corporate greed and evolution: the antonyms

I'm not really one for conspiracy theories, but if there's one that can fall in the category of conspiracy that I truly believe in, it's the case of corporate greed and devolution. The gist of it is this: the businesses that run our economy are more selfish than we would like to believe, and there are consequences for inhumanity.

Let me start off with the definition of humanity: kindness. Even when it doesn't benefit us. And the first signs of humanity were the first signs of us actually evolving into something more intelligent. And I'm not talking generally: there are thousands of species with progressive intelligence. I'm talking about emotional intelligence, which is what supposedly makes us different, more evolved. Because with kindness comes benefits that you cannot immediately reap, so the ability to consider further than the short-term future, or a guaranteed long-term, separates us from what we used to be. This has fallen a little bit into my opinion of evolution, but the facts are that the word 'humanity' is synonymous with 'kindness', and we have always considered humanity to be a separation between us and what we used to be.

In the world we live in today, hopelessness is rampant. And for good reason! Back before the internet, we had a severe lack of awareness of our surroundings beyond the immediate representation of companies such as pharmaceuticals: what we'd see would be the nice counter assistant who would help us find our items when we find ourselves lost in the shop. The most we would get hand-delivered is from the newspapers, and everything seemed right in the world. Until we were given information by means of the internet so that all that stuff we would've had to go very out of our way to discover? Was now at our fingertips, just a tip-tap away. This increasing awareness has minorly crippled our generation. We're learning the filtered narration of the world our newspapers used to weave was influenced by those funding said newspaper. We're looking at research articles from legitimate scientists and psychologists detailing the consequences on health due to a severe lack of care from big corporations we previously trusted implicitly. We're seeing behind the nice counter assistant of big businesses and straight into the couple of people in power, and the immoral ways they reached their financial status. The American Dream doesn't really exist for the average hard-working, caring family man that wants a couple of hours every night to not work. Those used to parade the concept are simply scissors disguised as welders of the corners they pretend to mend. It's all 'we gave a family a lifetime supply of insulin at our expense', 'we've donated a million pounds (approximately 0.0001% of my money, the equivalent of a penny to you) to a nice cause, because we care!' and 'we've reduced the charge by a couple of pence during a difficult time to show we care'. Until you realise that the cost is upcharged substantially from the beginning to make profit from those who have no choice but pay in order to survive.

I think healthcare is truly at the midst of it all, and America is the leading cause of stunted evolution as a result. How many people have died because of a lack of healthcare? How many lost every opportunity that came their way just to prioritise paying back their medical debt, or that of someone they love, simply because there is no alternative? How many generations are crippled by the debt of one unlucky family member? Cancer occurs in 50% of people at some point in their life: how much could we have improved if those people were helped? And their families weren't crippled by the financial weight of the desire to not lose someone they love?

So much lost. Lost to the pocket of just a handful of people who no longer understand the value of just one pound. Who can now look at their billions and wave it around, unable to ever spend it because there isn't a thing in this world that could cost that much. Who no longer understand the amount they take from those they consider below them, because how could they? Just a pound could be the difference of breakfast for a family who would otherwise go hungry.

I think there's a lot of proof of greed in this world, and the main contributors of it are those who actually have power. As long as you have money, you can have anything. I think a prime example of this is Elon Musk: a man who has bought Twitter for significantly more than it's worth and clearly has no idea what he's doing. Everything from the verification subscriptions to the banning of accounts when a joke is turned back on him - everything was motivated by mere personal desire. Not because he cares in any way. People tend to spare a second thought to something they care about. Not thinking about why they had verifications in the first place before selling them for a few pounds a month? That's what I call 'not sparing a second thought to evaluating whether your shot-in-the-dark idea is actually good before putting it into action'.

I think what has come of the internet is too much awareness. Not because I think we shouldn't be aware - these things need addressing. The issue is that we're literally just humans. We weren't built to take in and process this much information: as of right now, we aren't just assigning different issues in manageable portions to different people to solve. No. We're all taking in every morsel and all trying to fight every battle at once. I know I tend to find myself in a hole sometimes because I need to be able to think about things, but with all the crap in the world, it's difficult to process it. No wonder we're all suffering so much nowadays.

But back to the point: greed in this way, taking from others what they cannot afford to give, is the complete opposite of humanity. Actually, it's exactly what we would expect of wild animals, sole hunters like polar bears of competing herds wanting to make sure they're the ones who survive. But even in that case, what they do is for survival. It's over supplies, shelter, mates, etc., but humans? Apparently we'll let someone die just so we can have an extra television. This is actually worse than we were back in the prehistoric era. At least our motivation was survival.

I believe that our general intelligence is far superior to any other species we have ever encountered. We have built whole industries, created amazing technology that I'm flabbergasted we somehow made after accumulated years just getting to know the foundations of the planet we live on. But the thing is, general intelligence isn't the only category in defining evolution. Humanity is also a significant factor, and in this we are going backwards. And for those we aren't? Well, most of them are either dying or in debt in America, so who knows! At the very least, the unfortunate genes of those who seem to lack a very vital aspect of evolution are almost guaranteed to continue, so I think we'll be debating this for many generations to come.

I think after writing this, my personal takeaway is that people devalue humanity in the face of objective intelligence. As if the human race evolving has everything to do with flying cars and artificial intelligence. But making cool Teslas doesn't prove anything beyond objective intelligence. And it's not something to glorify, clearly. Our progression as a race is stunted by these people who would leave someone for dead if offered a nice bottle of whiskey. Though, to be fair, a lot of them might hesitate if that person they'd be willing to let die were placed in front of them. That's why they pay sales assistants minimum wage to face them instead.

I should definitely attempt to proofread this tomorrow. It's currently 3am and I thought about writing this for an hour and I've actually been writing for an hour. Which isn't a lot, actually. But everything feels a lot when it's 3am; I'm so tired.

< 69% baked >