Leaders and political groups from around the world seem hell bent on choices that don’t make any sense. Even if you take into account stupidity, greed, narcissism, religion, rascim, hate, ect. there are constantly things happening that don’t fit.
If inst, you reframe the shit being done with the thought that while none of them may agree on a final destination, they all agree that a fast drop in population is the “fast and easy” solution, then suddenly it all starts to make a lot more sense. Then everything going on is a rush to secure power and position in the post apocalypse world. And things like antivax become their own filtering mechanism to self-select stupid people out of the gene pool.
Unfortunately, once you begin thinking about things with that mind set, then it also becomes really difficult not to see COVID as a test of the system, or at least the tipping point that pushed everything into high gear.
That just isn’t true we have Neaderthal bodies with signs of violence on them, some more societies were less hostile than others but that more depends on geography and resources. In Africa there was families who were clearly bound and beaten to death over 20,000 years ago. The idea of the peaceful hunter-gatherers just isn’t true, there was definitely places and cultures that were more peaceful but a lot of that was again just dependent on resources. Person to person today, regardless of what economic system you live in, people are actually less violent than they used to be.
I also would say we did not stop being altruistic, we built a system that makes it difficult to be. But people are exceptionally kind today in a lot of places.
I think you decided how you feel on this topic so there’s no point in going on. But you should look into it, you’re falling into a classic trap that doesn’t allow you to view the world complexly and you’re convinced all violence stems from capitalism or something. Overall, violence was a daily way of life for many people and cultures don’t suddenly just flop to violence, they develop it slowly over time. We have also over time developed better ways to interact and our population size shows that. While poverty is a problem and widespread, the base level of existing is far more comfortable than it used to be just look at the infant mortality rates and the average life span.
I’m not saying that violence didn’t exist and hunter-gatherers were always peaceful, I’m saying that the socioeconomic structure of tribes incentivizes cooperation in a way that capitalism disincentivizes. Most of human history is that of cooperation punctuated by brief periods of violence perpetrated by a small minority of humans. The last 10,000 years of agriculture and private property are an insignificant fraction of human evolution, so I don’t think you can even say that people are less violent today than during our pre-agricultural evolution.
I don’t think I’m the one being dogmatic when you are saying that humans are innately violent and selfish. I think my view is actually more hopeful that we can build a society that disincentivizes those negative traits into rarity.
First of all, everything collectively known about humanity shows our ancestors were largely not violent primitives, but instead they experimented with a wide array of different socials structures for millenia. Not all of them perfect, but violence wasn’t a “daily way of life”.
But sure socialism won’t magically make violence, psychopathy, or bad actors disappear. It won’t necessarily bring people closer together. The point is largely about who owns the means of production. But there are also absolutely forms that encourage and reward cooperation in stark contrast to what we have under capitalism.
In fact capitalism loves cooperation. They love monopolies and consolidation because they thrive under internal cooperation. Any attempts to the contrary have failed hilariously.
Cooperation is absolutely, and without doubt, one of humanity’s greatest strengths. It baffles me you’re trying to argue otherwise. In our current capitalist society, with how isolated we are, it may seem beneficial not to cooperate at another’s expense for the immediate advantages it brings you. But its short sighted, in the long term cooperation benefits more people, and it always has.
In the right social structure this would be rewarded and encouraged, and most everyone would be better for it. History shows it, game theory shows it, life on earth shows it, cooperative enterprises show it, and even internally capitalist enterprises show it (but who benefits?)