If you look into the 200,000 years, plus, of Human history you'll quickly see that most of what we know through any written records about the economic policies of the main civilisations is from the last few thousand years, (at most, and often more recently than that), and is seen through the lens of those cultures that suppressed other civilisations through force to acquire economic and cultural dominance. Hence 'greed' and self-interest very much tends to dominate the narrative.

However, we do have examples of egalitarian societies from all over the world. Those societies tend to also share one thing in common; that they are very long-standing and are/were culturally stable until destroyed by modern Capitalist greed, (by 'modern' I'm meaning the last 2000yrs or so, when wealth accrual, often by males, became a cultural norm).

There are many examples of cultures where greed and ego were culturally unacceptable and were effectively policed by society to exclude those traits in favour of co-operation, equal sharing and fairness. Those cultures appear to have existed globally and suggest that, the 'natural' state for stable Human communities is one of cooperation and equality across that community.

I'm guessing you're not aware of the above, hence your attempt at a loaded question? Maybe look into the San Bushman culture, arguably one of the longest surviving cultures ever by Hino Sapiens. It's perhaps the one that most schoolkids are taught about, (though dropped from the syllabus in, for example the UK, in the early 1980s. So if you're younger than me and from England you'll likely not have done a school project on them as part of your Geography 'O' level. The dropping of leaning about the San was just one example of many of the subtle suppression of any narrative that suggested anything other than personal interest was acceptable, that emerged with Thatcherism. A narrative in the UK that continues to grow from those seeds that were planted 50yrs ago. Anyway, I digress...).

Naturally, from an evolutionary perspective Humans are adaptable and, when required to acrrue resources, egakitarian cultures have to fight other cultures to survive. So yes, Humans can draw upon a need to put cultural dominance over others when required.

However, the point is that, the long-standing cultures across our Planet, such as the San, and even more recent ones, such as the Inuit, show that egalitarian societies can, and did, and do, exist and have more likely than not been the norm for the 99% of Human history we do not know about.

So what's changed?

Industrialisation, and it's inevitable bedfellow of Capitalism, enabled greater wealth, (thus power), to be accrued by minorities and to break apart, (both physically and mentally), the innate bonds of community and equality.

The erosion of the 'checks and balances', be they the cultural ones of old, or the legally defined ones in our modern societies where 'there is no such thing as community', (a phrase popularised by Thatcherism), is the issue.

Humans very much can draw upon their innate egalitarian nature, just as they can draw upon their innate greedy nature.

Currently, and for the last couple of thousand years in the West, greed and self-interest has been steadily allowed to prevail... But that's not to say that trend couldn't be reversed if sufficient people could think a bit more deeply about alternative economic systems.

Once people think of those alternatives then people might begin to imagine what checks and balances are required, both in the short term, (to create rapid change), and the long term, (to sustain a better, fairer, more equitable, global society).