Barista Donates Kidney...  − 28 March, 2008

This story is just wonderful, and shows me, once again, the best of people… Annamarie Ausnes, Tacoma, Washington resident and Starbuck’s patron, was suffering from polycystic kidney disease and in desperate need of a kidney transplant. Her own kidneys were failing and her next step was dialysis to keep her alive. She was on an organ transplant waiting list, but with 75,000 other people in need, she really needed a miracle.
Sandra Anderson, Starbuck’s barista, recalled that her “regular” customer Annamarie came in one October 2007 morning looking less than her normally cheery self. Sandra asked Annamarie what was wrong and she learned of her customer’s dire situation. At that moment Sandra announced she would get herself tested to see if she was a match. Against all odds (no one even in Annamarie’s own family was a match) Sandra was a match!
Sandra continued through the donor process, and then came the day she announced her news to Annamarie – the two of them burst into tears.
This past March, Annamarie and Sandra went in for the successful transplant surgery at Virginia Mason Hospital in Seattle, and the transplanted kidney began functioning even sooner than expected. Both are currently recovering.
This story restores my faith in the innate goodness of humanity. Truly, as an Animal Behaviorist, I realize that deception and aggression – two very basic human traits – often result in more “success” – those who practice those behaviors often are “rewarded” and perhaps more frequently pass their genes on, thus perpetuating the success of those characteristics in future generations.
So “goodness” is perhaps an evolutionary disadvantage for the individual who practices it. Granted, overall, altruistic behavior (and there are arguments that there is no real altruistic behavior, as those who engage in the behaviors are rewarded with “feeling good” about it) serves a purpose in the success of the species, but often to the detriment of the individual – their genes don’t get passed on.
What is the basic human temperament? “Good” or “bad”? I have heard arguments for both. I, personally, believe that humans are intrinsically aggressive but do have an innate sense of right and wrong – otherwise we wouldn’t see the same “rules” of acceptable behavior across the board in almost all societies. It also makes sense to me that success would also be based on the ability to avoid conflict. Granted, we have to “defend” and “protect” our “resources” (access to food, mates, shelter) but we also need to be able to avoid situations in which we risk our lives routinely and increase our chances of being killed before our genes are passed on (the Behaviorist’s definition of “success”).
So, that’s were “civilization” comes in – anytime you have large numbers of humans, aggressive behavior has to be controlled. Though, we are, by nature, social creatures, when we are in close proximity to one another we tend to engage in aggressive behavior more often – we see someone else’s resources and we want them.
Personally, I feel if we were a more Matriarchal society, there would be less violence. Because women have so much more “invested” in offspring, we don’t want to see our mates and our children go off to war. Though I think women are as aggressive as men, we tend to have more desire to resolve conflict. Perhaps because, biologically, we “share” our bodies (pregnancy, nursing), we are more likely to compromise with resources.
The generosity of the gift Sandra Anderson gave Annamarie Ausnes is incredible. May we all have someone in our lives show us such kindness… Blessed Be.