5 ms·

Are you suggesting that there isn't something fundamentally inequitable about large segments of society having a harder time obtaining material wealth? I agree

Are you suggesting that there isn't something fundamentally inequitable about large segments of society having a harder time obtaining material wealth? I agree with what I assume is your position that material wealth shouldn't be the sole metric of success, but I also think the fact that women and minorities struggle relative to white men to obtain material wealth is a problem we should try to solve. Those positions are not contradictory.

recursive 9y ago
If fewer people accumulate material wealth, can you conclude that they had a harder time doing it? I mean, I'm not ruling it out, but it also seems plausible the group wasn't trying to do that as much.
meric 9y ago
Is that what we are? Biological-chemical constructions who accumulate metrics of successes? Will people become more fulfilled in their lives because we give them all material wealth? Why not have a world where people don't think of excessive material wealth as a metric of success at all, where people care about what fulfils their own and other's lives? In this world people don't accumulate wealth for the sake of accumulating it in the first place, and the distribution of wealth will also be more equal. Your position would work directly against this vision, as an example.
- manigandham 9y ago
  You're talking about changing human behavior, across the entire species. And if that's the end goal, there are many more critical issues to resolve than (material) wealth judgement.
hasenj 9y ago
It seems to me that you are trying to achieve equality of outcome, or you assume that all people are fundamentally the same so that any disparity in outcome must be a result of a fundamental inequality in society. One of the GP comments mentions Asians. I don't think Asians in North America (or anywhere else for that matter) have a hard time obtaining enough material wealth to live comfortable lives and raise families.
kaitai 9y ago
Meric (to whom you're replying) does have a point -- if you can effectively bar women from economic activity they're much more likely to stay home or do community and volunteer work. There are certain advantages to forcing segments of society to do work that is poorly paid or not respected, especially if you can get them to do it for free. Exploitation of women and minorities has been phenomenally successful in history exactly because you can cheaply get the best of these particular demographic groups doing jobs they wouldn't do if they had more opportunity. It is obvious that this is fundamentally inequitable, but equity isn't everyone's highest value.
- meric 9y ago
  If you do not respect work that don't bring money, like parenting, spending time with children, preparing a family gathering, that's your prerogative. Don't project your disdain for these activities on me. You define traditionally feminine activities as disrespected, poorly paid, cheap, and then put traditionally masculine activities on a pedestal by calling it a metric of success then tell everyone who is doing the former they are prevented from doing the latter. Who is creating the inequity here? And is equal material wealth your highest value? What about love? And I am unequivocally against barring women or minorities from economic activity. Just in case, you thought I am.

recursive 9y ago

If fewer people accumulate material wealth, can you conclude that they had a harder time doing it? I mean, I'm not ruling it out, but it also seems plausible the group wasn't trying to do that as much.

meric 9y ago

Is that what we are? Biological-chemical constructions who accumulate metrics of successes? Will people become more fulfilled in their lives because we give them all material wealth? Why not have a world where people don't think of excessive material wealth as a metric of success at all, where people care about what fulfils their own and other's lives? In this world people don't accumulate wealth for the sake of accumulating it in the first place, and the distribution of wealth will also be more equal. Your position would work directly against this vision, as an example.

manigandham 9y ago
You're talking about changing human behavior, across the entire species. And if that's the end goal, there are many more critical issues to resolve than (material) wealth judgement.

hasenj 9y ago

It seems to me that you are trying to achieve equality of outcome, or you assume that all people are fundamentally the same so that any disparity in outcome must be a result of a fundamental inequality in society. One of the GP comments mentions Asians. I don't think Asians in North America (or anywhere else for that matter) have a hard time obtaining enough material wealth to live comfortable lives and raise families.

kaitai 9y ago

Meric (to whom you're replying) does have a point -- if you can effectively bar women from economic activity they're much more likely to stay home or do community and volunteer work. There are certain advantages to forcing segments of society to do work that is poorly paid or not respected, especially if you can get them to do it for free. Exploitation of women and minorities has been phenomenally successful in history exactly because you can cheaply get the best of these particular demographic groups doing jobs they wouldn't do if they had more opportunity. It is obvious that this is fundamentally inequitable, but equity isn't everyone's highest value.

meric 9y ago
If you do not respect work that don't bring money, like parenting, spending time with children, preparing a family gathering, that's your prerogative. Don't project your disdain for these activities on me. You define traditionally feminine activities as disrespected, poorly paid, cheap, and then put traditionally masculine activities on a pedestal by calling it a metric of success then tell everyone who is doing the former they are prevented from doing the latter. Who is creating the inequity here? And is equal material wealth your highest value? What about love? And I am unequivocally against barring women or minorities from economic activity. Just in case, you thought I am.