A recent intense public discussion, carefully presented by Cruise Program, provided a stark comparison between two distinct paths to modern success: that of the "Nepo baby," benefiting from nepotism and family influence, and the "Lapo baby," who achieves success despite a fundamental lack of privilege, access, and opportunities. The core disagreement centers on whether the current socio-economic landscape prioritizes inherent talent and effort or merely inherited advantage.
For those identifying as "Lapo babies," the prevailing sentiment is that they are "much more hardworking" because being recognized necessitates "super hard" effort. Personal accounts vividly illustrated this struggle: one participant, Esther, a business manager, recounted dropping out of high school (SS2) to work solely to afford WAEC registration, and later working again to enroll for JAMB, all without any sponsor, aunt, or uncle. Proponents of this view argue that if success were truly determined by effort, the number of successful people would far outweigh those who are struggling. They point out that a lack of resources and direction often means Lapo babies must "keep working" without guidance. The system is fundamentally seen as "messed up," because brilliant individuals often fail to make it due to a lack of opportunities, privileges, or connections.
Related article - Uphorial Radio
Conversely, the "Nepo baby" contingent argues that connections and a strong family name are often "better than your first-class degree". While acknowledging that their access and resources limit their struggles, they contend that the success they leverage is often built upon the "hard work" of the preceding generation. Furthermore, they challenge the notion that their lives are inherently easy. Participants noted that just because an outcome appears simple, "doesn't mean it was easy behind closed doors", suggesting they often take "extra steps" or call contacts to avoid public hurdles, such as long queues at banks or during NYSC clearance. They also argued that maintaining inherited wealth and status—preventing the money from being lost—requires its own distinct form of diligence.
The conversation frequently devolved into the ethical dilemma of power, specifically testing whether loyalty trumps merit: if given a job opening, would an individual choose an underqualified brother or a deserving, hardworking friend? While one Lapo baby participant asserted that qualifications, skills, and experience "should come first", the general consensus was that familial loyalty is paramount. Several individuals maintained that prioritizing a sibling or child is a natural impulse, not "greed", but rather the desire to secure the future for the "next generation". They also redefined qualification, suggesting that a child trained daily by their father knows the company’s "in and out" and is therefore more qualified than someone whose expertise is based purely on higher grades.
Amidst these polarizing views, participants explored the complex relationship between wealth, obligation, and emotional well-being. A common ground was established that no one is "obligated" to help the unprivileged, but extending aid to talented individuals should be viewed as an act of "human empathy" or "goodwill". However, the unprivileged should not feel "entitlement to somebody's power" or assistance. Discussing the psychological costs, many noted that being a Nepo baby "doesn't equal happiness", citing high instances of depression and the need for therapists among the rich. While Lapo babies often believe wealth would solve 70% of their problems, they often learn to "create [their] own happiness" despite financial constraints, even if lack of finance remains a major source of sadness. Ultimately, the discussion underscored the belief that while connections might open doors, success truly requires both hard work and family influence to "work hand in hand".
