3 ms·

It is not the existence of hierarchy that is the problem. It is the type of hierarchy and the effects of that hierarchy. The parent and the study argue that we

It is not the existence of hierarchy that is the problem. It is the type of hierarchy and the effects of that hierarchy. The parent and the study argue that we should give greater resources to those with the least resources in such a way as to broaden access to opportunities. You can argue that is not worth the expense (it costs X to produce Y outcome and redistributing X would lead to negative impact Z. Y + Z results in a net loss to society). But it seems hard to argue that inequality or hierarchy is inevitable so we should not even try to ameliorate the negative effects of that structure or imagine different ones. To me, the “inequality inevitable” mindset seems like a frequent way those who benefited from the existing system rationalize not sacrificing anything to help less fortunate people. I am very sympathetic to arguments that redistribution is not effective, but the debate should be about what is or is not effective. “Inequality inevitable” sidesteps that and asks that we just give up before even trying or imagining different possibilities because we’ve failed in the past. It is hard to not see such arguments as a misguided effort to rationalize one’s self interest.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
curryst 6y ago
> “Inequality inevitable” sidesteps that and asks that we just give up before even trying or imagining different possibilities because we’ve failed in the past. It is hard to not see such arguments as a misguided effort to rationalize one’s self interest. I don't agree with this. I tend to agree that inequality is inevitable, but where I think I disagree with you is on the definition of equality. If we create an even playing field in the environment, then we've just shifted the goalposts from "How wealthy were your parents?" To "How good are your genetics?". Some people will be born smarter than others, and excel. Some people will be born with learning disabilities and relegated to the bottom of the social hierarchy. Judging based on innate ability also means discriminating against people who innately lack that ability. If you were born dyslexic, you're going to have to work twice as hard to achieve as much. The dyslexia is as innate as IQ advantages. I just don't see a way that hierarchies aren't inherently unequal. You're always judging who has more of a particular thing, so people with less of that thing are worse off. Right now, that's largely money. Is using the genetic lottery a more equal means of doing this? I don't really think so. I would rather focus on reducing the difference in lifestyle between the haves and have nots. If we can't stop inequality, we can at least lessen the effects.
- 6510 6y ago
  Complaint about people rising to the top who lack the qualities we want to see in leadership suggests [to me] that we [collectively] already have a complete picture of the qualities we admire. Our problem isn't in measuring the qualities but in rewarding the ratios. On a personal level we know how to pick a breeding partner. Collectively selecting the dna cant be all that different. It seems culturally disturbing to reward beauty for example but if beauty > reproduction is good why not beauty > wealth > reproduction? We already have greed > wealth > reproduction, intelligence > wealth > reproduction and inheritance > wealth > reproduction. Those seem just as lame upon close examination. You play chess for your life vs someone with 3 times the intellect? Or monopoly where the opponent starts with all the money and all the streets? The phenotype is a confusing angle. We should do some honest objective conversation about it collectively. Do we want people to be their natural self or do we prefer it if one goes out of his way to become something? Do we genetically optimize for the biggest possible struggle or for the slacking? We seem to look at the flexibility as a positive quality but does it really make a healthy breeding stock? As a human I have to constantly challenge myself mentally and physically or I decay pretty rapidly. I had a sick cat one time that slept on my sofa for 4 years only getting up to eat. Then one day another cat came into the house and she leaped 3 meters off the sofa and ran after it. If I sleep for 4 years I doubt there will be any walking, definitely no running, jumping is out of the question and getting into a fight is unimaginable. We might have really good brains and a good digestive system, the rest of the body could do with some updates.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

curryst 6y ago

> “Inequality inevitable” sidesteps that and asks that we just give up before even trying or imagining different possibilities because we’ve failed in the past. It is hard to not see such arguments as a misguided effort to rationalize one’s self interest. I don't agree with this. I tend to agree that inequality is inevitable, but where I think I disagree with you is on the definition of equality. If we create an even playing field in the environment, then we've just shifted the goalposts from "How wealthy were your parents?" To "How good are your genetics?". Some people will be born smarter than others, and excel. Some people will be born with learning disabilities and relegated to the bottom of the social hierarchy. Judging based on innate ability also means discriminating against people who innately lack that ability. If you were born dyslexic, you're going to have to work twice as hard to achieve as much. The dyslexia is as innate as IQ advantages. I just don't see a way that hierarchies aren't inherently unequal. You're always judging who has more of a particular thing, so people with less of that thing are worse off. Right now, that's largely money. Is using the genetic lottery a more equal means of doing this? I don't really think so. I would rather focus on reducing the difference in lifestyle between the haves and have nots. If we can't stop inequality, we can at least lessen the effects.

6510 6y ago
Complaint about people rising to the top who lack the qualities we want to see in leadership suggests [to me] that we [collectively] already have a complete picture of the qualities we admire. Our problem isn't in measuring the qualities but in rewarding the ratios. On a personal level we know how to pick a breeding partner. Collectively selecting the dna cant be all that different. It seems culturally disturbing to reward beauty for example but if beauty > reproduction is good why not beauty > wealth > reproduction? We already have greed > wealth > reproduction, intelligence > wealth > reproduction and inheritance > wealth > reproduction. Those seem just as lame upon close examination. You play chess for your life vs someone with 3 times the intellect? Or monopoly where the opponent starts with all the money and all the streets? The phenotype is a confusing angle. We should do some honest objective conversation about it collectively. Do we want people to be their natural self or do we prefer it if one goes out of his way to become something? Do we genetically optimize for the biggest possible struggle or for the slacking? We seem to look at the flexibility as a positive quality but does it really make a healthy breeding stock? As a human I have to constantly challenge myself mentally and physically or I decay pretty rapidly. I had a sick cat one time that slept on my sofa for 4 years only getting up to eat. Then one day another cat came into the house and she leaped 3 meters off the sofa and ran after it. If I sleep for 4 years I doubt there will be any walking, definitely no running, jumping is out of the question and getting into a fight is unimaginable. We might have really good brains and a good digestive system, the rest of the body could do with some updates.