The distance between “something statistically happens” and “something is moral” is light years. You try to close the gap here by simply conflating the two.

Your article is food for thought, and i thought it was going to be another Medium communist manifesto.

There are a lot of things that show either limited understanding of a concept or intentional ommission.

For example, Darwinian evolution is not an example of cooperation. Sure, its changes in populations that happen and population collude. But its competition between populations for resources that are one of the main forces that cause change, and the change happens because sub populations are better fit.

The moldy bread example is not great either. Buying bread, has more than one input. Its not just “moldy or not”. Historically people pay less for inferior bread and cut off the mold. There is still intent of the baker to offer day old, or moldy bread to serve multiple segments of the bread market. Isn’t it moral to serve more people than less? Isn’t that intent?

There is a lot more in the article that is simply too simplistic, and when you dive just one level deeper makes the whole statistics=morality argument further fall apart.

The article was good morning food for thought though. Thanks.