The multi layer society conspiracy

it doesn't seem to matter what type of society you look at, wherever in the World, operating under any political or religious system, there is one commonality, that the society will segregate into layers from lowest to highest, and there is always a perception that the lowest levels of society are somehow less worthy than the upper levels. On occasion there is an added racial or sexual component, but the outcome always seems to be the same. It also seems to generally be the case that with one or two notable exceptions, people tend to operate and exist within their own layer, often based on their parents and grandparents layer. It is also often the case that the stables of development, educational opportunities, access to healthcare, political engagement and career opportunities tend to be more limited the lower down the social layers you find yourself. There are many reasons proposed why this is the case, and certainly, within any society there are some unpleasant jobs that many people would rather not do, as well as some which are so popular as to be oversubscribed, yet it should still be possible to create a society in which everyone is treated equally, with equal opportunities, and with all basic needs catered for. It is one of the underlying principles of Marxism and features within the Buddhist faith amongst others, yet even in societies that espouse these positions it simply isn't seen.

Most often the explanation is based around one key assumption, namely that we as humans are not all created equal. We all have different talents, skills, abilities, intellect and so on, and therefore we will naturally experience a situation where some people are better suited to some roles within society, and some people have a higher capacity for, say learning and therefore advance more rapidly and rise higher. This argument has been used so many times that it has given rise to a sub-assumption, that it is correct, but there is something interesting about it. There is no evidence that it is the case. Numerous studies involving vast numbers of people from a range of backgrounds and lifestyles including testing of twins and triplets have yielded not one single conclusive result to suggest that there is anything even similar to an innate talent, or that intellectual capacity varies from person to person, once factors such as disability are taken into consideration, so we are left with the question “Where did this idea come from?” In a similar vein the case is often argued that humanity as a species is inherently self focused and it is inevitable therefore that in order to derive maximum personal benefit from a given situation an individual will strive to success even at the expense of others, a concept that seeks to explain why socialist theories inevitably fail in practice.

In a sense, both of these arguments have their roots in Darwinian evolutionary theory, or to be more accurate, in a misunderstanding, or misinterpretation of evolution. Darwin suggested that over time a species would adapt to better suit its environment, or to exploit a specific niche within that environment by a process of natural selection. That is to say that random mutations in each generation may confer a specific advantage to an individual which makes t more likely that that individual will reproduce and pass on that advantage to its offspring. This is by no means the same as saying that some people are born more intelligent, or faster, or with amazing talents. These would be anomalous mutations that may or may not convey an advantage, but would not be the norm. Given that we are coming to understand that many of the traits that we consider to be talents are in fact environmental in nature rather than being genetic it would make far more sense, rather than allowing inequality to continue that we accept it as a part of current life and investigate the real reasons that it exists. Looking at aspects of life such as early childcare, nutrition, healthcare, education and protection for all, from birth should be our first priority, taking a step away from both the sense of entitlement of the upper classes and the sense of victimisation of the lower classes to see more clearly how to do something about it.