One of the qualities required of Real Economics is that of "Prioritized Charity." This concept was briefly touched upon in the Prioritized Charity section of the What Is Real Economics? page, where the following was stated:

"Amongst the two basic recipients of humanity and the environment, the utmost priority is donating to humanity, namely its survival and the elimination of human suffering. A tree cannot wrap the bandage of a child, but a tree can be planted and cared for by a child, let alone by an adult.

There are other reasons for such prioritization of humanity over the environment, but only one needs to be stated: human ingenuity. As we've seen and can see continually, it only takes the ingenuity of one human, let alone many, to solve global problems, the problems of the environment included."

In the above excerpt, the first point as to why humanity should be a prioritized recipient of charity is due to a basic capability of humanity to be able to assist the environment, while the opposite can largely be unsaid, especially in the short-term. It is for this reason alone, that charity should be prioritized towards humanity, and doing so, thus produces greater continuity, quantity, and quality, amongst both humanity and the environment. While on the other hand, if the environment is prioritized, it is surely a preventable harm to the continuity, quantity, and quality of humanity, and may very well be to the detriment of the environment in the end as well.

The second point in the above excerpt speaks on a more elevated capability of humanity, that of ingenuity. This matter is quite apparent and therefore not much needs to be said. Human ingenuities, such as in environmental technology, agriculture, energy, etc., can solve, reverse, and outpace human caused problems themselves within the environment, agriculture, energy, etc..

It should be said that the prioritization of humanity over the environment required of Real Economics does not imply that all efforts for the environment should be abandoned in favor of humanitarian efforts, but rather that the unneeded profits (which we will define as net-profit) (if there is any) from those environmental efforts should go towards humanity. And as mentioned above, those profits would largely and very likely end up back into the environment thereafter, especially when considering the fact that we humans are largely not unawares, and in some cases are even passionate, to help the world in which we all rely upon.

There is another important factor in prioritizing humanity over the environment, and that is the natural tendency to do so as is, when the option is made apparent. This concept was also briefly touched upon in the Prioritized Charity section of the What Is Real Economics? page, where the following was stated:

"Whether reasonable or not, it is generally a fixed standard to attend to a suffering person over a suffering animal, over a suffering plant, etc., when they are directly in front of most people. It is safe to say that even an environmentalist would quickly become a humanitarian if a person struggling for their life was directly in front of them."

As explained in the article Multi-Definitional, Real Economics is economics that subscribes to the different definitions of realness. One of those definitions is apparentness. What is real is what’s apparent and what’s the most apparent thing for many people, if not most, is that there’s one thing they would stop doing everything they’re doing to tend to if it would be apparent, meaning right in front of them, and that’s a person who is in an apparent state of suffering.

When an apparent suffering person is in front of us, for most of us every single thing shifts to this one person. We would attend to this one person over all else. What’s even more, is that even if it were an animal in an apparent state of suffering most of us would drop everything for this one animal.

When the lack of exposure to this person or this animal is broken, is it not that all our definitions of responsibility and success are broken as well?

Theoretically, if this lack of exposure is broken, then it would directly effect the rest of our lives, including our values, and our very definitions of responsibility and success. Everything becomes re-prioritized to the suffering of humanity.

Overall, this tendency to tend to apparent human suffering when the exposure to it is broken, implies that we truly only know what matters most when it's right in front of us.

Now, whether this tendency is fallacious and a subjective mistake is another matter, and requires analysis. What we do know, is that it is an ingrained tendency within a large part of humanity. For this reason, the reasoning behind Real Economics prioritizing humanity over the environment is organic in nature. It is simply who we are as humans to do so. Humanity prioritizes itself (generally speaking).