Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/).
---
User: u/mvea
Permalink: https://www.psypost.org/can-inequality-affect-morality-research-shows-potential-connection/
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I may have missed it but I don't think the authors used socio economic status as a divider.
The implication is that it wasn't just poor people who expressed a willingness for unethical behavior in societies with high economic inequality, it was all people, rich or poor.
Zimbardo has done great work on the impact of environment on behavior and here we have evidence that should we have a more economically fair system not only would we have a more equitable society we would have a more moral one.
>here we have evidence that should we have a more economically fair system not only would we have a more equitable society we would have a more moral one.
And this is exactly why **higher taxes on the rich benefit the rich**.
For someone whose gross annual income is $10M, the financial difference between net income of $7M and $6M is not going to make any appreciable difference to their lives, so the value of that extra $1M of taxation to them is a very small negative.
By contrast, that extra $1M of taxation provides multiple benefits *to the person taxed*, notably including:
\* Greater societal stability due to lower inequality (this paper).
\* Greater societal stability due to stronger social programs.
Taken together, it's highly likely that the higher tax rate is a *net positive to the taxpayer*, thanks to the non-monetary benefits it brings them, in addition to being a net positive to the rest of society as well.
Above and beyond the moral argument for helping your fellow man, research like this helps demonstrate that it can also be the rationally self-interested course of action as well.
they fixed that unstable society problem cheaper for themselves with bunkers in New Zealand to escape to. Ideally the faster they leave there the faster the income redistribution towards them stops: all your tax cuts become worthless when your income stream disappears.
I wish we had some way to protect ourselves from such people but they have bought their way in despite our pre-80s ideal of equality, fairness, justice, etc
There is: it is starting to be possible to detect various types of mental health issues (e.g. malignant narcissist) via brain imaging (including eeg, MEG, etc) but of course, the very people who would be detected by such examinations are the ones in charge of making the laws/rules about screening public servants (elected or otherwise) using such examinations.
Interesting. I have long found it notable that we don't call hoarding hoarding if money is hoarded
I was more referring to those with power and wealth running away from the consequences of their actions and building bunkers here.
> Interesting. I have long found it notable that we don't call hoarding hoarding if money is hoarded
I recall a study a while back where people playing Monopoly were given a huge wad of monopoly money during a game.
Their brain imaging showed immediate differences compared to the people who did NOT receive the money and their behavior suddenly became similar to that of a slum lord (goes back to malignant narcissist who happens to be running for high political office right now).
It *is* possible to detect these things these days.
I too have read of such studies.
But lime I said I am more concerned by those refugees with power and wealth - those most able to address the problems - instead building bolt holes in my country.
Many rich people don't particularly care about societal stability or any other indirect benefits of higher taxes because they're largely insulated from society
Here's where the split between "rational" and "reasonable" happens. They're perfectly rational from their perspective, but the problem is that their perspective is too narrow to understand the whole system and they don't act reasonably when asked to let someone else use their wealth for something.
That's what it's always been, a measure of favors owed to you backed by the government. You do things for other people to get money from them, then use that to get people to do things for you.
The problem is when these concentrate into a small group who is owed proportionally many favors and they can use that weight to get what they want without actually spending any money (favors).
Having money is the ability to do whatever you want within the scope of human capability, so (for some people) it taps into a very primal desire to gain more of it. Our monkey brains didn't evolve to understand diminishing returns; they evolved to understand that if you could hoard seeds or shiny rocks and defend them from other monkeys that was good.
Simple - tax. The hard bit is counteracting the propaganda telling people that not only is it not a flaw, but that taking money from the already wealthy is not a good thing.
That said, the left need to be honest too - taxing the super-rich won't yield that much cash, because there are so few of the super-rich, and it's probably not possible to inject transformative amounts of cash into public services without maintaining or increasing taxes on the merely well-off.
> and it's probably not possible to inject transformative amounts of cash into public services
its not about this really. in a system where the concentration of wealth = the concentration of power, redistribution of wealth is a means of redistribution of power from the 0.1%
it's like when people say "oh you could eliminate the football programs at every university and funding for research wouldn't meaningfully increase." that's not the point. the point is that the university admin shouldn't be spending a significant proportion of time developing and considering university community needs on the basis of an athletics dept that wields a ton of power.
The left tends to sell progressive taxation as a means to fund public services. And with good reason - that's much more palatable to the vast majority than "we don't care so much about having more money for services and the poor, we actually just want to make rich people less rich, because we think that is a good thing in itself."
Also there are two ways money grants power. The first is that you can use money to buy stuff you want - it gives you the *power* to have a luxury yacht at your disposal 24/7. That's only a problem in the sense of this article, not really in the sense of "power" as people normally think of it. The other sense is that money buys access to and influence over politicians.
Because money does both of these, it's hard to sell people on taking people's money because of the latter, when the former is pretty desirable. I certainly don't think one can say that it's "the point." Reducing concentration of *wealth itself* is desirable, because having money makes it easier to get more money, so without a countervailing force we will end up very unequal indeed.
The motivations are important because they influence how we design such a system.
> on the merely well-off
A lot of this group in the US doesn't seem to understand just how well-off they actually are, even just compared to other Americans, but especially globally. Median household income in the US is around $75k while globally it's under $10k. So "merely well-off" in the US is actually pretty wealthy, and even being lower middle class in the US is still better than most other places.
Big issue of course is housing costs because we don't make enough of it, but that's another issue that people don't seem to want to address.
Global comparisons aren't that useful here; as the other poster pointed out, inequality is relative but also so is how you feel.
There's a lot of information masked by the "cost of living" but at the end of the day an American needs to spend more on staying alive than people in most countries. And because of that there are plenty of people in America on more than the median income who are genuinely struggling. That doesn't mean it would be impossible for them to have a comfortable life with less; there are people earning less than the median income who are doing fine. But circumstances combine, and giving up what you have is harder than continuing without ever having had it.
Nothing is. Most rich people have most of their money in wealth-generating investments such as stocks, money market accounts, treasury bonds, rental properties, and many other avenues for turning money into more money. And the reason that their money turns into more money is because the money is presumably creating an even greater amount of wealth for whoever is making use of it. The wealthy invest, and investments help businesses grow and new ones form. Nobody has a Scrooge McDuck vault of gold coins in which they go swimming.
The question we're ultimately asking with discussions like this is: would the government put that money to better use for the benefit of society, or would businesses? And the answer to that question depends on how much faith one puts into trickle down economics, I suppose. But there is unquestionably some economic benefit that comes from rich people having their wealth.
One of the most surprising things I came across while reading about the Gini Coefficient and impacts of a high coefficient is that educational results are worse for all.
The proposed explanation is that with high inequality meritocracy is reduced. Meaning that a well off member of an unequal society can expect opportunity and advancement regardless of skill level, competency or it's contributors like education.
Why bother upskilling if family, connections, etc determine opportunity?
If you think the definition of capitalism is "people can own things" you should really not participate in these kinds of conversations. Even the simplist definitions from Oxford manage to mention industries and profits.
"an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit."
Allowing an entire country's economy be owned by a small number of moneyed interests, in a way that they are able to personally profit from the labor of others, is the core of capitalism and it's shown a blatant disregard for anything even begining to approach a more equitable society.
It's also a bit dumbfounding that you seem to believe that before the advent of capitalism people didn't own personal property. You're aware that capitalism is very new compared to the concept of personal property?
It's great science is finally providing some evidence, but I would refer you to a quote about a living wage made by Teddy Roosevelt over 100 years ago where he mentioned the need for a standard wage **high enough to make morality possible**.
*We stand for a living wage. Wages are subnormal if they fail to provide a living for those who devote their time and energy to industrial occupations. The monetary equivalent of a living wage varies according to local conditions, but must include enough to secure the elements of a normal standard of living--a standard high enough to make morality possible, to provide for education and recreation, to care for immature members of the family, to maintain the family during periods of sickness, and to permit of reasonable saving for old age.* -- Theodore Roosevelt August, 1912
Yep turns out when you feel you have little left to lose ethical values aren’t seen as valuable. Especially compared to increased pressure one feels to gain more in rough times to ride things out.
I've seen it said on reddit, stealing from a corporation isn't. People who would never steal from a person, because they are directly hurting an individual, but wouldnt think twice about stealing from a corporation, which is nameless and faceless. A person might have to chose between food and rent if you take $100 from them, but a corporation will never face that.
This has existed long before corporations.
Robinhood was a folk hero because the individuals he stole from where people who made that money unjustly (nobility exploiting the poor) and didn't actually need that money in the first place.
You could take fifty dollars from a desperate person and they would notice it immediately and suffer consequences from that action but you could also steal a hundred thousand dollars from a billionaire and they would never notice.
It seems to me that theft as an ethically 'useful' concept needs a shared understanding of fairness and proportionality.
It’s almost like the *best* thing corporations could do to prevent theft and crime against their corporations would be to ensure the populace is happy and well served, and they won’t feel the need to be criminals.
But, no, instead we get “the beatings will continue until morale increases,” and suddenly every person who walks into Walmart is now treated like a potential criminal, and inelastic goods (particularly hygiene related) are being locked up behind glass doors.
It doesn’t take a peer reviewed study to know that treating people like they’re less than human and/or criminals is likely to make them no longer respect you, your property, or your rules.
Ultimately the reward for being ethical in society is civilisations promise of being free and fair.
If that free and fair promise is delivered there’s no incentive to be ethical. Ethics and morals are at the heart of any society’s ability to thrive.
This is why we see the dichotomy of gdp rising but increasingly having issues with the youth. If gap continues to increase, people feel it, even if they might be better off (which many aren't anyway)
It’s great according to the criteria they use to measure it. The problem is that criteria probably doesn’t do a good job of describing how people feel. I think we need some new methods or criteria to measure how people are actually doing.
We’ve been hoodwinked into blindly believing GDP equates prosperity for all. But what most folk don’t realise is that there’s different types of GDP. Namely wage GDP and Capital income GDP.
Wage GDP is more or less stagnant. The increase we see is mostly from capital gains. I.e shareholder income.
So this is why we see GDP increasing but things never seeming to be any better for people.
We also ask people how they feel. The majority are at least somewhat satisfied and close to half are very satisfied https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/03/30/how-americans-view-their-jobs/#:~:text=Job%20satisfaction%20also%20differs%20by,of%20those%20with%20lower%20incomes.
And if your status allows it, ignore the rules no matter what.
I wish I could give an example of a billionaire that would Trump the argument that rich people are the moral ones who follow the laws.
:)
Or maybe they perceive their treatment by society to be unethical and they don’t want to unilaterally disarm. Maybe they perceive extreme inequality to be a rupture in the social contract, and once that breaks down, who’s defining what’s ethical?
> and they don’t want to unilaterally disarm.
Why not? They won't do anything socialist with those 450 million guns anyway. And it only gives reason for a police state making things even worse.
Gee, the discrepancy between CEO salaries and base-line salary in American corporations is at an all-time high, and corruption in the US government is arguably at an all-time high...
Could there be a correlation?
Robinhood psychology. I wonder if those same unethical behaviors contribute to the rise of dictators in those circumstances.
A historical incident that comes to my mind is the 1907 Tiflis bank robbery. In which a young Joseph Stalin and his gang of friends mounted a successful attack on the armed caravan bringing the commissional deposit to a newly built bank. Killing dozens of people, but bringing in a huge sum of money to the Bolesheviks, who as an outlawed party, had no legal mechanism to finance themselves.
From Wikipedia:
> The events surrounding the incident and similar robberies split the Bolshevik leadership, with Lenin against Bogdanov and Krasin. Despite the success of the robbery and the large sum involved, the Bolsheviks could not use most of the large banknotes obtained from the robbery, because the police had records of the serial numbers.
But the important thing to note, that it was Stalin and Lenin’s willingness to look the other way on ethical issues that both kept Stalin in Lenin’s inner orbit during those early years, but it was also instrumental to their success against their peers.
From Wikipedia:
> The events surrounding the incident and similar robberies split the Bolshevik leadership, with Lenin against Bogdanov and Krasin. Despite the success of the robbery and the large sum involved, the Bolsheviks could not use most of the large banknotes obtained from the robbery, because the police had records of the serial numbers.
Based
I’ve linked to the news release in the post above. In this comment, for those interested, here’s the link to the peer reviewed journal article:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0294124
New research published in PLOS One suggests that people may expect to engage in more unethical behavior when they perceive higher levels of economic inequality in society. This finding could have implications for societal trust and cooperation.
Economic inequality has been a growing concern globally, with uneven distribution of wealth and income within society affecting various aspects of life.
Previous studies have linked higher inequality to increased unethical behaviors such as corruption and crime.
The studies involved over 3,000 American participants in total, and used a combination of 4 studies, each with different experimental manipulations.
The authors proposed, “the results of this research provide a plausible mechanism for the common finding of past research that higher economic inequality is associated with lower levels of trust. As suggested by the present research, people are expecting that they will act more unethically. In turn, this belief may then decrease levels of trust. If people expect that they will act more unethically, societal functioning and cooperation may become undermined. Further, this belief may also increase the actual occurrence of unethical behavior.”
I get it. I've completely stopped tipping at this point.
Granted I don't eat anywhere that would have warranted a tip 5 years ago. But if housing was more affordable I would tip anyways because I would think I could afford it.
If this is saying I would never consider returning a rich person's wallet, correct. If I find a wallet with platinum card and over 1k in bills, I'm just gonna take the money and throw the rest in the trash.
seems kind of obvious... are you in a 'everyone for themselves' society, or one that is cooperative for the benefit of all? the answer to this question has major impacts on your behaviour .
The adult concept of fairness, may be compromised in a society with a wide gap between the haves and have nots. The mind starts to believe the powerful must be evil to accumulate what they have, and they are getting away with something. It is a small step to go from believing those above you are unethical, to its ok for me to behave unethically.
Yeah, especially when the notion that the people in power being unethical is spot-on correct.
And you can see that trying not to stoop that low yourself isn’t doing you any favors. You can’t tell people doing the right thing is the way to win but then show them that doing the wrong thing is the way to win.
I fully agree with you, thats reality. However pure free market capitalism models always predict a consolidation of wealth and ownership. Money begets money. Regulated capitalism, eliminating large competitors by breaking them up is needed for balance.
Large businesses give the owners power which promotes corruption and unethical behaviour.
Sorry if I was not clear.
I see regimes that begin with corruption of power such as a military coup, and
I see a regime that starts from democratic principles but becomes corrupt as legislation becomes influenced by commerce.
I assumed perhaps wrongly, that your comment referred to the former.
While you may have the 1% with a majority of wealth. The remaining 99% then would still be on a similar level. So why does say one poor person work hard and advance their life and another instead engages in the unethical behaviors? One perceives inequality while the other perceives equality, but that they just have a drive or responsibility to improve themselves and therfore their life. Obviously, it's more nuanced. But, it seems attitude and how we view the world matters a lot more than what conditions we start out in.
What I imagine happens is virtually everyone (everyone starting out poor, that is) starts with trying to do it the honest way. The ones that works out alright for keep on that path, the ones it doesn’t work for maybe keep trying/maybe try a *different* way if they end up desperate enough.
Ultimately the ones that stayed on the good path got lucky. Had they not, I imagine it’s sort of 50/50 which way they’d have gone. At that point whether you have support to fall back on from other family or friends or not probably makes the determination.
The important takeaway is that it has to remain actually possible to win by doing the right thing if you don’t want people giving up on doing the right thing. And that’s the problem we’re facing now. It’s getting less and less possible.
When you’ve got nothing to lose if you resort to unethical behavior and seemingly nothing to gain if you don’t, it starts to appeal to some people. I mean how do gangs often tend to form? “They won’t help us/they kick us when we’re down, so we’ll just have to help *ourselves*” is how.
Someone might ask, “why doesn’t he just get a job?” But if you won’t hire certain people because you find them undesirable somehow (see: racism, all sorts of prejudice in general) - you can’t be too shocked when you wind up with a gang that will. When you look down on people for not having things they’ll never afford no matter how hard they work, you can’t be too shocked when they begin doing stuff like stealing to attempt to stop being looked down on for being poor, or if nothing else, drugs to numb the pain of everything being so hopeless and being treated like dirt by those above them day in and day out. And if they see that all finally working for them when nothing else did, don’t expect them to want to stop.
> What I imagine happens is virtually everyone (everyone starting out poor, that is) starts with trying to do it the honest way.
What I have seen suggests everyone starts simply trying to get more. The honest way is only enforced externally and rarely internally. Remove that and very little honesty remains. Prisons and religions are filled with people fighting against being forced to contradict their internal dishonesty.
When commerce and politics mix at a co-dependant level, it becomes untenable as the Justice systems foundation becomes suspect. This has happened many times before in history, when many of the Empires fell. The west continues to move in this direction.
Ray Dalio video Changing World Order, helps put this in perspective.
> The mind starts to believe the powerful must be evil to accumulate what they have, and they are getting away with something.
You stated that like it's an incorrect assumption.
> It is a small step to go from believing those above you are unethical, to its ok for me to behave unethically.
I don't necessarily think that's the case. I think it's a small step to go from [believing someone is unethical] to [believing it's okay to be unethical toward them].
> You stated that like it's an incorrect assumption.
I saw it more as an attempt at propaganda trying to suggest the rich are actually moral even though that can easily be shown to be functionally untrue especially in light of numerous studies that show poor people have stronger social skills.
On a one-to-one scale, my very wealthy conservative relatives now believe themselves "beyond laws and morality." Their wealth has increased times 5 in the past decade through their small business and real estate. As they become more prosperous they take pleasure in a "my loopholes are smart, people not in our set are stealing" approach. The last time I called one of them out on a small breach they scoffed because the law itself was "a silly one that never applied to us before."
Your first point. I refer to the many who accumulate wealth by honest means, hard work and smart investments. That does not make them evil although many may perceive them to be evil. You may disagree.
Your second point. After reading it a few times it appears that we are saying the same thing?
> I refer to the many who accumulate wealth by honest means
Can you give us some examples of this from the real world? Most all of the people I know who work hard are poor. The rich ones exploit them to be rich. It's how I did it.
Lets say most people double income are bringing in $100-$150k for the household. Over 40 year career, put 10% of this income in investments, $12,000 per year, at 5% growth. $2M plus your house value at 40 years. I don’t consider that poor.
I’m assuming a couple, with careers in Trades, IT, or a professional.
I’m in Canada where we can invest before tax money RRSP.
Oh, so people who come from wealthy families. In your hypothetical are they also white?
>Can you give us some examples of this from the real world?
You could have just said no I can't.
I was thinking when you're left to conclude that everything is unfair you feel no pressure to act fairly yourself. The people above you have become your enemies, so why do them any favors?
I think this is also why we have an increase in tipping culture too. Prices have to be set so ordinary people can buy things, but it’s unfair when the top 10% who have so much more, also get the cheaper prices. So then tipping is introduced
Essentially sort of a variable pricing scheme
Has Clarence Thomas experienced economic inequality after being gifted all those vacations?
While this may be a cause for some, it is not the reason behind all unethical behavior.
I'll take this further and say not just economic inequality but any form of inequality or disadvantages a person faces forces them to engage in unethical behavior.
Yes, and that's a very interesting thing to consider in terms of the narratives society portrays.
It tries to portray the "criminal justice system" as an attempt to identify criminals and punish them.
If a large aspect of it instead is people who have been suffering inequality and who resort to what they feel is necessary to survive, then that completely changes what would be the appropriate way to address issues of crime. Instead of crime being a function of jealous bad people wanting wealth(as has been portrayed), it implies that a lot of crime is a function of victimized people giving up on the system put in place by those perceived to have victimized them.
But it's perceived inequality. So, even if things are equal, people engage in unethical behavior for even thinking there is inequality when there may not be. Seems like justification to engage in that type of behavior. Say you have two people. Both are in the same economic status, same race, same sex, etc. One views the world and themselves as equal as can be expected to be. Which most Western countries are. So they don't engage in unethical behavior. Instead, they work, go to school, etc, and improve their life. Being seen as a good person NY those around them and given more opportunities and chance because of it. The other person perceives they are treated as less than, even if they aren't. So they go the opposite route and lie, cheat, steal, or whatever unethical behaviors would be included. Since they don't think they have a fair chance, they don't do the things that earn people the opportunities and advancements. So, it seems that even perceiving there is inequality can be as bad on an individual level as actual inequality in some aspects.
It could also suggest that engaging in unethical behavior leads to higher levels of success in a society that shuns trust and cooperation.
God blesses the capitalists and makes them rich.
Might this imply that people "raising awareness" with social media campaigns may actually be making society worse by causing people to behave less ethically?
The conglomerates lead this trend. There is no decency in monetarism. This is the result of none caring for the wellbeing of people and all only bening concerned about profits for the shareholders.
wow you mean the rich constantly inflaming racial tensions allows them to more easily exploit society? and to do that you need to constantly indoctrinate people into thinking they are victims so they engage in the unethical behavior?
Weird how the obvious societal implication for all of these commenters is "yes, someone allegedly indirectly wronged a group that includes me, so all unethical behavior is justified" or "yes, tiny increases in crime, that's why inequality is bad!!1!" and not "maybe the media should stop repeating bizarre lies about economic inequality".
which lies exactly? Do you deny that there is inequality? Not sure which country you live in, but if we take the US as the perfect example, decades-long increase in inequality has been shown in numbers over and over.
I wonder if they asked any ethical questions where the responder is in the position of power. All the examples seem variations of "is it okay to steal from a big company?"
3000 is not a lot of people for a study unless you add a lot of conditions, which this title is not doing. Proper statistical practice matters.
Edit: I'm wrong. My b.
Yes. The news IS trying to cause chaos in our communities by making us hate each other. And if you respond with “well of course we hate bigots” you just proved the conditioning works. (we already know it does based off the RECOVERED files declassified from MKUltra)
It is not the aggrieved's responsibility to capitulate to the aggressor, nor is it their responsibility to stifle hatred for those that attack them. If bigots don't want to be hated perhaps they should practice some sociability because I certainly will not be devoting immense mental bandwidth and time to the possible rehabilitation of someone who wishes harm on my friends and family.
If that's the fight you want to take then go for it, but I'd rather sling stones from the chemin de ronde with friends and family than waste my time in the trenches with the insufferable.
> It is not the aggrieved's responsibility to capitulate to the aggressor, nor is it their responsibility to stifle hatred for those that attack them.
This made me think of the forced pledge to the government we used to have to recite every morning that suggested it is.
Of course the conditioning works. That's how propaganda functions. It acts like water to a fish. But the thing you learn as you move forward is the sociability of knowledge and of power. There is no blank slate, no time in human history or prehistory where we didn't try to make sense of the whole thing, or inject our own interests into that sense. And I say that as someone who is pretty anti authoritarian even for a radical. And while I don't know the future, this is one of those things that seems pretty fundamental to humanity. Even without a sophisticated news network, when all we had was scrolls, hate flourished. The thing that is different, is that we are now aware of whose interests it is to keep us isolated and fearful. We are aware of class struggle, of racial supremacy, of sexism and More. And once you are aware, it's that much harder to forget. Chaos is a fundamental part of the experience of living, and while order has its time, so to does chaos. That's literally the whole point of the yin and yang symbol, is that each has its end, it's culmination and its seed.
All gas, no brakes.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/). --- User: u/mvea Permalink: https://www.psypost.org/can-inequality-affect-morality-research-shows-potential-connection/ --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I may have missed it but I don't think the authors used socio economic status as a divider. The implication is that it wasn't just poor people who expressed a willingness for unethical behavior in societies with high economic inequality, it was all people, rich or poor. Zimbardo has done great work on the impact of environment on behavior and here we have evidence that should we have a more economically fair system not only would we have a more equitable society we would have a more moral one.
>here we have evidence that should we have a more economically fair system not only would we have a more equitable society we would have a more moral one. And this is exactly why **higher taxes on the rich benefit the rich**. For someone whose gross annual income is $10M, the financial difference between net income of $7M and $6M is not going to make any appreciable difference to their lives, so the value of that extra $1M of taxation to them is a very small negative. By contrast, that extra $1M of taxation provides multiple benefits *to the person taxed*, notably including: \* Greater societal stability due to lower inequality (this paper). \* Greater societal stability due to stronger social programs. Taken together, it's highly likely that the higher tax rate is a *net positive to the taxpayer*, thanks to the non-monetary benefits it brings them, in addition to being a net positive to the rest of society as well. Above and beyond the moral argument for helping your fellow man, research like this helps demonstrate that it can also be the rationally self-interested course of action as well.
they fixed that unstable society problem cheaper for themselves with bunkers in New Zealand to escape to. Ideally the faster they leave there the faster the income redistribution towards them stops: all your tax cuts become worthless when your income stream disappears.
Mail them copies of Cory Doctorow's epic updated 'Masque of the Red Death'? Show them what happens when you choose the bunker route.
thank you fellow poe fan
a person making $10m/yr doesn't have a bunker in New Zealand.
for the radioactive fallout, otherwise a whole own island nearby
I wish we had some way to protect ourselves from such people but they have bought their way in despite our pre-80s ideal of equality, fairness, justice, etc
There is: it is starting to be possible to detect various types of mental health issues (e.g. malignant narcissist) via brain imaging (including eeg, MEG, etc) but of course, the very people who would be detected by such examinations are the ones in charge of making the laws/rules about screening public servants (elected or otherwise) using such examinations.
Interesting. I have long found it notable that we don't call hoarding hoarding if money is hoarded I was more referring to those with power and wealth running away from the consequences of their actions and building bunkers here.
> Interesting. I have long found it notable that we don't call hoarding hoarding if money is hoarded I recall a study a while back where people playing Monopoly were given a huge wad of monopoly money during a game. Their brain imaging showed immediate differences compared to the people who did NOT receive the money and their behavior suddenly became similar to that of a slum lord (goes back to malignant narcissist who happens to be running for high political office right now). It *is* possible to detect these things these days.
I too have read of such studies. But lime I said I am more concerned by those refugees with power and wealth - those most able to address the problems - instead building bolt holes in my country.
You should edit to say "also benefit the rich"
Many rich people don't particularly care about societal stability or any other indirect benefits of higher taxes because they're largely insulated from society
so what is causing them to have such a death grip on hoarding money, if rationally they would do better what irrational force is driving there actions
People aren't rational.
Here's where the split between "rational" and "reasonable" happens. They're perfectly rational from their perspective, but the problem is that their perspective is too narrow to understand the whole system and they don't act reasonably when asked to let someone else use their wealth for something.
They're not rational, they have dragon sickness
Because right now money isn't a tool, it's power. More money, more power.
That's what it's always been, a measure of favors owed to you backed by the government. You do things for other people to get money from them, then use that to get people to do things for you. The problem is when these concentrate into a small group who is owed proportionally many favors and they can use that weight to get what they want without actually spending any money (favors).
Having money is the ability to do whatever you want within the scope of human capability, so (for some people) it taps into a very primal desire to gain more of it. Our monkey brains didn't evolve to understand diminishing returns; they evolved to understand that if you could hoard seeds or shiny rocks and defend them from other monkeys that was good.
so how do we counter act this mental flaw?
Simple - tax. The hard bit is counteracting the propaganda telling people that not only is it not a flaw, but that taking money from the already wealthy is not a good thing. That said, the left need to be honest too - taxing the super-rich won't yield that much cash, because there are so few of the super-rich, and it's probably not possible to inject transformative amounts of cash into public services without maintaining or increasing taxes on the merely well-off.
> and it's probably not possible to inject transformative amounts of cash into public services its not about this really. in a system where the concentration of wealth = the concentration of power, redistribution of wealth is a means of redistribution of power from the 0.1% it's like when people say "oh you could eliminate the football programs at every university and funding for research wouldn't meaningfully increase." that's not the point. the point is that the university admin shouldn't be spending a significant proportion of time developing and considering university community needs on the basis of an athletics dept that wields a ton of power.
The left tends to sell progressive taxation as a means to fund public services. And with good reason - that's much more palatable to the vast majority than "we don't care so much about having more money for services and the poor, we actually just want to make rich people less rich, because we think that is a good thing in itself." Also there are two ways money grants power. The first is that you can use money to buy stuff you want - it gives you the *power* to have a luxury yacht at your disposal 24/7. That's only a problem in the sense of this article, not really in the sense of "power" as people normally think of it. The other sense is that money buys access to and influence over politicians. Because money does both of these, it's hard to sell people on taking people's money because of the latter, when the former is pretty desirable. I certainly don't think one can say that it's "the point." Reducing concentration of *wealth itself* is desirable, because having money makes it easier to get more money, so without a countervailing force we will end up very unequal indeed. The motivations are important because they influence how we design such a system.
> on the merely well-off A lot of this group in the US doesn't seem to understand just how well-off they actually are, even just compared to other Americans, but especially globally. Median household income in the US is around $75k while globally it's under $10k. So "merely well-off" in the US is actually pretty wealthy, and even being lower middle class in the US is still better than most other places. Big issue of course is housing costs because we don't make enough of it, but that's another issue that people don't seem to want to address.
inequality is a relative measure
Global comparisons aren't that useful here; as the other poster pointed out, inequality is relative but also so is how you feel. There's a lot of information masked by the "cost of living" but at the end of the day an American needs to spend more on staying alive than people in most countries. And because of that there are plenty of people in America on more than the median income who are genuinely struggling. That doesn't mean it would be impossible for them to have a comfortable life with less; there are people earning less than the median income who are doing fine. But circumstances combine, and giving up what you have is harder than continuing without ever having had it.
Nothing is. Most rich people have most of their money in wealth-generating investments such as stocks, money market accounts, treasury bonds, rental properties, and many other avenues for turning money into more money. And the reason that their money turns into more money is because the money is presumably creating an even greater amount of wealth for whoever is making use of it. The wealthy invest, and investments help businesses grow and new ones form. Nobody has a Scrooge McDuck vault of gold coins in which they go swimming. The question we're ultimately asking with discussions like this is: would the government put that money to better use for the benefit of society, or would businesses? And the answer to that question depends on how much faith one puts into trickle down economics, I suppose. But there is unquestionably some economic benefit that comes from rich people having their wealth.
One of the most surprising things I came across while reading about the Gini Coefficient and impacts of a high coefficient is that educational results are worse for all. The proposed explanation is that with high inequality meritocracy is reduced. Meaning that a well off member of an unequal society can expect opportunity and advancement regardless of skill level, competency or it's contributors like education. Why bother upskilling if family, connections, etc determine opportunity?
Instead we got capitalism.
[удалено]
If you think the definition of capitalism is "people can own things" you should really not participate in these kinds of conversations. Even the simplist definitions from Oxford manage to mention industries and profits. "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit." Allowing an entire country's economy be owned by a small number of moneyed interests, in a way that they are able to personally profit from the labor of others, is the core of capitalism and it's shown a blatant disregard for anything even begining to approach a more equitable society. It's also a bit dumbfounding that you seem to believe that before the advent of capitalism people didn't own personal property. You're aware that capitalism is very new compared to the concept of personal property?
> Zimbardo has done great work A broadly false statement
It's great science is finally providing some evidence, but I would refer you to a quote about a living wage made by Teddy Roosevelt over 100 years ago where he mentioned the need for a standard wage **high enough to make morality possible**. *We stand for a living wage. Wages are subnormal if they fail to provide a living for those who devote their time and energy to industrial occupations. The monetary equivalent of a living wage varies according to local conditions, but must include enough to secure the elements of a normal standard of living--a standard high enough to make morality possible, to provide for education and recreation, to care for immature members of the family, to maintain the family during periods of sickness, and to permit of reasonable saving for old age.* -- Theodore Roosevelt August, 1912
I love how we have completely regressed and now need to implement ideas from 1912 again.
Time is a flat circle...
Yep turns out when you feel you have little left to lose ethical values aren’t seen as valuable. Especially compared to increased pressure one feels to gain more in rough times to ride things out.
> Yep turns out when you feel you have little left to lose ethical values aren’t seen as valuable. The core principle of military recruiting.
I've seen it said on reddit, stealing from a corporation isn't. People who would never steal from a person, because they are directly hurting an individual, but wouldnt think twice about stealing from a corporation, which is nameless and faceless. A person might have to chose between food and rent if you take $100 from them, but a corporation will never face that.
This has existed long before corporations. Robinhood was a folk hero because the individuals he stole from where people who made that money unjustly (nobility exploiting the poor) and didn't actually need that money in the first place. You could take fifty dollars from a desperate person and they would notice it immediately and suffer consequences from that action but you could also steal a hundred thousand dollars from a billionaire and they would never notice. It seems to me that theft as an ethically 'useful' concept needs a shared understanding of fairness and proportionality.
Exactly. It could change some less do-well men’s lives to be stolen from, but not even make a dent towards the 1%
It’s almost like the *best* thing corporations could do to prevent theft and crime against their corporations would be to ensure the populace is happy and well served, and they won’t feel the need to be criminals. But, no, instead we get “the beatings will continue until morale increases,” and suddenly every person who walks into Walmart is now treated like a potential criminal, and inelastic goods (particularly hygiene related) are being locked up behind glass doors. It doesn’t take a peer reviewed study to know that treating people like they’re less than human and/or criminals is likely to make them no longer respect you, your property, or your rules.
Ultimately the reward for being ethical in society is civilisations promise of being free and fair. If that free and fair promise is delivered there’s no incentive to be ethical. Ethics and morals are at the heart of any society’s ability to thrive.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is why we see the dichotomy of gdp rising but increasingly having issues with the youth. If gap continues to increase, people feel it, even if they might be better off (which many aren't anyway)
The news tells me the economy is great and everyone is happy.
It’s great according to the criteria they use to measure it. The problem is that criteria probably doesn’t do a good job of describing how people feel. I think we need some new methods or criteria to measure how people are actually doing.
We’ve been hoodwinked into blindly believing GDP equates prosperity for all. But what most folk don’t realise is that there’s different types of GDP. Namely wage GDP and Capital income GDP. Wage GDP is more or less stagnant. The increase we see is mostly from capital gains. I.e shareholder income. So this is why we see GDP increasing but things never seeming to be any better for people.
We also ask people how they feel. The majority are at least somewhat satisfied and close to half are very satisfied https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/03/30/how-americans-view-their-jobs/#:~:text=Job%20satisfaction%20also%20differs%20by,of%20those%20with%20lower%20incomes.
It's great for *some* people...
Aye, the GDP per capita goes up, so the average take hone earning increase. But what about the median?
If the rules aren't fair, people break the rules.
And if your status allows it, ignore the rules no matter what. I wish I could give an example of a billionaire that would Trump the argument that rich people are the moral ones who follow the laws. :)
If you think the game is rigged, why play by the rules?
Or maybe they perceive their treatment by society to be unethical and they don’t want to unilaterally disarm. Maybe they perceive extreme inequality to be a rupture in the social contract, and once that breaks down, who’s defining what’s ethical?
> and they don’t want to unilaterally disarm. Why not? They won't do anything socialist with those 450 million guns anyway. And it only gives reason for a police state making things even worse.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Gee, the discrepancy between CEO salaries and base-line salary in American corporations is at an all-time high, and corruption in the US government is arguably at an all-time high... Could there be a correlation?
You can also check the discrepancy between salaries in US and all the world. Then you could think who gains from that.
If you ain’t got nothing, you’ve got nothing to lose.
Robinhood psychology. I wonder if those same unethical behaviors contribute to the rise of dictators in those circumstances. A historical incident that comes to my mind is the 1907 Tiflis bank robbery. In which a young Joseph Stalin and his gang of friends mounted a successful attack on the armed caravan bringing the commissional deposit to a newly built bank. Killing dozens of people, but bringing in a huge sum of money to the Bolesheviks, who as an outlawed party, had no legal mechanism to finance themselves. From Wikipedia: > The events surrounding the incident and similar robberies split the Bolshevik leadership, with Lenin against Bogdanov and Krasin. Despite the success of the robbery and the large sum involved, the Bolsheviks could not use most of the large banknotes obtained from the robbery, because the police had records of the serial numbers. But the important thing to note, that it was Stalin and Lenin’s willingness to look the other way on ethical issues that both kept Stalin in Lenin’s inner orbit during those early years, but it was also instrumental to their success against their peers.
From Wikipedia: > The events surrounding the incident and similar robberies split the Bolshevik leadership, with Lenin against Bogdanov and Krasin. Despite the success of the robbery and the large sum involved, the Bolsheviks could not use most of the large banknotes obtained from the robbery, because the police had records of the serial numbers. Based
I’ve linked to the news release in the post above. In this comment, for those interested, here’s the link to the peer reviewed journal article: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0294124 New research published in PLOS One suggests that people may expect to engage in more unethical behavior when they perceive higher levels of economic inequality in society. This finding could have implications for societal trust and cooperation. Economic inequality has been a growing concern globally, with uneven distribution of wealth and income within society affecting various aspects of life. Previous studies have linked higher inequality to increased unethical behaviors such as corruption and crime. The studies involved over 3,000 American participants in total, and used a combination of 4 studies, each with different experimental manipulations. The authors proposed, “the results of this research provide a plausible mechanism for the common finding of past research that higher economic inequality is associated with lower levels of trust. As suggested by the present research, people are expecting that they will act more unethically. In turn, this belief may then decrease levels of trust. If people expect that they will act more unethically, societal functioning and cooperation may become undermined. Further, this belief may also increase the actual occurrence of unethical behavior.”
[удалено]
I get it. I've completely stopped tipping at this point. Granted I don't eat anywhere that would have warranted a tip 5 years ago. But if housing was more affordable I would tip anyways because I would think I could afford it.
I feel like the ruling class is hedging that won’t be the case
If this is saying I would never consider returning a rich person's wallet, correct. If I find a wallet with platinum card and over 1k in bills, I'm just gonna take the money and throw the rest in the trash.
seems kind of obvious... are you in a 'everyone for themselves' society, or one that is cooperative for the benefit of all? the answer to this question has major impacts on your behaviour .
The adult concept of fairness, may be compromised in a society with a wide gap between the haves and have nots. The mind starts to believe the powerful must be evil to accumulate what they have, and they are getting away with something. It is a small step to go from believing those above you are unethical, to its ok for me to behave unethically.
Yeah, especially when the notion that the people in power being unethical is spot-on correct. And you can see that trying not to stoop that low yourself isn’t doing you any favors. You can’t tell people doing the right thing is the way to win but then show them that doing the wrong thing is the way to win.
Generally, that thought process has matched reality though. The societies with the widest wealth divide are also among the most corrupt.
I fully agree with you, thats reality. However pure free market capitalism models always predict a consolidation of wealth and ownership. Money begets money. Regulated capitalism, eliminating large competitors by breaking them up is needed for balance. Large businesses give the owners power which promotes corruption and unethical behaviour.
How is that an "however"?
Sorry if I was not clear. I see regimes that begin with corruption of power such as a military coup, and I see a regime that starts from democratic principles but becomes corrupt as legislation becomes influenced by commerce. I assumed perhaps wrongly, that your comment referred to the former.
While you may have the 1% with a majority of wealth. The remaining 99% then would still be on a similar level. So why does say one poor person work hard and advance their life and another instead engages in the unethical behaviors? One perceives inequality while the other perceives equality, but that they just have a drive or responsibility to improve themselves and therfore their life. Obviously, it's more nuanced. But, it seems attitude and how we view the world matters a lot more than what conditions we start out in.
What I imagine happens is virtually everyone (everyone starting out poor, that is) starts with trying to do it the honest way. The ones that works out alright for keep on that path, the ones it doesn’t work for maybe keep trying/maybe try a *different* way if they end up desperate enough. Ultimately the ones that stayed on the good path got lucky. Had they not, I imagine it’s sort of 50/50 which way they’d have gone. At that point whether you have support to fall back on from other family or friends or not probably makes the determination. The important takeaway is that it has to remain actually possible to win by doing the right thing if you don’t want people giving up on doing the right thing. And that’s the problem we’re facing now. It’s getting less and less possible. When you’ve got nothing to lose if you resort to unethical behavior and seemingly nothing to gain if you don’t, it starts to appeal to some people. I mean how do gangs often tend to form? “They won’t help us/they kick us when we’re down, so we’ll just have to help *ourselves*” is how. Someone might ask, “why doesn’t he just get a job?” But if you won’t hire certain people because you find them undesirable somehow (see: racism, all sorts of prejudice in general) - you can’t be too shocked when you wind up with a gang that will. When you look down on people for not having things they’ll never afford no matter how hard they work, you can’t be too shocked when they begin doing stuff like stealing to attempt to stop being looked down on for being poor, or if nothing else, drugs to numb the pain of everything being so hopeless and being treated like dirt by those above them day in and day out. And if they see that all finally working for them when nothing else did, don’t expect them to want to stop.
> What I imagine happens is virtually everyone (everyone starting out poor, that is) starts with trying to do it the honest way. What I have seen suggests everyone starts simply trying to get more. The honest way is only enforced externally and rarely internally. Remove that and very little honesty remains. Prisons and religions are filled with people fighting against being forced to contradict their internal dishonesty.
Sounds politically familiar.
When commerce and politics mix at a co-dependant level, it becomes untenable as the Justice systems foundation becomes suspect. This has happened many times before in history, when many of the Empires fell. The west continues to move in this direction. Ray Dalio video Changing World Order, helps put this in perspective.
> The mind starts to believe the powerful must be evil to accumulate what they have, and they are getting away with something. You stated that like it's an incorrect assumption. > It is a small step to go from believing those above you are unethical, to its ok for me to behave unethically. I don't necessarily think that's the case. I think it's a small step to go from [believing someone is unethical] to [believing it's okay to be unethical toward them].
> You stated that like it's an incorrect assumption. I saw it more as an attempt at propaganda trying to suggest the rich are actually moral even though that can easily be shown to be functionally untrue especially in light of numerous studies that show poor people have stronger social skills.
On a one-to-one scale, my very wealthy conservative relatives now believe themselves "beyond laws and morality." Their wealth has increased times 5 in the past decade through their small business and real estate. As they become more prosperous they take pleasure in a "my loopholes are smart, people not in our set are stealing" approach. The last time I called one of them out on a small breach they scoffed because the law itself was "a silly one that never applied to us before."
Your first point. I refer to the many who accumulate wealth by honest means, hard work and smart investments. That does not make them evil although many may perceive them to be evil. You may disagree. Your second point. After reading it a few times it appears that we are saying the same thing?
> I refer to the many who accumulate wealth by honest means Can you give us some examples of this from the real world? Most all of the people I know who work hard are poor. The rich ones exploit them to be rich. It's how I did it.
Lets say most people double income are bringing in $100-$150k for the household. Over 40 year career, put 10% of this income in investments, $12,000 per year, at 5% growth. $2M plus your house value at 40 years. I don’t consider that poor. I’m assuming a couple, with careers in Trades, IT, or a professional. I’m in Canada where we can invest before tax money RRSP.
Oh, so people who come from wealthy families. In your hypothetical are they also white? >Can you give us some examples of this from the real world? You could have just said no I can't.
I didn’t say it was easy.
> You could have just said no I can't.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
In essence: everyone becomes an opportunist when money is tight
Or, people who don’t trust the system to provide for everyone will be looking for their own gains
I was thinking when you're left to conclude that everything is unfair you feel no pressure to act fairly yourself. The people above you have become your enemies, so why do them any favors?
I think this is also why we have an increase in tipping culture too. Prices have to be set so ordinary people can buy things, but it’s unfair when the top 10% who have so much more, also get the cheaper prices. So then tipping is introduced Essentially sort of a variable pricing scheme
When your needs aren't met, you do whatever it takes to survive. No surprises there.
Has Clarence Thomas experienced economic inequality after being gifted all those vacations? While this may be a cause for some, it is not the reason behind all unethical behavior.
I'll take this further and say not just economic inequality but any form of inequality or disadvantages a person faces forces them to engage in unethical behavior.
Yes, and that's a very interesting thing to consider in terms of the narratives society portrays. It tries to portray the "criminal justice system" as an attempt to identify criminals and punish them. If a large aspect of it instead is people who have been suffering inequality and who resort to what they feel is necessary to survive, then that completely changes what would be the appropriate way to address issues of crime. Instead of crime being a function of jealous bad people wanting wealth(as has been portrayed), it implies that a lot of crime is a function of victimized people giving up on the system put in place by those perceived to have victimized them.
But it's perceived inequality. So, even if things are equal, people engage in unethical behavior for even thinking there is inequality when there may not be. Seems like justification to engage in that type of behavior. Say you have two people. Both are in the same economic status, same race, same sex, etc. One views the world and themselves as equal as can be expected to be. Which most Western countries are. So they don't engage in unethical behavior. Instead, they work, go to school, etc, and improve their life. Being seen as a good person NY those around them and given more opportunities and chance because of it. The other person perceives they are treated as less than, even if they aren't. So they go the opposite route and lie, cheat, steal, or whatever unethical behaviors would be included. Since they don't think they have a fair chance, they don't do the things that earn people the opportunities and advancements. So, it seems that even perceiving there is inequality can be as bad on an individual level as actual inequality in some aspects.
> One views the world and themselves as equal as can be expected to be. Which most Western countries are. Adorable.
It could also suggest that engaging in unethical behavior leads to higher levels of success in a society that shuns trust and cooperation. God blesses the capitalists and makes them rich.
Might this imply that people "raising awareness" with social media campaigns may actually be making society worse by causing people to behave less ethically?
people will steal from stores if they think the prices are too high... even if they can afford the prices.
The conglomerates lead this trend. There is no decency in monetarism. This is the result of none caring for the wellbeing of people and all only bening concerned about profits for the shareholders.
Is this why Toronto's riddled with bad drivers?
wow you mean the rich constantly inflaming racial tensions allows them to more easily exploit society? and to do that you need to constantly indoctrinate people into thinking they are victims so they engage in the unethical behavior?
I think it was Lincoln who famously said a house divided against itself is a profitable opportunity ripe for the plucking.
Weird how the obvious societal implication for all of these commenters is "yes, someone allegedly indirectly wronged a group that includes me, so all unethical behavior is justified" or "yes, tiny increases in crime, that's why inequality is bad!!1!" and not "maybe the media should stop repeating bizarre lies about economic inequality".
which lies exactly? Do you deny that there is inequality? Not sure which country you live in, but if we take the US as the perfect example, decades-long increase in inequality has been shown in numbers over and over.
I wonder if they asked any ethical questions where the responder is in the position of power. All the examples seem variations of "is it okay to steal from a big company?"
3000 is not a lot of people for a study unless you add a lot of conditions, which this title is not doing. Proper statistical practice matters. Edit: I'm wrong. My b.
It also doesn't mean people in other countries think like that, although it wouldn't surprise me that much if they get similar results.
Can you share your calculation that shows that 3000 is not enough?
Yes. The news IS trying to cause chaos in our communities by making us hate each other. And if you respond with “well of course we hate bigots” you just proved the conditioning works. (we already know it does based off the RECOVERED files declassified from MKUltra)
It is not the aggrieved's responsibility to capitulate to the aggressor, nor is it their responsibility to stifle hatred for those that attack them. If bigots don't want to be hated perhaps they should practice some sociability because I certainly will not be devoting immense mental bandwidth and time to the possible rehabilitation of someone who wishes harm on my friends and family. If that's the fight you want to take then go for it, but I'd rather sling stones from the chemin de ronde with friends and family than waste my time in the trenches with the insufferable.
> It is not the aggrieved's responsibility to capitulate to the aggressor, nor is it their responsibility to stifle hatred for those that attack them. This made me think of the forced pledge to the government we used to have to recite every morning that suggested it is.
Of course the conditioning works. That's how propaganda functions. It acts like water to a fish. But the thing you learn as you move forward is the sociability of knowledge and of power. There is no blank slate, no time in human history or prehistory where we didn't try to make sense of the whole thing, or inject our own interests into that sense. And I say that as someone who is pretty anti authoritarian even for a radical. And while I don't know the future, this is one of those things that seems pretty fundamental to humanity. Even without a sophisticated news network, when all we had was scrolls, hate flourished. The thing that is different, is that we are now aware of whose interests it is to keep us isolated and fearful. We are aware of class struggle, of racial supremacy, of sexism and More. And once you are aware, it's that much harder to forget. Chaos is a fundamental part of the experience of living, and while order has its time, so to does chaos. That's literally the whole point of the yin and yang symbol, is that each has its end, it's culmination and its seed. All gas, no brakes.