No its forced cancerous capitalism!!!
this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2025
173 points (93.5% liked)
science
19533 readers
611 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
We lost the ability to exile sociopaths from the group and instead allowed them to breed. It's s recent problem.
Exactly. We used to exile or execute them. Modern society is almost tailor made for a sociopath to thrive. They don't have the same kind of internal moral compass that others do, so they don't feel bad when they hurt people. They rely almost exclusively on external deterrents (and incentives). This means harsh sentences and high certainty of detection and conviction. Sadly many people have an ideological aversion to prison, and we're seeing less and less per capita spending on law enforcement and prisons in the West.
Sadly many people have an ideological aversion to prison
The aversion I'm aware of is Punishment vs. Rehabilitation vs. Isolation.
Most crime is a direct result of poverty. Society should do it's best to make sure we don't have to weigh the moralality of stealing something you or your family need in order to survive and live a life of dignity. Those things should be provided.
Right now we basically just let those in poverty suffer and punish any of them that extract wealth from others (more accurately those not in poverty) in an "uncivilized" manner (stealing)... while simultaneously revering those who extract wealth from others in a "civilized" manner (wage theft, poverty wages, fraud, deceptive marketing, rent seeking, anticompetitive practices, frivolous lawsuits, etc).
Genuine dangers to society do need to be isolated. However, it's important to at least try rehabilitation and addressing their needs before determining that someone is a genuine danger to society.
There is also the free will argument - arguing that people are who they are, free will is an illusion, and punishment is pointless - but it honestly just comes to the same general conclusions. If you can modify the behavior of a person so that they are able to coexist in society then work to do so. If rehabilitation is not possible, keep the public safe from that person and deal with that person as humanely as possible.
Most crime is a direct result of poverty.
This is not correct. There is a correlation but no evidence of directionality. It could be that crime causes poverty, or that third correlates cause both. Sweden saw a massive rise in crime following the large migration of Middle Eastern refugees following the 2015 Syrian Refugee Crisis, and they decided to study it. Translation below:
https://bra.se/rapporter/arkiv/2023-03-01-socioekonomisk-bakgrund-och-brott
Most people who come from a socio-economically less favorable background do not commit more crime than people who come from a more favorable background, and it also happens that people from a more favorable background do commit crime. This means that even if there is a connection between socio-economic background and involvement in crime, that connection is weak. It is not possible to appreciably predict who will commit crimes based on knowledge of people's socio-economic background.
Other risk factors have a stronger relationship with criminal behavior:
When compared with factors that research has identified as risk factors for crime, such as parenting competence, the presence of conflicts in the family, school problems or association with criminal peers, the research shows that these have a stronger connection with criminal behavior than socio-economic background factors. The same applies to risk factors linked to the individual himself, for example permissive attitudes or impulsivity.
They found that cultural factors were far more correlated with criminality than socioeconomic status. This is corroborated by the fact that white collar crime remains so prevalent. If poverty caused crime, white collar crime would be almost non-existent, but it is prolific. It turns out that some people are just greedy. Or mean. Or violent. Or selfish. Or don't care about how their actions might harm others. Sociopaths in particular exhibit all of these antisocial behaviour. They are unable to feel genuine remorse for hurting others, and no amount of money you give to them will ever change that.
They found that cultural factors were far more correlated with criminality than socioeconomic status.
I don't speak Swedish and it appears that the full report is only available in Swedish.
From the end of their English summary:
Research questions
The presentation of results is based on the following central question: According to the published research, what is the significance of socioeconomic family background during childhood for explaining individual differences in offending?
Sub-questions include: What do studies from Sweden and other countries say about the correlation between socioeconomic background during childhood and involvement in crime? Are there differences between men and women? How strong is this correlation, and how does this compare with the strength of the correlations found for various factors described in the research as established risk factors for offending? How do researchers explain the links between socioeconomic background factors and participation in crime?
I also don't trust an automated translation to accurately convey a full report and any nuance it may contain. It sounds like they are analyzing socioeconomic background and not socioeconomic status, is that correct?
There is a substantial difference between "I grew up poor" and "I'm currently unable to afford a dignified life." Yes, statistically you are more likely to continue to be poor, but you background does not define your current status.
I stated: Most crime is a direct result of poverty.
I'm not arguing that crime is the direct result of growing up in poverty. I'm arguing that the goal of most crime (and I'm focusing specifically on what you might call "economic crime") is the manifestation of someone's need or desire for something that someone not living paycheck to paycheck would take for granted.
We've got a good balance of socialism and capitalism here in Denmark. There are strengths and weaknesses of both. This is why modern societies have some combination of the two. Societies which try to go all in on any one ideology like communism tend to collapse.
Nordic model lets goo!
Capitalism doesn't have to be anti-collective. Under a working legal system, the "Tragedy of the Commons" can be stopped. No country has pure capitalism. Everywhere regulates it. Yes, some of it falls to regulatory capture, but not all, and that waxes and wanes.
Thank you, comrade.
Of course always happy to counter the cancerous capitalism crap.
A fellowship you say ? You have my Axe !
the Julius Caesar of our time—Donald Trump
Biiiiig doubt right off the bat, but I'll keep reading.
We can’t stop people free-riding, it’s part of our nature, the incurable syndrome… Free riders are among us ... if we accept that we all have this ancient flaw... we can design policies around that and change our societies for the better.
Right, ok, I guess that makes sense. How do we fix it then?
Self-knowledge: ...appearing trustworthy but being selfish can be more beneficial to the individual. We need to recognise that and make a moral choice about whether we try to use people or to work with them.
Ok, sure, for the less-selfish folks who have the capacity for self-awareness. But the more selfish folks already know this because they are exploiting it.
Education: We must teach people to think ethically for themselves, and to give them the tools to do so.
Hmm, big doubt. We've been trying to do this for ages in many societies. Not only has it not been a panacea, the selfish often hijack the education systems themselves.
Policy: Goodman believes that exposing free-riders is more beneficial than punishment.... suggesting that journalistic work exposing exploitation can be as effective... as criminal punishment.
Ok, you lost me. Maybe the book is better, but this is garbage. I don't care about changing behaviour, I want to stop the bleeding. Criminal punishment for the criminally sociopathic! This guy and Susan Collins can keep eachother company...
It's pretty obvious by now that knowing someone is doing wrong is only half the battle. Or more like 10% of it. In the US there's ridiculous healthcare costs, data brokering, tax cuts for the rich - like 90% of Americans know about these things, and yet nothing is done.
Evolution has made us a lot of things, but mostly it made us cooperative beings. We have the ability to do all kinds of good, bad, and gray-area stuff, it's more a matter of which of those behaviors our society pushes us towards.
Correct. Current society brings the worst behavior to the front, but all humans have the capability to behave in many many ways according to environment. Claiming that "Human nature" is a certain way, is one of many very dangerous Capitalist excuses. That way all problems are caused by 'bad humans', not a 'bad ideology'. Problem 'fixed', but ANY form of Capitalism = fighting for your life/livelyhood on a daily basis, or die trying. This mechanism put everyone in a merciless race to the bottom of social behavior - ME first attitude, that harms everyone.
Too bad the rich Oligarchs own humanity's information apparatus..
I was banned from Reddit for saying that we needed to wipe psychopathy from the gene pool, in yet another exhausting example of how it's more important to never do anything wrong than it is to do something right. So here we are... The human species is on a path to failure, with a chance of nuclear missiles falling soon. The next Winter might never end, but I'm glad the virtue signalers kept me from offending people
This is literally eugenics
Psychopaths with a clinical diagnosis or just people you don't agree with and then you label as "psychopath" for a justified extermination?
How could even be property diagnosed if it's known that a positive diagnosis would mean extermination?
That's a really dangerous approach, more likely to do far more wrong that right.
We need a way to fix everything that's wrong with humankind but I do not think that's the way.
You also should wary of those approaches, in a french revolution scenario of killing all but the true good people the revolutionaries always end up killing each other quite soon.
50% of it is genetic. Theoretically, we couldn't eliminate it 100%. But with new tech, we could detect the genes in vitro and possibly modify them as tech progresses. That is a dangerous idea, too. But so is dying in nuclear winter because there are too many tyrants.
And do you think all tyrants or a great number of them are genetically psychopaths?
I do not think that's the case. A psychopath is characterized by lack of feelings towards people, all people. Many tyrants do love people, and many of their actions are driven because they think their violence is protecting these people. Other may just be because extremist ideologies. But I think few do it because they are just psychopaths.
Replace psychopathy with autism and you have RFK Jr.
You're a fucking Nazi and you don't even realise.
It's not just that, it's also that psychopaths are the subset of people who'd do such things. How do you make them remove themselves?
By doing it before birth with genetic testing. Only 50% are socialized psychopaths. However, then we'd still have the other 50% left.
That's usually hereditary and the parents won't want such action.
Can we add sociopathy to that?
I blame the prisoner's dilemma