Consider the question in a different context. Suppose I go to a poor village in India and I give each school age kid the equivalent of 10 USD in INR (rupees) bu

Consider the question in a different context. Suppose I go to a poor village in India and I give each school age kid the equivalent of 10 USD in INR (rupees) but I give one kid the equivalent of 500 USD. Let's suppose the kid who gets more isn't chosen at random. Suppose that I have some criteria for who deserves to get more but that I don't consider who deserves it the most. Everyone got something but one person got significantly more. Is that a bad outcome? Will the kids who got 10 USD feel satisfied knowing that most of the others got the same amount? Will the kid who got 500 USD start to tell the others that they would have gotten 500 USD too if only they had done XYZ? I think this question is really just asking if inequality is bad. It seems to me that inequality is an inherent part of nature in general and the human condition in particular. "Would you really want equality, or are you ok with inequality at some level?" Another way to say equal is homogeneous. To rephrase it, "Would you want everyone to be the same, or do you value diversity instead?" I would propose a different question. If some cause (technology in this case) has the effect of helping everyone but helps some substantially more, is this situation sustainable? Then consider, will everyone's fortunes continue to improve forever? Will some equilibrium in the inequality be established? Will the inequality eventually reach an extreme such that the situation will be worse for certain people or society as a whole? I don't propose answers to these questions. However, I think we can look through history to find examples of how similar scenarios played out in the past.