Okay, you are conflating fairness and equality, which are totally separate concepts.

Let's assume you are talking about sharing, as that's what the original point was about. Specifically the sharing of 19 bones among 20 dogs, by dividing up the bones.

Assumign by 'naive' you mean wrong, are you saying that it is simply a more optimal situation for one dog to go hungry?

Does the one dog always go hungry, or does one dog (but a different one each time) go hungry?

Do we just let the one dog go hungry each time intentionally, so that in future no dog goes hungry? What if then one day there are only 18 bones for 19 dogs? Do we let that dog die too?

What if a group of 18 dogs is required to take down an animal that provides enough bones, but we let the two other dogs die because sharing is naive?

Well, that pretty fundamentally calls into question rather a lot of all the principles civilisation is founded upon and which permeate nature, even (nature!).

So you better provide some amazing scientifically backed proof of that statement. No, Atlas Shrugged is not scientific proof.

The only "civilization" I care about is me. Is it really that difficult for you to understand and accept that there are people like me out there who only care about themselves and the resources they can acquire for themselves?

The dog can die. It isn't my problem.

Even if all you care about is yourself your survival depends on others. Both their helping you acquire the things you need and their not actively wanting to kill you. Societal collapse is your problem.

Now try to convince other people that they should do what you say. Not gonna happen, there will always be people that are selfish. That's one of the reasons why communism failed, there were too many people which didn't care about others or were just plain parasitic. I heard one phrase which sums communism up perfectly "Whether you stand or lie, 2 thousands is due" which means you can go to work, do almost nothing and still earn because employment is guaranteed. Not everyone is caring like you or me. There are many assholes, I'm sure you've seen some in your life.

> Now try to convince other people that they should do what you say.

What am I saying people should do?

Then maybe you should move into the woods and see how many resources you can acquire for yourself without the help of others.

Aside from the callousness of your remarks, you do realize that having 19 bones isn't an absolute, right?

Once there are only 19 dogs left, the number of bones will simply be reduced to (slightly more than) 18, because the prevailing ideology is that there must be 5% unemployment. (This is greatly simplified, of course, but that's the gist of it.)

Eventually you'll stop being lucky. And in any case, it's not always the same dog who gets unlucky. So yes, it is your problem, or at least it will be.

What’s wrong with the idea of sharing?

I can't answer that until we establish what you mean by "wrong".

Or maybe they realize that the 20th dog, who receives no bone and has to watch the other 19 enjoy theirs, might become angry and start causing problems. The 19 dogs, realizing that group performance and cohesion is far more important than 1/19th of their individual bones, all donate a small portion (1/19) of their own bones.

Conflict is adverted, and every dog continues to work together, as they all feel like participants in a mutually beneficial relationship between themselves as individuals, and the group as a whole.

Support your position please.

Sharing resources with other people has absolutely nothing to do with being intelligent.

And not sharing them doesn't either.

You still haven't made a point.

Is the intelligent action the action that is most likely to benefit the group?

Is a group of 20 fed dogs stronger than a group of 20 dogs where one goes hungry and becomes a weak or unstable element?

Seems like you're just trying to somehow rally against equality and/or sharing, by associating them with naivité, like you have some knowledge others do not, because you don't like those words, rather than trying to actually discuss the concepts they represent, specifically in this context, properly.

I'm not trying to make a point or rallying against anything. I'm simply saying that I work hard to acquire resources for myself and will never give them away. We can all make moral/ethical/humane arguments about equality and fairness but I simply don't care. If that makes me unintelligent, then I suppose that's just something I'll have to accept.

You seem to overlook a wide range of resources - trust, admiration and friendship of others are also resources. So is a society in which people don't let each other live in poverty. The willingness of others to work with you is a resource, which you acknowledge by using a throwaway.

You don't 'give away' resources, they are transformed into other resources. Would you give up the ability to own seven cars for the knowledge that you'll never live under a bridge, no matter what? Many people would.

Are you really working hard, or are you working in IT, in a first world country?

Probably working more intelligently but less hard than the average person at Walmart.

Probably in finance, at a guess.

Wow, how bright you are sir... If everybody thought like you, we would have a wonderful world, I am sure!

So you choose the suboptimal box in the prisoners’ dilemma?

Hopefully useful nitpick: In the "prisoner's dilemma", it's the dominant strategy. It's only sub-optimal in the /iterated/ prisoner's dilemma, the ominous reason being an expectation of continuity.

Why not?

We are a social species that attained our dominant position on the planet through co-operation.

In fact we're a social species on top of an interconnected ecosystem which only started being interesting when cells worked out how to cooperate.

All complex life on earth exists because of cooperation. Competition drives some feature drift, but the biggest step changes happened because of the increase in complexity made possible by cooperation.