4 ms·
> I'd argue we should strive for a society where the suffering you're exposed to if you're unlucky enough to be in the bottom quartile is bounded, while still a
by atq2119 5y ago
> I'd argue we should strive for a society where the suffering you're exposed to if you're unlucky enough to be in the bottom quartile is bounded, while still allowing for the top to be unbounded in pushing humanity forward.
FWIW, being unbounded in pushing humanity forward is different from being unbounded in pushing your individual wealth up, so those aren't really two sides of the same topic.
Or perhaps you really meant something different from what you wrote, because what you really meant doesn't sound so nice.
I'll second the recommendation of the Ted Chiang short story, it's well worth a read.
- gonehome 5y agoThey're often related (look at Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, etc.) - I think it's good that the upper quartile creates new wealth (usually through reinvesting and building stuff). I think it's reasonable to try to structure things so that wealth doesn't give too much outsized political influence (easier said than done). Allowing the incentives of unbounded wealth creation at the top is desirable imo.