4 ms·

Many people, including me, feel differently about two different kinds of unfairness: * We are OK with the unfairness that stems from "winning the genetic lotte

by cs702 6y ago

Many people, including me, feel differently about two different kinds of unfairness: * We are OK with the unfairness that stems from "winning the genetic lottery," which confers an unfair advantage regardless of the socioeconomic background of parents. Most of us want a society in which the most able, talented, hard-working, persistent among us can put those qualities to work for their most productive uses. * We are NOT OK with the unfairness that stems from "winning the socioeconomic lottery," which confers an unfair advantage regardless of ability, talent, hard work, and persistence. Most of us do NOT want a society in which those who are less able, less talented, less hard-working, and less persistent can get ahead through other means.

_qulr 6y ago
I would offer the friendly suggestion that perhaps the concept of fairness is not even relevant here. We want the most competent people to be in positions of responsibility. This is not a fair distribution of responsibility. The fairest system would be a lottery: picking people completely randomly, without regard to socioeconomic status or "merit". Given that we want the most competent people to be in positions of responsibility, "winning the genetic lottery" is ok, because some people are just born with natural talents. But "winning the socioeconomic lottery" is not ok, because there's no apparent correlation between the wealth of your parents and your personal competence. Again, fairness is tangential to this problem.
sanxiyn 6y ago
I am not okay with unfairness stemming from genetic lottery. Sure, I agree those with genetic lottery should be able to put those qualities to most productive uses, it would be waste otherwise. On the other hand, they probably shouldn't capture the most of produced value, since it is mostly unearned. There is a reason lottery earning is heavily taxed.
- username90 6y ago
  Money is a measure of power in society, it lets you choose how society spends some of its resources. Giving more power to competent people so they can direct societies efforts to better use is a good thing, that is why capitalism works. If you take that away we are left with communism. Note I don't say that we should let people be poor etc. I am from Sweden, I think Sweden works great in this regard. Sweden has produced plenty of billionaires, and in terms of successful startups per capita Sweden is among the best in the world. Yet Sweden still takes care of its poor etc, people getting rich isn't a problem, it is necessary for capitalism to work.
  - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
    do you think sweden has diversity? sweden was mostly homogenous until they started taking in refugees that increased it's diversity. and leading to more conflicts than earlier. this is how i see it from the outside as a non-swede.
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  are you suggesting that the 'genetic lottery' should be heavily taxed and those who are born from positive eugenics(arranged marriages also come to mind. and soon in the future..what i like to call 'gattaca babies') should be penalised? doesnt child rearing by responsible parenting have no role in your universe?
dahfizz 6y ago
My takeaway from the article is that "fairness" is overrated. I don't care one bit whether the parents of my surgeon were rich or not. I want the best, most meritorious surgeon to do my operation. If every niche in society is operated by the most qualified person (even if they became the most qualified by having rich parents) then, by definition, society will be running as well as possible.
sershe 6y ago
The unfair advantages compound, though. Kids with stable upper-middle-class parents would probably be better at things than poor kids, just because they have more resources and time, less stress, better role models. That is why equity advocates don't like standardized tests anymore... Are you ok with unfairness that stems from higher ability that is itself the result of "winning the socioeconomic lottery"? Like, I was born in Russia, so my theoretical CS knowledge outside of what I learned on my own is crap, because (unlike e.g. maths) the CS curriculum in my ~2nd tier college was completely useless. I am talented enough to work in a big tech co, and my maths is (or rather used to be) top-notch, so it didn't have to be like that, it's purely based on where I could go to college. If you were hiring a computer scientist straight out of college, would you hire me or a MIT grad? He merely won the socioeconomic lottery.

by cs702 6y ago

_qulr 6y ago

I would offer the friendly suggestion that perhaps the concept of fairness is not even relevant here. We want the most competent people to be in positions of responsibility. This is not a fair distribution of responsibility. The fairest system would be a lottery: picking people completely randomly, without regard to socioeconomic status or "merit". Given that we want the most competent people to be in positions of responsibility, "winning the genetic lottery" is ok, because some people are just born with natural talents. But "winning the socioeconomic lottery" is not ok, because there's no apparent correlation between the wealth of your parents and your personal competence. Again, fairness is tangential to this problem.

sanxiyn 6y ago

I am not okay with unfairness stemming from genetic lottery. Sure, I agree those with genetic lottery should be able to put those qualities to most productive uses, it would be waste otherwise. On the other hand, they probably shouldn't capture the most of produced value, since it is mostly unearned. There is a reason lottery earning is heavily taxed.

username90 6y ago
Money is a measure of power in society, it lets you choose how society spends some of its resources. Giving more power to competent people so they can direct societies efforts to better use is a good thing, that is why capitalism works. If you take that away we are left with communism. Note I don't say that we should let people be poor etc. I am from Sweden, I think Sweden works great in this regard. Sweden has produced plenty of billionaires, and in terms of successful startups per capita Sweden is among the best in the world. Yet Sweden still takes care of its poor etc, people getting rich isn't a problem, it is necessary for capitalism to work.
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  do you think sweden has diversity? sweden was mostly homogenous until they started taking in refugees that increased it's diversity. and leading to more conflicts than earlier. this is how i see it from the outside as a non-swede.
jelliclesfarm 6y ago
are you suggesting that the 'genetic lottery' should be heavily taxed and those who are born from positive eugenics(arranged marriages also come to mind. and soon in the future..what i like to call 'gattaca babies') should be penalised? doesnt child rearing by responsible parenting have no role in your universe?

dahfizz 6y ago

My takeaway from the article is that "fairness" is overrated. I don't care one bit whether the parents of my surgeon were rich or not. I want the best, most meritorious surgeon to do my operation. If every niche in society is operated by the most qualified person (even if they became the most qualified by having rich parents) then, by definition, society will be running as well as possible.

sershe 6y ago

The unfair advantages compound, though. Kids with stable upper-middle-class parents would probably be better at things than poor kids, just because they have more resources and time, less stress, better role models. That is why equity advocates don't like standardized tests anymore... Are you ok with unfairness that stems from higher ability that is itself the result of "winning the socioeconomic lottery"? Like, I was born in Russia, so my theoretical CS knowledge outside of what I learned on my own is crap, because (unlike e.g. maths) the CS curriculum in my ~2nd tier college was completely useless. I am talented enough to work in a big tech co, and my maths is (or rather used to be) top-notch, so it didn't have to be like that, it's purely based on where I could go to college. If you were hiring a computer scientist straight out of college, would you hire me or a MIT grad? He merely won the socioeconomic lottery.