3 ms·
I’ve always suspected this sentiment to exist somewhere— essentially “death is the great equalizer (and thus good)”—but don’t think I’ve seen it until now. It’
by adamisom 5y ago
I’ve always suspected this sentiment to exist somewhere— essentially “death is the great equalizer (and thus good)”—but don’t think I’ve seen it until now.
It’s always been obvious to me that the problem with singular focus on inequality is precisely this — the easiest way for everyone to be equal is to be dead. This is appalling and a strong argument against a singular focus on inequality.
I would say the same thing about wealth. The easiest way for everyone to be equal is for everyone to be poor. So, make sure your preferred economic policies don’t follow this adverse incentive and just “cut the tall grasses”, so to speak, and just make everyone poor and/or limit upward mobility.
- culi 5y agoI never made such a statement. I never said death makes people equal I don't see how my argument is any different from the arguments about us not being ready for general AI because of how much it could concentrate power.
- adamisom 5y agoSorry for misstating you. It does seem bad if only some have the tech. Maybe in the worst case, rich nations lock others out? That just seems implausible to me, I think any such medicine tech would be shared without delay. With general AI, I think that’s a tech that would not be fully shared and would stay concentrated.
- krageon 5y ago> us not being ready for [thing] because of how much it could concentrate power. Power is already concentrated, such an advancement would not change the indelible fact that we've reinvented kings and dynasties and we can't seem to get rid of them. Given that life has gotten better for everyone anyway when we discover great things, such concerns must be seen as immaterial. Improving the life of all people is more important.