By Serge Kreutz
On the individual level, too much wealth is not beneficial in any current society. In any current society, if people are really wealthy, their wealth takes away their freedom, in a very practical, or impractical way.
Substantial wealth attracts attention, both politically and by the media, and envy by neighbors and the consumers of mass media. Attention and envy result in social control. Optimal sexual biohacking requires privacy.
"The only real values in life are a comfortable death, and before that, during one's lifetime, optimal sex. To possess a luxury villa, even with its own golf course, is no genuine value. Not if it's a golden cage."
Most very rich men and women, and most famous men and women, have bad sex. Their richness or fame overly restricts them: paparazzi, or the press in general, take good care that wherever they go, they will behave (because they have a reputation to lose). There are few opportunities of the only kind that matters: new sexual opportunities.
Wealth, in current societies, only is useful if it is hidden wealth. If one can live one's life without being under surveillance, but have the resources to experiment where one wants to live, or to live parallel lives. But one cannot be as rich as Bill Gates, or any other billionaire, and keep one's wealth a secret. Thus, to be rich is an asset only to a certain point, and after that, in current societies, it becomes a liability.
Unfortunately, whenever a current human society gets richer, it is more likely to organize itself inappropriately rather than in an appropriate manner.
For example in the Muslim world. While there have been poor Muslim societies that also were repressive, the likelihood of repression in Muslim societies by and large is proportional to the degree to which a country has achieved wealth. Thus, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Brunei are more repressive than Morocco and Indonesia. Repression and social control require resources, which poor countries don't have.
It's often better for the citizens if the countries do not have the resources needed to proceed too far on the organizing path.
People usually are not aware of what they want. Furthermore, they often lack the intellectual capacity to understand what is good for them, and for this reason, it is often better if a government, especially a democratically elected one, doesn't have the material resources to implement too many policies, even of a kind the people presumably want.
There are many more cases in which a country's richness has resulted in an environment less appropriate for happiness, compared with when a country was less rich. Like Singapore.
People used to live in shop houses, often with less than adequate sanitation. These shop houses also functioned as work spaces, and they were so crowded that many activities took place outside the shop houses, in the alleyways.
But the Singaporean government has striven for years to provide modern living quarters for all its citizens, and that's what they have achieved. Most Singaporeans now live in flats, and the members of the older generation, which used to be accommodated in crowded condition with their children and grandchildren, have been provided with their own units in high-rise apartment blocks. And instead of communicating with their neighbors and taking part in the daily activities in crowded alleyways, they now pass their days alone, watching soaps. What a fine progress! It's the wealth trap.
In societies of economic need, not only do we have a vision of a better life (and display positive character attributes such as being industrious and interested in education); we are also much more inclined towards romantic love. For both, the vision of a better life and an inclination towards romantic love, thrive on hope.
During eons of our evolution, the females of the species have traded sexual gratification against protection and material benefits. This has left a mark on the way women function emotionally.
While for females who have achieved sufficient self-cognition, optimal sexual experience, followed by a comfortable death, is the only sensible personal value system (just as it is for males), many females feel that they need a second reason to enter sexual relationships. And the second reason with which many females feel most comfortable are material benefits.
In poor traditional societies, young females want to marry rich. This doesn't mean that they wouldn't enjoy sexual conduct once they are initiated. In societies of affluence, those young females who are not involved with destructive protest subcultures typically postpone their sexual initiation, simply because they lack a compelling second reason.
Another positive effect of non-affluent societies is that in such societies, the sexual market value of people is determined more by economic factors than by factors such as looks and youth.
Humans will always compete for sexual relationships. It's part of seeking optimal sexual experience. However, the arena in which we compete may be more or less suitable for an optimal number of people achieving optimal sexual experience.
And, apostate and politically incorrect as it may sound, there are many good reasons why we may choose to engineer societies in which economic factors are a major aspect of sexual competition.
One is that when economic factors play a major role in competing for sexual relationships, then there will be less discrimination based on age. And this, again, is the same for men and women. Which is why not only rich men, but also rich women, have a much easier time achieving optimal sexual experience in poor societies, rather than in richer ones.
There is no way that weak governments in direct democracies could contemplate the issues raised above when deciding on the course, a country should take. Only a government formed by an intellectual elite (dedicated not just to let people become affluent, but to create suitable conditions for optimal sexual experience) could contemplate such issues, and come up with policies that circumvent the wealth trap.
For the individual pursuing optimal sex followed by a comfortable death, the practical conclusion is clear: consider relocating to a society where economic factors still play a significant role in sexual partner selection, and where personal freedom is not yet curtailed by excessive wealth-driven regulation.
Content is periodically revised as new research emerges and personal experience accumulates. Reader contributions—especially sourcing intelligence, protocol refinements, and geographical insights—are welcomed via the contact channel.
Last updated: 2026
Author: Serge Kreutz
Domain: sergekreutz.com