is this good? [the greediest & most aggressive rise to the top & fight it out most intensely, using ppl as...?

Question

cannonfodder?
it makes sense that the most aggressive/ greedy/ powerkeen/ moneymad/ dirtiest fighters will rise to the top, where they are met by all the other hardest keenest thieves [nation leaders or owners], who will fight each other most intensely, & thus suffer the most attrition, danger - eg, the organised crime syndicates fighting each other to the death, the corporate infighting backstabbing etc, the kings fighting each other, & using the ppl for funds & cannonfodder, fomenting wars for profit
'when elephants fight, it is the grass [ie, the ppl] that suffers' [the elephants suffer too]
eg, the mafias & triads grow up out of the fighting among poverty & hardship, & thus become hardest fighters, & thus easily conquer the richer softer higher levels of society, as the sicilian mafia conquered america during the 20th C [the mafia is bigger than the 5 biggest corporatns together]
ditto the russian mafia, released into america by the fall of communsm
ditto sth amercn druglords

Answer 1

Is this good?

No.

It would be much better for the least human (that is to say, the most aggressive, greedy, power-hungry, money-mad, dirties fighters) to NOT be in control of everything.

I wouldn't object to dumping them all on an island so they all kill each other off, but, no, I don't want them in charge, using the rest of us as cannon-fodder or slaves.

Answer 2

you're right