I been thinkin' 'bout this silly "World Economic Forum" in NYC today.


Wealth creates an alternate heirarchy in choosing mates, counterbalancing obvious physical attributes, which are traditional markers either of the ability to produce wealth, or to carry childrend and, in either case, to produce offspring who will reproduce.


Wealth certainly enhances survival BUT, once you have reached the age at which you can participate in politics, everyone has an equal opportunity to reproduce. Meaning, if you take everyone who has reached the age where they are physically capable of participating in a protest, wealth is a zero-sum game, it simply reallocates mates.


At any given moment, there are a fixed number of mates of bredding age in the community. We can either divide them up based on who has wide shoulders, or based on who has big houses. In the short term, whom we choose is completely arbitrary, it doesn't have a chance to feed back into the resultant mix of survivors.


So, suppose by modernizing a society, you allow a million dirtbags who would otherwise die during childbirth to grow up to be jealous of the people who are richer than them. In other words, instead of everybody having X, you create a situation where some have 2X, some have 3X, and the people with only 2X are mad as heck - a lot more unhappy than if everybody had 1X.


Is it at all possible that it is better to have only 1X - or even to be dead - than to suffer through life in bitter envy of your neighbors? Is it better to have no offspring at all than to live as something other than chief of the tribe?


And where does Ted Kennedy come into all this? I mean, he got laid a lot growing up, right? So what is it, some kind of protection racket for the 10X crowd wherein they buy off the mob with reproduction-right scraps?


I think, rather than The 10 Commandments, maybe people just need blinders like street horses, so they can't see how pretty their neighbors' wives are.


lEROY