© Lev Kropotov/Thinkstock
"Markets have lifted millions out of poverty, but considerable inequality remains and there is a large worldwide demand for redistribution. Although economists, philosophers, and public policy analysts debate the merits and demerits of various redistributive programs, a parallel debate has focused on voters' motives for supporting redistribution. Understanding these motives is crucial, for the performance of a policy cannot be meaningfully evaluated except in the light of intended ends."The authors of the study argue that support for redistribution reflects motivations that evolved for the small-scale world of our hunter-gatherer ancestors. "Understanding the economic and political nitty-gritty of redistribution does not come naturally to us," said lead author Daniel Sznycer, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Montreal. "But humans have been interacting with worse-off and better-off individuals over evolutionary time. This process built neural systems that motivate us to act effectively in situations of giving, taking, and sharing."
According to the authors, we see the modern world through the eyes of our ancestors. "Political rhetoric about redistribution involves a cast of characters," said Cosmides, such as "the poor" and "the rich." "The idea is that we view these characters through the lens of motives that evolved to regulate interactions with their ancestral counterparts-community members who are worse-off and better-off than you are."
To understand the logic behind support for-or opposition to-economic redistribution, the research team focused on three motives: compassion, self-interest and envy. They tested how strongly each of these motivations predicted support for redistribution in four societies: the United States, the United Kingdom, India, and Israel.
"Compassion is the emotion that orchestrates need-based help-help toward those worse off than oneself," Tooby explained. "Our ancestors lived in a world without social or medical insurance, and so they benefited from covering each other's shortfalls through mutual help. If your neighbor is starving and you have food, you can save his life by sharing with him. Later, when the situation is reversed and he shares his food with you, your life is saved."
Accordingly, the authors found stronger support for redistribution in people who spontaneously feel more compassion toward individuals in need. Self-interest also played a role: support for redistribution was higher in people who thought that they or their family would benefit from it personally.
The more surprising findings involved envy and fairness. Envy, directed toward those better off than you, predicted support for redistribution. "When a rival outperforms you in some activity, your relative standing decreases," said Sznycer. "People sometimes act to chip away at their rivals' advantages, even when that also harms third parties or even sometimes themselves."
Envy and the spite it generates are socially destructive, he noted, but "they can make sense in the context of an ancestral world that included competitive zero-sum games." When given two hypothetical policies-lower taxes on the rich resulting in more revenue to help the poor versus higher taxes on the rich but less money for the poor-one in six people preferred the second, more spiteful option. This willingness to hurt the poor to pull down the rich was predicted only by the individual's proneness to envy.
Fairness looms large in political rhetoric and theories of justice. But differences in subjects' taste for fairness did not predict how strongly they supported redistribution. The results were the same in the United State, the United Kingdom, India, and Israel: support for redistribution was predicted by compassion, self-interest, and envy, but not fairness.
Each individual person on this planet at the very least wants a decent life and will dedicate their life to achieving that at the very minimum.
Having said the above... at some point in time (perhaps forever i.e. the situation is timeless/beyond time), things became so that 'not everyone was entitled to a decent life BUT some were'.
This 'some' has changed over time e.g. royalty/lords/priests/conquerors etc to talented individuals, entrepreneurs etc... in whatever time you live in... there will always be justifications as to why the 'some' deserve their place at the top and why those at the bottom are rightfully there. However, life is such that 'struggle for life' ensues amongst the downtrodden.... why you ask? Because unlike our society... nature gave us all life and the same right to it. It's only man who steps in and decides another man's right to this life... the other man in his turn can turn and defend his right to belong/to live.
So... you have the struggle between those who want to maintain their place in the 'some' and the rest who are excluded by the justifications of whatever society.
There is no ideal society... however, there is the struggle in everyone to live and live decently at that. To use a metaphor, the deer will run when chased by the lion (why? Because it wants to live) and the lion will chase down the deer (why? Because it wants to live)... apply to our society.. There is no ideal place it came from or ideal place it is going to... it is no more different than the savannah... what you have is the struggle for life in its various forms (in who gets admitted to a decent university and who doesn't, in who rules society and who doesn't, in who is considered desirable and who isn't, in who gets paid more and who doesn't etc etc). This is it... what its always been and what it'll probably always be. This is the ground/setting in which we play.
Can man intervene and change it? A more interesting question could be, could the animals in the savanna one day hold a momentous meeting and decide to not act the way they do? For one, deers/buffalos and the like will be happy and no doubt see this as a point of evolution... lions, leopards and the like will see this as a huge travesty and probably won't take to it one bit. So... to repeat. Can man intervene in his own situation?