Along with millions of other people on the planet, as I watch events unfold in Egypt (via Al-Jazeera's live feed on YouTube and Twitter) I've been thinking a great deal about empathy. I have no doubt that, as Jeremy Rifkin asserts in his new book The Empathic Civilization, humans are evolving into an empathic species that has no taste for violence. We want to take care of each other, and we want our governments to reflect the empathy that we feel for others. Yet our governments, acutely in Egypt, do not express our feelings in a manner that is consistent with our evolving sensibilities.

The current government in Canada is not a government that reflects my sensibilities, and I'm very sure that I share this sentiment with most Canadians. As Jeffrey Simpson reports today in the Globe and Mail: "Conservative-minded types don’t much like talking about income inequalities, but Canadians think they exist and are widening. A staggering 88 per cent believe the gap between rich and poor has widened in the past decade, and 81 per cent believe the government should reduce the gap. By 55 per cent to 41 per cent, Canadians believe the tax system is “unfair” to ordinary Canadians, but they are overwhelmingly willing to think taxes are a public good to provide a good quality of life."

(A note of caution: I haven't looked at the survey results; Mr. Simpson did not include a link, and a search for Environics Focus Canada survey brought up nothing. If anyone has the link, please let me know. I'd like to examine the methodology.)

To repeat, 81% of Canadians believe the government should reduce the gap between rich and poor, which reflects our evolving empathy. What are the barriers to translating empathy into policies? How do we work through them? Jane McGonigal, uber-gamer and social problem-solver, and highly excellent Colbert Report guest (although I would have liked a much longer conversation), what can we do? Anyone? Anyone?

I have reported on several studies today that look at the relationship between socio-economics and health. High levels of education appear to protect against heart failure; high levels of wealth are associated with better health. No surprises there. I was introduced to social determinants of health in a graduate seminar course; epidemiologists have been noting the link between low income and poor health for some time. During the class, we speculated on relevant factors (noting that most of us were "low-income"). We came up with environment - damp homes, for instance - and behaviours such as smoking and poor nutrition. Then I did a literature review on the link between unsafe neighbourhoods and mental illness and was amazed to find that when people don't feel safe in their own homes, the rates of mental illness appear to rise. I was amazed at the time, but now I can't believe I didn't understand that. A feeling of safety is an obvious social determinant of health.

All of which is fine in theory, but how do we change societies to make them more equitable? The people of Egypt are fighting for a more equitable arrangement and are being beaten for daring to contest the ruling powers. Is this what it takes? Do the people have to rise up against oppressive governments to establish social harmony? If anybody out there has insight, I'd be delighted to hear from you!