Natural selection differs from greed. Some plants are going to have more capability of growth, which gives them a higher survival rate. This is natural selection. This doesn't mean that the rest of the plants shouldn't exist or aren't contributors to the species. And plants don't have the cognitive capability of recognizing this. Humans do. We already know that we are all contributing to society, and that the lives of humans are an asset across the board. Greed gives the notion that it's acceptable to go drastically in opposition to this by dehumanizing other humans as a desertion of the principle of the common welfare of humanity. In other words, we cognitively choose to participate in a cycle that yields negative societal results when we choose to extract the welfare of the common human in an attempt to benefit only a small minority of people in the long run, meanwhile the potential of the rest of them are left fluttering in the wind, when in reality if we increase the common welfare for all of humanity we meet the qualification of retaining as many lives as possible, and all parties included benefit in the flourishing of the intelligence, advances, and societal progressions that are a result of a flourishing community. There's plenty to go around, so how much is enough for you to feel secure, or to belittle the security and the prosperity of your fellow human?

Innovation is good. The common welfare of humanity is good. Increasing these two things is good. Willingly hindering these things by choosing to exploit them instead is not good.


Greed is not good. The concept that the security of an individual is more valuable than the security of all of society. What makes someone who is greedy more worthy of existence than someone who isn't? Because you're capable of exploiting people, you are more formidable of a worthy evolution, therefore your existence is more meaningful than the existence of everyone else, therefore you need all of the money to provide all of your own security, and screw everyone else?
That's the predilection I'm supposed to go with in order to feel secure enough once I have how much wealth? At the expense of how many people? So the 1% gets to exploit how many people across the planet globally all the way up the system in order to maintain this false sense of security that your life and your DNA is more worthy of the security to thrive, when in reality you advertantly risk potential of a fully prosperous species by creating the hindrance of wealth inequality in contributing to this process. Why anyone would think this is acceptable is beyond me. What do you think is the main contributing factor holding back education and development of the vast majority of the planet? It's a result of them not being paid what they're actually producing, and instead forfeiting the majority of their income to a select group of people, and we do this willingly. And people die and the conditions of living are terrible for many, but their only option is to work for a system that barely pays them to survive, and they die young all because they weren't receiving the income in exchange for their value, but instead were forfeiting it to a select group of people who could then manipulate that same market even more in favor of themselves to continue the exploitation process. I mean it's madness honestly. If anyone wants to tell me that the security of generations of your heritage is more important than the common welfare of humanity, then I would say you've lost your ever loving mind. Every human life has value and every human life should have the opportunity to excel to it's utmost potential so that we can all become more capable of a species as a unit, providing potential for the "elite" (let's be real and call them fucking greedy) and the common human to both prosper.


Is greed a result of the addiction of feeling the need for dominance in an attempt to escape the mortality of yourself, and of your lineage and constituents? Are you insecure if your DNA and the DNA of your constituents aren't the most prosperous, and instead all DNA is prosperous? You would disgrace respect of your fellow human beings because you think you're the only one that's important for prosperity? I'm not asking anybody to share the wealth. Share it? You didn't create it. That's ridiculous. As far as I'm concerned it's a debt to the people who actually produced what you sold for a price well below their production value. You provided them with no other option than to work for this system or starve, at often times merely barely enough, and often times not enough to even educate and medicate themselves? And you're telling yourself you helped these people by ensuring your own interest at the expense of them? Why aren't people paid for what they actually produce? Why is it acceptable to let a small group of people disproportionately profit off of your production? Why does everybody just willingly accept this and continue to willingly do it without demanding a genuine fair and realistic distribution of wealth and prosperity according to their production?