3 ms·
I'd put higher odds on a multi billionaire being able to successfully colonize mars than be able to solve poverty or make an appreciable impact on corruption.
by bryondowd 10y ago
I'd put higher odds on a multi billionaire being able to successfully colonize mars than be able to solve poverty or make an appreciable impact on corruption.
- RodericDay 10y agoYeah, not surprised. It's weird feature of our time, that sensible people think nothing of supercomputers in the palms of our hands, going to Mars, or living forever. And yet any kind of equitable redistribution of resources or alternative societal arrangement is assumed to be absolutely determined to end in death and famine and destruction and should not be entertained for one second. All the utopianism is reserved for tech. Social utopianism is branded Marxist/communist/anarchist and swiftly disposed of.
- marknutter 10y agoIt's based on the assumption that poverty can actually be solved, which I would argue is impossible due solely to the fact that the definition of poverty does not remain fixed over time. It's also based on the assumption that rationalism is the only way in which to tackle the problems humanity faces, which is absurd on its face unless you're someone who believes there is little to no value in art, literature, philosophy, religion, or the humanities in general.