Yes. That's probably the most reasonable position.

Societies are shaped by both:

1. Human choices, values, institutions, and culture
2. Constraints imposed by biology, psychology, economics, geography, and physical reality

Most political arguments come from people emphasizing one side while downplaying the other.

One extreme says:

Society is almost entirely a social construction. Change the values and institutions and you can fundamentally reshape outcomes.

The opposite extreme says:

Human nature and material constraints dominate. Most attempts to engineer society are fighting gravity.

Reality is usually somewhere in between.

For example:

• Humans seem to have persistent tendencies toward status competition, reciprocity, in-group loyalty, and unequal skill distributions.
• But societies differ enormously in wealth distribution, crime rates, educational attainment, family structure, social mobility, and political institutions.

That tells us both forces matter. Human nature provides the playing field; culture and institutions determine much of the game.

As for the commenter who wrote:

"But he did observe phenomena, that happens in nature. Everywhere. Thats not ideological sleight of hand. Fax god your concerns."

The strongest version of their argument is:

If a pattern recurs across many natural and social systems, we should be cautious before assuming it can be eliminated through policy.

That's a fair point.

The strongest version of the original commenter's argument is:

Observing a recurring pattern does not prove that current levels of that pattern are necessary, desirable, or beyond human influence.

That's also a fair point.

The disagreement is not really about whether reality constrains society. Almost everyone agrees it does. The disagreement is about how strong those constraints are.

Can institutions reduce inequality substantially? Almost certainly yes.

Can they eliminate hierarchy, status differences, unequal outcomes, and concentration of resources altogether? History has not provided much evidence for that.

So when someone says, "Pareto observed a pattern that appears all over nature," they're pointing toward a real constraint. When someone replies, "Observation is not destiny," they're pointing toward real human agency.

Both observations can be true at the same time. Annoyingly for internet debates, reality often refuses to pick a team. The universe did not consult YouTube comments before deciding how complicated it should be.