Indeed I have observed a cluster of patterns in people's behaviors which suggest at least in some subpopulations an aversion toward unpleasant information which can take the form of (1) generally unpleasant topics or (2) contradictory information.

I believe that the construction of complex concepts from a collection of beliefs is a difficult, cognitively demanding task, and that contradictory information produces an unpleasant feeling for most people, threatening their prior cognitive investment (though they might not be fighting for the sake of their cognitive "investment").

I believe that for many people, resolving this unpleasant feeling (cognitive dissonance) involves some form of (1) avoiding the stimuli, which is actually very common as we tend to attracted to people and news stations that affirm beliefs similar to our own, (2) reframing the contradictory information in some way so as to not contradict or uproot prior beliefs, including the minimization of the contradictory information's importance (3) directly attacking the beliefs, displaying its falsehood, or possibly (4) giving up prior beliefs, possibly having to restructure overall belief system revolving around a concept.

This may actually be a cognitive strategy to achieve the goal protecting from psychological exhaustion. Contradictory information, particular those which cannot be easily dealt by rationalization, is not only a subjectively unpleasant event, but it also threatens to uproot investment into beliefs which took a lot of cognitive work and real time to construct. Such beliefs are also often associated to the credibility of many sources of authority in truth, and a severe-enough contradiction which cannot be easily or elegantly explained away or denied may understandably undermine one's sense of security or sense of confidence in their beliefs.

From this perspective of the human as a cognitive miser, ignorance could indeed be a strategic goal closely linked to limitations and strengths of the brain and the construction of bodies of human knowledge.

I have also observed cases where behaviors of fellow people seem to suggest that apathy is one of their goals, or at least a means toward a goal.

The human emotions of empathy and sympathy are powerful feelings which can motivate behaviors to deviate from a person's normal range of activities, especially in the form of other-oriented action (need not be purely selfish or selfless). Why then do some people choose to donate and some not, and some choose to donate more or less than others? What factors contribute to people performing one way or the other?

Holmes, Miller, & Lerner (2002) addresses your question to an extent in an article titled "Committing Altruism Under the Cloak of Self-Interest: The Exchange Fiction", in which they discuss a peculiar, experimentally-demonstrable American tendency to, at the very least, disguise their altruistic intent with a feigned display of selfishness. Although Holmes et al. ultimately conclude by saying there is some underestimated altruism in people, they also note that by being empathic to the very needy and by being presented with a donation situation, people are ultimately threatened in their own material security.

If they accept that one person's conditions were unfair and unfortunate enough that they warrant a donation, what is to stop another person from claiming so? For the sake of psychological and material security, a line is drawn where a person strives toward apathy to some extent in order to protect their psyche from guilt (some social guilt is appropriate as it can motivate social or other-oriented action).

Thus, a cause for apathy is born. But not apathy alone, but apathy that exists alongside a tenuous relationship with empathy. Both are very real (though I'm sure sometimes apathy seems stronger than empathy) and seem important.