True (although the child's mind is NO blank slate - it comes with crib sheets containing genetically encoded mental modules rich in content - eg. read The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker, The adapted Mind by Cosmides and Tooby, ....). That idea on human nature is red in tooth and claw is actually raping Darwinism a bit. I myself translated a book called A Darwinian Left by Singer that focuses completely on the emergence of cooperative behavior. For one, one of the most influential books in evolutionary theory is called: The evolution of cooperation. Furthermore : the main issue being debated on that matter in the field is the rise of altruism, compassion and the moral sense (The Origin of Virtue is a magnificent book). One of the most influential thinkers Robert Trivers who's major invention was the concept of reciprocal altruism in behavior studies. However: there is a but. People do compete and are highly status sensitive. Grosso modo you could we have to main meta-motives in our behavior the agency motive that drives our dominance level (and activates our natural status seeking behavior) and the communion motive (which entices us to cooperate, form groups, be social, ...) So both things are in our nature to be correct. But: it is a giant leap gong from a factual observation (how we are as humans) to a moral one (we should be /do X). If you cross that barrier you commit the naturalistic fallacy and err. So while being very careful, you could conclude that is IS possible to strive for more equality, knowing well the ideal blueprint situation will never be reached. But that does not disqualify attempts in doing so - to do that by saying people don't work that way - that's the naturalistic fallacy.