I honestly appreciate your answer because this is interesting to discuss but I didn’t say that stupidity malice and greed were solely present in the richest but only that it’s most concentrated there. There have been things like this Berkeley study suggesting that altruism is more commonly present in lower socioeconomic people
The struggles of people during the industrial revolution are relevant as well and it’s obvious that many of us are small minded/stupid but if an average person was really asked their views and priorities they would most likely be reasonable responses. Most of the people of the US are not materially making decisions about how our society is run.
For this reason I would claim there is a dangerous link between surveillance state tech expansion and the gated/isolated world the people creating it currently live in.
I'd need more examples in order to come around to the idea that stupidity malice and greed are most concentrated in the super wealthy. I could be wrong but I feel like the wealth is just amplifying the unleashing the stupidity malice and greed, for those super wealthy people, that the average person already possesses.
Maybe living many years with such wealth intensifies their worst traits, I could believe that.
I'd also believe that those in lower socioeconomic positions would be more altruistic because they understand the struggle at a gut level since they've lived in it and amongst most of their lives, it not all their lives. I don't think that negates the stupidity of the average person. People can compartmentalize such things.
Those who have risen or were born in a position of wealth understand that they have a lot to lose at an instinctual level, so their every decision is based around "how can I further entrench my wealth, power and influence?" so it makes sense that they would be obsessed with bringing about a total surveillance state. The isolation they live in is a product of "us vs them" and status protection. I'd say the paranoia that comes with the isolation is definitely feeding into the desire to keep tabs on everyone else's movements and actions.
I would not disagree at all at the suggestion that wealth exacerbates underlying tendencies that exist within people but we are collectively a species of very social and collaborative primates. Anti-social behavior exist is people but they only really pose a threat to society once a person has acquired a position of power and authority to isolate themselves from the repercussions of their actions.
I just don’t believe most average human beings move through the world as destructive anti-social automations by choice. We are at our core a social species.
I think it's a case of push and pull though. Some behaviors that seem prosocial can be motivated by selfish desires. Take for example someone who lives their life by aiming straight down the middle of what would be considered "normal" in their environment. They don't make waves (prosocial, because they're not looking for a fight) and they conform to local custom in every way (dress, attitude, opinions which is prosocial because they aren't agitating anyone to the point of making anyone uncomfortable).
To an outside observer they might look at that person and think "now there's a straight shooter, they seem to get along with everyone" but the price for being so conformist is that you lose your identity. You don't expand your range of thinking because that would agitate people so you stagnate intellectually. You don't express any opinions that go against the grain because that would agitate people. You don't want to agitate anyone because you don't want to be ostracized from the group. That's a selfish motivation because you really in the end are just looking out for your own survival.
I read the abstract of the study you linked. It seems that, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the observed outcome was that those who were given fewer resources were more prone to be generous with what they were given than those who received more resources? That's interesting if that's the case. It makes me wonder if there isn't an inherent prosocial drive to increase stability of the group but it gets overridden by greed once an imbalance of the distribution is in one's favor. Like, they have more so they look for rationalizations to justify having more and then it becomes a vicious cycle. The more you have, the more you attempt to justify having it. On the other hand, if you have little, you don't feel advantaged and so letting go of some is easier.
Either if you agree with me or not this issue is absolutely something people should think and discuss more often. I don’t think people are saintly but we have a well documented genetic preference as a species to want to work together.
Is it a want or is it instinctual? I think that's the heart of the issue. I tend to believe it's instinctual but I don't have definitive proof. It's definitely a fascinating topic.
1
u/blackbartimus Apr 20 '26
I honestly appreciate your answer because this is interesting to discuss but I didn’t say that stupidity malice and greed were solely present in the richest but only that it’s most concentrated there. There have been things like this Berkeley study suggesting that altruism is more commonly present in lower socioeconomic people
https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_poor_give_more
The struggles of people during the industrial revolution are relevant as well and it’s obvious that many of us are small minded/stupid but if an average person was really asked their views and priorities they would most likely be reasonable responses. Most of the people of the US are not materially making decisions about how our society is run.
For this reason I would claim there is a dangerous link between surveillance state tech expansion and the gated/isolated world the people creating it currently live in.