Money is a proxy for other evolutionary factors. Is there are a good reason to disagree with this? Yes, there is: wealth doesn't imply a greater number of offs

Money is a proxy for other evolutionary factors. Is there are a good reason to disagree with this? Yes, there is: wealth doesn't imply a greater number of offspring. Survival is a relatively low economic hurdle, as is raising and nurturing children. By asserting any real similarity, you're conflating survival with some modern concept of success. Here's a statement: On average, the wealthy are smarter, prettier, and taller, than the not-wealthy. Do you disagree with that? I agree that wealth is a social signal. It might even imply things that aren't immediately apparent (though you'll know someone is tall and attractive before you'll know they're rich, most of the time). But even the facile comparison of a peacock's feathers and a rich person's designer clothing doesn't really hold water in my mind. I think a lot of our evolutionary urges might be sublimated in our struggles for success, but that doesn't make them the same things.