Eliminating the Real Problem doesn't mean eliminating your own wellbeing but in fact the exact opposite. If you don't have your wellbeing how can you bring wellbeing to others? That means putting your wellbeing and your family's wellbeing before trying to help anyone else.

You must reach and maintain the point at which you and your family have their wellbeing and only from there can you properly tend to the wellbeing of others. You and your family are the nexus from which helping others can come.

At the same time, take this seriously. Always try to remember what would you do if someone who was suffering was right in front of you? You would do whatever you could to tend to them. Right, so don’t let the space that separates you cause you to forget that they’re there.

At the same time, the space between us is the nature of reality as well, and to change one’s nature is usually very difficult. Therefore, don’t push yourself too hard, meaning don’t push yourself to the point that you actually push yourself away.

At what point can I stop training myself to live as if the suffering were in front of me? When humanity has put in place a mechanism to scout the world for suffering people, tended to them, and there is not even one person left who is suffering.

How do we define wellbeing? We define wellbeing as being healthy including happy excluding any unhealthy means towards that happiness. Included in one's wellbeing is the wellbeing of his family as well. A branch doesn't go without the tree.

Do what we do, give to charity. Specifically a charity that provides actual amounts of acts of charity per unit of currency (e.g. dollar) donated. Charities that don’t provide these numbers should. We have to choose charities that tell us exactly what they’re impact per unit of currency is because that’s what real / apparent charitable acts are to begin with.

As well, there are charities that may be very contributive towards ending poverty, but the Real Problem primes us to focus on ending suffering before any poverty that doesn't include suffering. A family may be poor but that doesn't mean they don't have the bare minimum essentials even if they aren't high quality. Place a poor person who is suffering in front of you and a poor person who isn’t suffering? Who would you tend to? Exactly.

There is of course the possibility that the charities we donate to will not prioritize those who need it most. We hope they will get on board with the Real Problem at hand and do so, but that is not for us to push them to do as that can cause us to push them away. We can only inform.

The definition is as you would find in any good dictionary. What’s important here is suffering that is apparent. Unfortunately, we can’t tend to someone who is suffering if we don’t know that they are. Therefore we are left with only one option as of now and that’s to tend to the suffering that we know is there, the suffering that we see. Maybe in the future someone will invent a detector that can detect suffering not apparent to the eye and make it apparent.

Is there a type of suffering that requires more attention than other types of suffering? Ask yourself if there were a person with a broken arm in front of you and another person with a gunshot wound to the chest who would you tend to first? Whoever's life is more at risk is the one that requires the most attention. It always comes back to what would you do if they were in front of you?

It’s true that even most environmentalists (hopefully most) would turn from their environmental efforts to attend to a person suffering right in front of them. But “most” still means there are those who wouldn’t. As evil as we may think that is, for them they probably don’t see it that way. Would you give a person you considered evil a way to do good? Right, and we would too. That’s why we offer options to donate to the environment.

Now even though we do so, we must also try to inform them of the Real Problem at hand which of course is suffering people and not a suffering environment. Is a suffering environment a problem? Of course, but it’s not the Real Problem as we explained above. As well, we can save a person who can then save the environment, but in all likelihood we can’t save the environment and expect it to save that person as fast as a person can. Saving a panda is nice but a panda isn’t going to learn how to wrap a wound anytime soon.

Of course we disagree with anyone who would attend to a tree or even an animal in front of them if a suffering person was also in front of them, but even for these people there should be the option to do some good even if it’s not the right good. That’s why even though we do offer options to such people for them to contribute at least to the environment, we ourselves at Real Inc. have prioritized contributions to humanity over the environment.

You can see that in our Donation Selection List in any product page where donations to humanity come first. It can be seen in the list of charities in the Real Charities page where the charities for humanity are listed first. And finally, the default donation option “Where It’s Needed Most” will only be donated to the first few donation options in the Donation Selection List which are the charitable acts that reduce human suffering the most and save the most human lives.

For a few reasons. First, their suffering is probably not apparent to those who see them which is why we stress the “apparent” part of suffering. Second, even if they were screaming for their life, many in the developed world generally have a negative “disgusted” connotation towards the homeless and this would prevent them from helping. Third, drugs. This also adds to the “being disgusted” part.

There is a common conception that homeless people are drug addicts and people who haven’t been a victim of drug abuse and addiction don’t see a reason to help those who supposedly “choose to be there.” On the contrary, many if not most would veer away from anyone who they think is drugged out, especially if they’re tattered. We naturally associate drug abuse and being tattered with violence, and nobody wants to offer a helping hand if they think they’re going to get one swinging at their face in return.

Because the very problem itself forces the founder who wrote this to only write what’s necessary because anything more would be a denial of the very problem he's writing about. In other words, writing more than what’s necessary takes away from getting this message out there and ending suffering.