyone who has managed. Many people choose religion as their core belief, because it comes with a handy predefined set of rules and some kind of historic “credibility”. Others believe in materialistic things and the pleasure resulting from these, in political/philosophical ideologies, in space travel, singularity, immortality, animal rights, a better world, equality, freedom, democracy and so on. While most people combine multiple beliefs (often with one umbrella belief that dominates and influences all other sub-beliefs), everyone has chosen or being introduced to at least something to believe in at each moment of his/her existence.

Unfortunately, in the democratic and developed countries, I currently notice a crisis of beliefs. People struggle with finding something to believe in. There is a widespread disappointment in many of the modern “mainstream” beliefs. The era of constant economic growth has ended or at least taken a long pause. World peace looks as distant as it always has. The trust in the governing organizations and the democracy itself is eroding in many countries. The disruptive consequences of the digital revolution, of globalization, of climate change and the current migration wave cause a lot of people to worry about their personal well-being and standard of living. With the possible exception of climate change, these concerns often are either irrational/exaggerated or at least destructive and not very pragmatic. But they are persistent and hard to erase from people’s minds.

Many of the beliefs linked to mainstream ideologies have taken a lot of damage, thereby causing at least some people to turn to beliefs featuring intolerance, discrimination, extremism and fundamentalism. I see the rise of right-wing populism, nationalism and religious fundamentalism that can be witnessed in Europe as well as the U.S. as a direct consequence. If people do not see any benefit anymore in believing in mainstream ideologies that promise constant improvements for everyone, the seemingly logical response for some is to adopt a belief that exclusively promises constant improvements to their specific group (ethnical, cultural, religious etc), often through discrimination of other groups.

Assuming that having something to believe in is indeed part of human nature (I am not aware of facts indicating the opposite), the populist, racist, fascist, fundamentalist and reactionary beliefs that currently are on the rise can only be pushed back if a persuasive alternative belief is being provided.

Here is see the biggest failure of today’s political leaders in the Western world, and their biggest task: They need to give citizens something new to believe in. The old mainstream beliefs of the last century have lost a lot of their clout. That’s why new, inclusive, unifying and convincing beliefs are required (The thing about effective beliefs is that while they always come with uncertainty about their validity and realizability, they are good enough to actually being adopted by people).

As long as political and civil leaders do not create and present new kinds of beliefs that convincingly give the outlook of prosperity, common well-being and a better life for everyone, racist, fascist, fundamentalist and populist beliefs will remain and likely even spread even more.

That by the way is one of the main reasons why I want to see experiments with and implementations of an unconditional basic income. While it is unclear if it actually can work, it is a fresh, new kind of idea which in the best scenario would actually mean a huge step forward for humanity. It is a belief good enough to pursue, for now.

A couple of years ago I started to inform myself about basic psychological processes and how they influence our actions and thinking. Since then I have gained much better insights into my own and other people’s emotions and way of handling different kinds of situations. One of the main aspects I have been focusing on is the feeling of being offended or hurt. I have come to realize how poisonous and toxic this specific thought mechanism is: Somebody else says or does something which upsets our ego and leads to a host of possible destructive responses. Nobody benefits, everybody gets miserable.

Today I believe that being offended is one of the worst, least desirable reactions to other people’s communication. Those who easily get offended make their own happiness dependent on other people – even total strangers. It’s a recipe for disaster, dispute and negativity.

The issue of people getting offended obviously is especially relevant these days. The terror attack against the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hedbo would most likely not have happened if the attackers would not have seen the charicatures published by Charlie Hedbo as offensive.

When it comes to religion, people are especially likely to become offended, and this is nothing exclusive to Islam. There is very little tolerance for satire or jokes about religious sacred people or religions in general among religious people. That becomes a big problem when the consequence is a requirement that even people not belonging to a specific religion should respect the rules written in this specific religion’s holy book. 22 % of the world’s countries and territories still have anti-blasphemy laws, which means that there actually is a right not to be offended, which is valued much higher than freedom of expression.

I think this is wrong, and it does not have to be that way, if people would realize that giving in to the urge to be offended is a choice. We are capable of resisting this urge. In most scenarios, people should resist. And I am not only talking about religion. In general, if humans would stop going the easy way of being offended whenever they hear something their ego does not like, the world would be a better, more peaceful place.

There are certainly situations when it is fully justified to be offended. When the spouse, partner or a very good friend for no reason says provocative, hurtful things, then he or she probably deserves to get negative feedback. We usually hold people who are close to us or who we love to a higher standard than strangers on the street. And naturally, as a good human being, one does good in not purposefully hurt or offend others.

But in regards to other people that one has no close emotional connection with, or even strangers, we all would benefit from learning to control our reflex to be offended. Getting to the point where one can let go of whatever provocation or unpleasant comment one has been confronted with takes a while. It requires patience, training and the search for happiness that comes from within (meditation is a good practice to achieve that, because it teaches to observe your own thoughts and to let them go). But it pays off big time with increased happiness, less irritation and less time and energy wasted for unnecessary conflicts that in the worst case scenario might end very ugly or tragic.

Also, in a globalized, interconnected and multicultural world where people from many different backgrounds, cultures and religions mix and interact with each other, it is definitely not practical anymore to expect from all members of a society to follow and respect particular rules of certain ideologies and thought concepts, just to avoid offending others.

So my message is: Let’s learn to stop being offended, because it is a choice.