I think we shouldn't underestimate human empathy. The problem is just that we build structures to avoid it. Rich people choose to not see poor people too much or they would feel empathy and be inclined to help them. If the poor are far away, merely an abstraction that is said to exist, then their existence is not felt strongly enough to trigger an empathy response. Surely there are exceptions to some degree, but I think humans are very empathetic and that's one of our great powers.

I wonder about this in animals all the time. Like, many animals seem to really enjoy being loved on and getting scritches, have a relationship with their owner or caregiver, are happy to see them and snuggle up… but in the wild they might be mostly solitary, only interacting with their own kind for mating and maybe raising young. Yet they’re often very different from the (eat sleep reproduce survive) basic wild animal when given the opportunity. They have personalities, happiness, etc.

Couldn't this be explained by the "tit-for-tat" hypothesis? That selfless behaviour is learned in communal animals, and that its implied it will be you who need help next time?

Rats can eat chocolate?

Which is why rats never built empires and conquered the world

Empathy over natural selection ftw.

Why do you say the rats are better than us? Humans can be observed doing the same in similar circumstances.

On the other hand, they willingly live in sewers and their sense of smell is stronger than ours.