How Capitalism & Evolution = Kill Empathy (and what to do)

Unpacking the hidden forces that construct societal apathy—and how creatives can reclaim compassion as a tool of resistance.

May 05, 2025

A subtle erosion is occurring behind the scenes of modern life—an invisible unravelling of our most human virtue: empathy. As artists and as writers, we've long waited for the power of compassion to open hearts and transform cultures. But what if our insensitivity to suffering is not just individual burnout? What if it's the result of something more profound—our evolutionary wiring colliding with an economic system that rewards disconnection? Here, we look at how neoliberal ideology and biology conspire to anesthetise our capacity to care—and why the arts community must lead the way in turning that around.

There’s a pervasive belief in modern society that we’ve lost touch with one of the most fundamental human qualities: empathy. This concern, expressed by many but rarely explored in depth, becomes even more poignant when directed toward vulnerable groups. But what if this lack of empathy is not simply a matter of personal shortcoming, but rather a deeper, structural defect both biologically ingrained and conditioned by the very systems that govern us? What if in our frenetic, atomised world, something more complicated is playing out? To truly understand this phenomenon, we have to peel back the layers and examine two fundamental forces: our biology and neoliberalism's power.

The Biological Roots of Empathy: Why We Care Less as Society Expands

At first sight, it would seem natural that humans should be empathetic to those in distress. After all, it is a large part of what it means to be human. However, as our population expands and our world becomes increasingly complex, many people feel themselves to be less empathetic towards those who need help. But is this simply human nature—a survival mechanism hard-wired into us (only now to our detriment)?

Evolutionary Psychology: An Ancient Wiring in a Modern World

We are wired for connectivity—specifically, connectivity to those around us. Our ancestors throughout evolutionary history lived in intimate, small groups. These relationships they had were essential to their very survival. Feeling for others was essential to maintaining these tight-knit groups, where the health of each played a direct role in the survival of the group. Yet, in the current sprawling cities of the globalised yet de-personalised world, this sense of immediate kinship disintegrates. The mere size of the modern society dilutes the affective bonds we feel and lessens our capacity to empathise with the vulnerable in distant, less close settings (Batson, 2011).

This is not a moral shortfall but a biological preference. The less we're close to someone's suffering, especially when we do not personally connect with what they are experiencing, the harder it becomes to empathise. But suppose there is something additional in the equation beyond our biology, heightening it.

In-group vs. Out-group Dynamics: The Tribe We Choose, The Tribe We Neglect

Humans are naturally inclined to identify with others who share similar traits or backgrounds. This is a component of the "in-group bias"—a psychological tendency to favour those within our immediate ethnic or social circle. As populations become more diverse, our identification with others does not always proportionally scale. Those whom we consider to be "out-group" members—those who are different from us—become harder and harder to identify with. And to the vulnerable, this otherness can lead to exclusion, especially when the vulnerable are also excluded based on race, class, or nationality (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).

But what if the social fabric is frayed, and we do not even regard ourselves as being linked with the folks we call neighbours, far less those in distress halfway around the world? When inequality is increasing, it is that much easier to dispense with other people's pain as being outside the realm of our morality.

Cognitive Overload: Too Much Pain, Too Little Response

Human minds have limitations, and our brains are designed to deal with small, immediate social issues. The scope of world crises—economic inequality to global warming—can be paralysing. We end up with what psychologists have called compassion fatigue—an affective depletion that makes us numb to others' suffering (Figley, 2002). The volume of issues in the world today can be daunting. With daily news of suffering, it's often easier to shut down than stay open. But what if you could stay open without burning out?

Neoliberalism: The Economic System that Undermines Empathy

Whereas our biology may explain some of the ways we fail to empathise with the vulnerable, there's another significant factor at work—neoliberalism. This political and economic ideology is all about individualism, market-led policies, and minimal state intervention. And over the past few decades, neoliberalism has reshaped the way we think about not just wealth but social responsibility.

Meritocracy: The "Deserving" vs. The "Undeserving"

But at the very centre of neoliberal ideology lies the idea that people succeed or fail based on their merit. This "meritocratic" philosophy leads to a subtle yet powerful belief: that poor people, mentally ill people, and homeless people are there because they failed in some way. They weren't working hard enough. They weren't pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. They are not as deserving of sympathy and assistance (Sandel, 2020).

This classification of the poor into 'deserving' and 'undeserving' reflects the deep-rooted imbalance between those in power and those marginalised—yet ironically, the more entrenched the power gap becomes, the easier it is to ignore.

Instead of seeing the pain of the vulnerable as the result of complex social forces, neoliberalism demands that society see it as an individual failing, something over which they have control.

The Shrinking Safety Net: No One to Catch the Fall

Neoliberal politics have meant incremental removals of social protection programs, ranging from cuts in welfare to health service reductions in the public sphere. Absent safety nets have led society's most at-risk individuals to fend for themselves. Under such a system, sympathy gives way to the reigning dogma of "self-reliance." If the government isn't doing its part, then why should we? Without structural support, people facing poverty, sickness, or marginalisation are more likely to be seen as "failures" rather than victims of a system of injustice (Harvey, 2005).

Individualism Over Collective Responsibility: The Myth of the Self-Made Person

Neoliberalism also fuels the myth of the "self-made" person—the idea that success is derived solely from a person’s efforts alone. It is a society that keeps the community at bay and places others' well-being squarely on the individual's shoulders. This devolution of our culture from collective responsibility robs us of our ability to listen and feel with the marginalised. The language moves from "we are all in this together" to "you are on your own."

In this culture of individualism, sympathy towards those who struggle diminishes, as individuals are conditioned to believe that when one hurts, they are merely not doing their best. The self-reliance belief engenders a cruel, competitive society with little regard for anything else.

The Dark Side: How This Leads to Social Cleansing and Eugenics

As the neoliberal agenda takes hold of society, it can be directed towards something even more sinister—social cleansing. When we reduce people to their economic worth, the most vulnerable, the poor, elderly, and disabled are seen as burdens. This, in turn, feeds into a mindset that encourages the expulsion or marginalisation of those who "do not contribute" to the economy. Social cleansing, while not necessarily explicitly declared, manifests in policies that reduce access to healthcare, education, or social welfare for the most marginalised (Larsen, 2004).

This concept also intersects with eugenics—a discredited and dangerous ideology that seeks to "improve" the genetic composition of the human species by promoting certain characteristics and discouraging others. Neoliberalism, in asserting individual merit, tacitly reiterates the idea that there are lives that are more important than others. When society devalues the labour of the most vulnerable, it is a testimony to the underlying eugenic rationale: that society has to rid itself of those who are genetically or socially defective (Bashford & Levine, 2010).

The impact on society of eugenics and social cleansing is catastrophic. To start with, it undermines the richness of human variety, which is a strength, a source of inventiveness and resilience (UNESCO, n.d.). In eradicating or displacing entire communities on dubious grounds, we deprive ourselves of the richness of human potential (UNESCO, n.d.). Diversity in all its forms is the source of improvement and development of society. It is in the intersection of diverse ideas, cultures, and perspectives that human beings thrive (UNESCO, n.d.). Eugenics, based on pseudoscientific ideologies, has produced coercive actions such as forced sterilisations, unfairly impacting marginalised populations and undermining the diversity of human variation (NHGRI, n.d.; KFF, n.d.). Similarly, social cleansing practices, frequently legitimised by discriminatory ideologies, have produced the extermination of groups defined as "undesirable," undermining societal diversity and unity (Oxford Academic, n.d.; UNESCO, n.d.). These activities not only inflict immediate harm but also adversely affect long-term development and innovation within society (Oxford Academic, n.d., Wikipedia).

Neurodiversity makes communities stronger by fostering greater empathy, cooperation, and innovative problem-solving. When people with different ways of thinking and seeing the world are included, communities are more adaptable and resilient. Inclusive communities foster cooperation between differences, reduce isolation, and improve mental health for everyone, not just neurodivergent individuals (UNESCO, 2022; The Brain Charity, 2023). By designing schools, workplaces, and public places to include a diversity of needs, communities become fairer, more equitable, and responsive—eventually working for all members, not just an advantaged few.

Disrupting Our Nature: Why It's Essential to Challenge Our Biology

In light of this complex web of forces, there is one simple question we must ask ourselves: should we simply accept our biology or should we challenge it so that we can build a more empathetic society?

As a species, we have long been taught to manage our fight-or-flight response so that we could survive in an increasingly complex world; just look at wellbeing resources circulated in work and education spaces, in therapy rooms and coaching practices, often with the hidden agenda of getting burnt out, sick, disabled and elderly people back into work. Just as we've learned to manage our stress response through the use of grounding techniques and meditation, so will we have to be willing to overcome our biological tendency to favour those closest to us or who benefit us the most. We can learn to expand our empathy to extend beyond our immediate "tribe" and become capable of empathising with the suffering of distant or unknown others.

This is not to imply we can disregard biology. Our evolutionary impulses are powerful, but not unescapable. We can willingly choose to act compassionately as we disassemble reflexive stress with awareness. It's not to dismiss biology but to assume responsibility to broaden our empathy, to stretch our evolutionary programming, and to deliberately extend our circle of morals to include the vulnerable.

Practical Actions We Can Take: Turning the Tide

With these powerful forces at work, how can we push back against waning empathy and growing social cracks? The response, however complex, lies in social policy overhaul and collective action. Compassionate systems would reduce suffering at its roots, making compassion less draining and more sustainable. Some simple, practical steps are as follows:

1. Wealth Taxes: To deal with rising inequality, progressive taxation can be employed to redistribute wealth and ensure that those who benefit most from society contribute more. This would not only reduce economic inequalities but also make society such that the vulnerable are more likely to receive the care and support they deserve (Piketty, 2014).

2. Engage Politically: Writing to MPs and campaigning for policies that prioritise the welfare of vulnerable groups is a necessary step towards calling for systemic change. Holding policymakers to account and calling for policies that address inequality allows us to begin re-grading society's values.

3. Research and Awareness: We should inform ourselves and others regarding the causes of inequality, the psychological barriers to empathy, and how neoliberal policies harm society. Knowledge is power, and by being aware of the systems in place, we're more likely to resist their negative effects.

4. Art and Writing: Art is a powerful tool for social change. Placing these issues in art, literature, music, and other forms of expression allows us to engage a wider audience and change cultural norms. Writing about these issues in public conversation or creating works that highlight the plight of the marginalised can override common attitudes and create empathy (Nussbaum, 2001).

Conclusion: Empathy as the Path Forward

The lack of empathy for the vulnerable is not only a personal deficiency but a result of our biology and institutional influences that guide contemporary society as well. Neoliberalism additionally aggravates this by promoting individualism and meritocracy, therefore nudging the vulnerable to the periphery. In the same way we’ve learnt not to suppress autonomic stress reaction but train ourselves to manage it, likewise we can train to resist our biological predisposition for othering. Through education, policy change, and collective action, we can build a more empathetic society that cherishes all of its citizens, particularly the most vulnerable.

Without these changes, we can expect:

Dehumanisation of Vulnerable Groups

In the absence of empathy, excluded individuals might be viewed and treated solely as economic burdens, causing further neglect, cruelty, and policy violence.

Widening Social Divides

In-group/out-group would be even more heightened, which could lead to xenophobia, racism, ableism, and classism being even more deep-rooted.

Rise of Social Cleansing Practices

Policies might indirectly or directly serve the survival and flourishing of the "productive" while leaving others behind—reviving the horrors of eugenics but, this time with a neoliberal veneer.

Breakdown of Social Solidarity

Where collective responsibility declines, public services can atrophy, mental health emergencies can multiply, and the resilience of a community can break down.

Authoritarian Manipulation

A disillusioned, disunited people are more open to manipulation by authoritarian “strong men“ leaders, manipulating fear and "othering" for control.

Mental Health Breakdown

Compassion fatigue and moral injury in compassionate individuals can lead to burnout, depression, and emotional numbness—still another breakdown in the social fabric.

Does any of this sound familiar?

Empathy loss is systemic, not individual; if empathy is not a fixed trait but a skill to be cultivated (despite biological tendencies), institutions (schools, workplaces) might improve not just for the vulnerable but for all affected by them; we could adopt more compassionate norms and redefine success beyond economic productivity. Now that’s something I would like to see. How about you?

References

Bashford, A., & Levine, P. (2010). The Oxford Handbook of the History of Eugenics. Oxford University Press.

Batson, C. D. (2011). Altruism in Humans. Oxford University Press.

Figley, C. R. (2002). Compassion Fatigue: Psychotherapists' Personal Stressors and Coping Mechanisms*. Brunner-Routledge.

Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford University Press.

KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). (n.d.). How History Has Shaped Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities: A Timeline of Policies and Events. Retrieved from https://www.kff.org/how-history-has-shaped-racial-and-ethnic-health-disparities-a-timeline-of-policies-and-events/?entry=1900-to-1929-american-eugenics-and-the-forced-sterilization-of-women-of-color-and-low-income-women

Larsen, J. (2004). Neoliberalism and the New Social Order. Pluto Press.

NHGRI (National Human Genome Research Institute). (n.d.). Eugenics and Scientific Racism. Retrieved from https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Eugenics-and-Scientific-Racism

Nussbaum, M. (2001). Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions. Cambridge University Press.

Oxford Academic. (n.d.). In the Shadow of Genocide: Ethnocide, Ethnic Cleansing, and the UN. Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/isagsq/article/1/4/ksab030/6380106

Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies. (n.d.). Cultural Homogenization, Ethnic Cleansing, and Genocide. Retrieved from https://oxfordre.com/internationalstudies/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-139 Oxford Research Encyclopedia

Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Harvard University Press.

Sandel, M. (2020). The Tyranny of Merit: What's Become of the Common Good? Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). "An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict". The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 33-47.

The Brain Charity. (2023). Why is it important to celebrate neurodiversity? https://www.thebraincharity.org.uk/important-to-celebrate-neurodiversity/

UNESCO. (n.d.). All Aboard! Culture and Social Inclusion. Retrieved from https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/cutting-edge-all-aboard-culture-and-social-inclusion

Wikipedia contributors. (n.d.). Social cleansing. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_cleansing Wikipedia

Wikipedia contributors. (n.d.). Eugenics Biased Sterilisation Cases in the United States. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_Biased_Sterilization_Cases_in_the_United_States Wikipedia

If you found this helpful, you’ll love what’s behind the paywall.
Become a paid subscriber for £5/month and unlock exclusive essays, how-tos, toolkits, and intimate reflections to support your creative and neurodivergent self in a demanding world.

Click Subscribe and choose the paid option — your support keeps this work going.