I compare the pride of humanity when we believed in the geocentric with the pride of the rich to believing themselves superior.
In another published article (1) I was saying, in other words, how it would be reasonable to assume that the poor are most needed because nature so, while the rich are less because all orders scarcity is a reliable indicator that the characteristics of that which is scarce, there are better adapted to the biosphere.
What I'm saying is what we think when we do surveys: the most abundant populations, most accepted ideas, the hottest fashions, deserve to be rated as most important.
What is abundant cheaper and what is lacking is more expensive. If we accept that cheap is a positive attribute and a negative attribute is expensive, think we are approaching the scarce, rare, small minds can be valued by affected in some neurosis, extravagance, lack of common sense.
In other words, people who have more difficulty living we adapted the worst, the weakest, the most vulnerable, while people who are easiest to live, are the best adapted, the strongest, the most resistant.
Those who live outside of poverty tend to think that if we had no air conditioning, comfortable hospitals as hotels, fast and very silent vehicles would be in a nightmare, in purgatory, in extreme destitution.
This reminds me of when humanity was convinced of geocentrism, all the theories formulated on the assumption that the Earth is at the center of the universe, but when he had to think that we are in the middle but on the side, had to recast the entire thought of the day: religious, scientific, philosophical.
The poor are right and the non-poor are wrong.
Note: Original in Spanish (without translation by Google): Los ricos estamos equivocados.
(Este es el Artículo Nº 1.972)