You're trying to demoralize a perfectly legitimate behavior on part of the "hashers", but this only diverts the discussion from the real issue: the protocol itself.
The protocol was designed to encourage profit seekers, or "hashers", to.. hash.
Satoshi didn't foresee this centralization behavior.
But I can guarantee you, that if he did, he wouldn't seek a moralizing argument, but a technical solution.
The whole point of Bitcoin is to be moral-agnostic, and trust-free. It's a cryptographically secured public ledger, not a charity fund or a society equalizer.
Calling names is pointless. We need technical solutions, not moral preaching.
We've gone around and around on this topic for years. Some of the real old-timers and significant contributes who have had an actual relationship with 'Satoshi' have produced information which makes it pretty clear to me that the guy not only anticipated pretty significant centralization but welcomed it. The whole "Moore's law" thing is just marketing material for technically deficient clowns/victims.
This puts me personally in a bind because I take the opposite view of how A-OK centralization is. As a defensive mechanism I take the approach of simply disagreeing with Satoshi and not really considering him/them some sort of a mythical deity-like being. Whoever he/they are/were they obviously had some good ideas and the implementation of Bitcoin is very impressive as an experimental first-cut. Bitcoin has been one of the more disruptive technologies in probably forever and it's just getting started, but it will probably be mostly remembered as being sort of a spark that ignited a lot more I'll bet.
You seem to be predicting the eventual downfall of Bitcoin. Any guess about which alt will be the successor and how long it will take?