Who would want to inherit this planet anyway?

So on the one side we have a study which argues that the reason something as super-cool as the Industrial Revolution occurred was because the poor died off, the children of the rich took their place, and more efficient behaviors were thereby transferred to the lower class.

Meanwhile, we have a study which argues that those who perceive themselves as downtrodden are more likely to engage in overly risky behavior, that they will thereby damage their chances at economic success.

So either the poor are too stupid to engage in the successful policies of the rich, or the circumstances of (relative) poverty are such that greater risks are taken by the poor...either way, we should be wary of giving them anything...or so goes the unsaid thus of the above, whether it be through the meaningless correlation presented in the first argument, or through the true point of the second, turned into (way too close to heartless) social policy.



...I don't much like talking about social planning on a mass scale. The idea that charity is limited, that we have to plan where and when to use it...there are practical arguments to be made for thinking along those lines...as long as they aren't used to rationalize laziness, to justify people who are too tired to look more favorably on one another. The cost of such a view exceeds that of charity wasted.