Gosh you come off as condescending (maybe try looking at the log in your own eye more). It's not a hidden bias. It's that I believe the competitive model actually doesn't work, and yes, is morally wrong because it lifts up the few and screws over the many. So yes, I want my view to win over the dog-eat-dog model because that model is stupid. I don't care about couching it in evolutionary terms in this context because doing so is more of the "excuse" about why we must only create dystopia.
I don't care about your need to say everything is relative so we should carry on being useless. And great equivocation on the word "woke," which certainly doesn't refer to being "enlightened."In the larger scheme of things, there is no such thing as right or wrong. The fact alone that High RWA people exist, proves that these people serve some biological evolutionary purpose. If they didn't, they wouldn't be there. And why is a Low RWA world where there is no competition and everyone has food on their plates, by implicit definition a better world than a High RWA world where 50% of the worlds capital is owned by a mere 1% of the worlds population?
People talk about being WOKE nowadays. GTFOOF, 99.999% of the world's population is vast asleep.
Anyway a world in which the most people suffer the least in my view is always the morally superior world, though I would factor animals in as well. It's because suffering is actually real. I have suffered enough to understand why I wish it on no one.
PS: Obviously this isn't worded precisely enough, as if I asked a genie for this world we'd all be in comas or something - you can't suffer when you're not conscious, etc.