Why do some European countries support lazy people without social collapse?

I used to think that supporting lazy people was wrong because the idle should not be supported. Later, my perspective broadened, and I realized that the so-called lazy people are mainly the poor and the moneyless—poverty equals laziness. Rich second-generation individuals who are idle and do not produce are not called lazy; the poor who can't handle the 007 lifestyle, working one day and playing several days, are labeled lazy. The ruling class, which possesses vast wealth without engaging in production, calls slaves unwilling to work actively lazy, and most of society actually agrees with this.
Evolutionary theory can explain any sociological issue. Darwin’s great conclusion: survival of the fittest. Why the fittest rather than the strongest? Essentially, it’s about environmental elimination of unsuitable species, not the strong eliminating the weak. Dinosaurs were more powerful than cockroaches, but when the environment changed, dinosaurs were eliminated, and cockroaches survived to this day.
Environmental changes cannot be predicted accurately. If they could be predicted, biological reproduction could be directly targeted for cultivation and selection, eliminating the need for random mutations. The core is that prediction is impossible, so biological reproduction involves random mutations, and the diversity of offspring is used to counter environmental fluctuations. Survival of the fittest stems from this, and it’s also the value of reproductive variation. Mutations are random, but selection is targeted.
If a species has a probability of producing mutations in a certain direction during reproduction, but no mature species exists in that direction, there’s no need to doubt—it's because the conditions provided cannot support the development and growth of that direction. Even if such mutations occasionally occur, they will be filtered out by the environment. This is the fundamental conclusion when analyzing social development directions.
Why do countries that don’t support lazy people have no future? Because not supporting lazy people leads to overly uniform social filtering, with members struggling on the brink of survival, lacking a sense of security, and having no capacity to try. For example, a child who excels at playing football, in an ordinary family, parents dare not let him pursue football; a child with piano talent, they dare not invest heavily in training; a creative entrepreneur, but the pressure to support the family is huge, capital only allows one attempt—fail, and the family falls apart, and they probably won’t dare to try again.
The cost of failure for countries that don’t support lazy people is enormous; society lacks a safety net, and the cost of trying increases further. Only when there are many attempts, after development and elimination, do the survivors become innovators. Society as a whole encourages and advocates for innovation, but it’s all talk. Innovation is the success left behind after various attempts by society members; it’s not about ability or encouragement.
The value of supporting lazy people lies in providing a safety net for society members, encouraging them to live, work, and develop according to their own ideas, and creating an inclusive social atmosphere. Only such a safety-net, inclusive society is the soil for innovation. While inclusiveness and safety nets may allow some to take advantage, they are a minority; most people will pursue value. When a country’s productivity reaches a certain level and is willing to support lazy people, the overall social atmosphere will become more inclusive, providing a fertile ground for innovation and a space for dissent. This is a positive feedback system.
Many high-end industrial chains are not planned by the government, especially those requiring cooperation among society members in advanced civilian technology, but grow spontaneously. Europe and America relied on invasion to accumulate capital, but without a social safety net supporting lazy people, sustained capital accumulation and development into a developed country would not be possible—this is a necessary condition.
Countries that don’t support lazy people, even if their people work harder, lack the diversity of samples needed to respond to change because society cannot provide diverse options. An uninclusive society will inevitably produce a single type of filtering pressure. In Shandong, even if civil servant salaries are high, they are looked down upon; if you don’t succeed in the college entrance exam, even if you have talent in other areas, you won’t have a future. The core issue is the inability to accurately predict future development directions; diversity is the only weapon against environmental fluctuations. Overly uniform filtering means many attempts cannot grow even if some try.
Why can Japan and South Korea, with relatively modest welfare systems, still become developed countries? They are indeed developed, but whether they can sustain that status is uncertain. South Korea’s fighting spirit has propelled certain nodes in its industrial chain, but its size limits self-feedback development; it can only work hard in one part of the global industrial chain. Lack of welfare safety nets and tolerance for failure lead to fierce competition and insecurity, sacrificing biodiversity. When everyone stops having children, what future does a country without population have?
Japan is at a critical juncture. Over nearly 30 years, it has absorbed the vitality lost from the real estate bubble. If it can emerge from deflation and strengthen its welfare safety net, the future won’t be bad. Long-term issues like poor football performance, inability to develop chips, strong math skills but no mathematicians, many engineers but no Nobel laureates—all stem from filtering. Even cows know that good mood produces more milk, but some stubbornly believe that high-end industrial chains are built through 996 work hours.
An 8-hour workday, full social insurance, double weekends, paid annual leave—this isn’t high welfare; it’s basic security.