For many of us, we tend to think we know what's wrong, about the society. Such as, greedy, corrupted, or evil dudes in power. But in a way, that's just the symptoms. How did the shit show even happen? Now that's the hard question.
I don't have the bandwidth to dive deep into this sort of behavioral analysis. But intuitively, two things came to my mind:
- Poor judgement/taste of the mass,
- Decent people tend to be the weaker.
The first point is pretty obvious. Once upon a time, lots of people really, really found chaps like Hitler and Mao full of charm and charisma. They're strong and talented, and thus, it's a good idea to let them lead. Heck, there are apparently still plenty of Trump fans out there, and Trump is nowhere near those world-class dictators in the history.
Yes, you could say, it's an education problem, in the general sense. But that doesn't make the problem any easier, for education, to do it right, is really, really hard.
Now the second point is more nuanced. Of course I don't mean good people are less capable, or less intelligent. On the contrary, I think they're superior, at the philosophical level (which is the highest level there is), because choosing, and staying on the right track is, without doubt, the prerequisite, the necessary, and, the point. Just as winning a game by cheating is essentially pointless.
By "weak" I mean, in the pragmatic sense, the good people tend to be less of a risk-taker, they're less likely to take (good) actions regardless of the cost/consequence. In a way, they are more likely to be conservatives, or even by-standers.
Don't take me wrong, I hate over-generalization myself. In fact, my point is precisely, the more the non-typical, counter-stereotype, good people there are, the better off the society will be. It's a threshold thing. It's a probability thing. If there are enough good people, who not only point out bad things, but also do their best to stop them from happening, then more likely than not, bad things will not happen.
And one of the necessary conditions of being able to do so, is that they make sure to have enough resources, including power. Power, in a general sense, is all-encompassing, it includes intelligence, diligence, and of course, brute-force.
As depicted in the animation movie Demon Slayers, there is an intrinsic disadvantage if one chooses to be on the good side. Because not all options and tools will be available and applicable. And indeed, the bad simply do whatever it takes to win the game, and often, that means to eliminate the good who're willing to fight them (and then enslave the remaining for profit).
It's never about whether heroes exist or not. There have always been heroes. And they will be remembered for ever. That will be the history of humanity, it's set in stone, or, the block universe, the "tape" so to speak. Perhaps we are simply talking about the stakes of the well-being of the people, when there aren't enough heroes who together can win the game to secure the long-term health of the civilization. And most likely, if there are enough mid-level heroes, then there's no need for superheroes just to keep the pests under control. And that can be as simple as a robust legal system.
That's it for now. I'm in no mood for social studies.
Oh, one more thing. It's worth pointing out, that one tried-and-true secret weapon of the bad people winning the power game, is to pretend to be good people. But then again, that still boils down to the first point above:
Poor judgement/taste of the mass,