Money Identity Coercion Ego. Those are the primary motivators.
Being rich means you’ve solved money and probably coercion. You can either rest on your laurels or chase the other two, for good or for evil. There’s rich philanthropists - some who give almost everything away - and then whatever Elon Musk is, but most go for the rest on their laurels thing, and you probably haven’t heard of them.
Dehumanising someone also serves our identity and ego, FYI, which is where this thread came from.
Even the capitalists are behaving differently and more humane compared the fuedalists of the middle ages.
That’s actually the main reason why communism and socialism even exists, as a prediction to say what will come after capitalism to the naysayers saying that there’s no such thing as social progress.
Even the capitalists are behaving differently and more humane compared the fuedalists of the middle ages.
Yes, because their source of wealth is fundamentally different. Lords had to project violence and play court politics to keep their position. Still do, in some places. The rich in developed countries on the other hand can rely on strong rule of law to protect their property with very little personal input.
Also why if the apocalypse ever happened, they’d get owned and somebody else would take their bunker.
yep. pretty much everyone who screams about how much they hate the rich… would act exactly the same way if they were rich.
human beings act in their own self interest and that of their tribe.
Money Identity Coercion Ego. Those are the primary motivators.
Being rich means you’ve solved money and probably coercion. You can either rest on your laurels or chase the other two, for good or for evil. There’s rich philanthropists - some who give almost everything away - and then whatever Elon Musk is, but most go for the rest on their laurels thing, and you probably haven’t heard of them.
Dehumanising someone also serves our identity and ego, FYI, which is where this thread came from.
No they wouldn’t.
Even the capitalists are behaving differently and more humane compared the fuedalists of the middle ages.
That’s actually the main reason why communism and socialism even exists, as a prediction to say what will come after capitalism to the naysayers saying that there’s no such thing as social progress.
Yes, because their source of wealth is fundamentally different. Lords had to project violence and play court politics to keep their position. Still do, in some places. The rich in developed countries on the other hand can rely on strong rule of law to protect their property with very little personal input.
Also why if the apocalypse ever happened, they’d get owned and somebody else would take their bunker.