On aesthetic inclinations ... and more

I once described the principle of the ideal habitat to a wealthy friend as we looked down from his New York penthouse to the open woodland and lake of Central Park. His terrace, I also noticed, was ringed by potted plants. I thought of him as a convincing experimental subject. It has since often occurred to me that to see most clearly the manifestation of human instinct, it is useful to start with the rich, who among us enjoy the widest range of options in response, and most readily follow their emotional and aesthetic inclinations.

So says Edward O. Wilson in The future of life (Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2005), but listen to the words which John Updike put in the mouth of one of his characters in the novel Terrorist (Ballantine Books, New York, 2006):

My grandfather thought capitalism was doomed, destined to get more and more oppressive until the proletariat stormed the barricades and set up the workers' paradise. But that didn't happen; the capitalists were too clever or the proletariat too dumb. To be on the safe side, they changed the label 'capitalism' to read 'free enterprise', but it was still too much dog-eat-dog. Too many losers, and the winners winning too big. But if you don't let the dogs fight it out, they'll sleep all day in the kennel. The basic problem the way I see it is, society tries to be decent, and decency cuts no ice in the state of nature. No ice what- soever. We should all go back to being hunter-gatherers, with a hundred-percent employment rate, and a healthy amount of starvation.