4 ms·

> The author seems to be arguing that a societal focus on helping disadvantaged people is harmful to those who are the most advantaged. Not even sure why somet

> The author seems to be arguing that a societal focus on helping disadvantaged people is harmful to those who are the most advantaged. Not even sure why something so self-evidently true needs to be argued. The time and resources spent on helping the disadvantaged by the very nature is not spent on the advantaged ones. Which means that they get less than they otherwise could have. Yes. And?

mtVessel 4y ago
In a zero-sum game, sure. But assuming we all live in a society, helping the disadvantaged raises the mean level of, er...advantage for all. The advantaged ones get the further benefit of living in a society that's better off as a whole. A rising tide lifts all boats, as they say. And that's without even getting into the morality of inherent advantage.
- moolcool 4y ago
  I wish I could upvote this a thousand times. The amount of this kind of objectivist discourse I see in tech circles is really disturbing (and telling), considering how much power tech has over society today.
- Joker_vD 4y ago
  > helping the disadvantaged raises the mean level In the future. And even then, not necessarily. So for those advantaged it looks a lot like a forced investment of dubious profitability. Of course they oppose it. > A rising tide lifts all boats It has been shown several times that no, this doesn't necessarily work in economics, it is entirely possible that the rising tide will only lift the boats of the rich.
  - mtVessel 4y ago
    Sure, it's tricky to get it right, and we've already discovered a lot of ways to get it wrong. I still think it's a worthy goal. Directing resources to those already best-placed to use them is tempting, but taking it to its logical conclusion only perpetuates "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer." That, by itself, is a recipe for collapse over the long-term. Again, without even touching on the moral aspects.
- the_omegist 4y ago
  > A rising tide lifts all boats, as they say. ...to the same height. Of course it is disadvantageous for some people to just rise with the tide.
moolcool 4y ago
I would argue that that's not self-evident at all. Example: Do you think that high performing equestrian athletes generally come from wealthy backgrounds because horses are an expensive hobby, or because being born into wealth provides you an innate ability to ride horses?

mtVessel 4y ago

In a zero-sum game, sure. But assuming we all live in a society, helping the disadvantaged raises the mean level of, er...advantage for all. The advantaged ones get the further benefit of living in a society that's better off as a whole. A rising tide lifts all boats, as they say. And that's without even getting into the morality of inherent advantage.

moolcool 4y ago
I wish I could upvote this a thousand times. The amount of this kind of objectivist discourse I see in tech circles is really disturbing (and telling), considering how much power tech has over society today.
Joker_vD 4y ago
> helping the disadvantaged raises the mean level In the future. And even then, not necessarily. So for those advantaged it looks a lot like a forced investment of dubious profitability. Of course they oppose it. > A rising tide lifts all boats It has been shown several times that no, this doesn't necessarily work in economics, it is entirely possible that the rising tide will only lift the boats of the rich.
- mtVessel 4y ago
  Sure, it's tricky to get it right, and we've already discovered a lot of ways to get it wrong. I still think it's a worthy goal. Directing resources to those already best-placed to use them is tempting, but taking it to its logical conclusion only perpetuates "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer." That, by itself, is a recipe for collapse over the long-term. Again, without even touching on the moral aspects.
the_omegist 4y ago
> A rising tide lifts all boats, as they say. ...to the same height. Of course it is disadvantageous for some people to just rise with the tide.

moolcool 4y ago

I would argue that that's not self-evident at all. Example: Do you think that high performing equestrian athletes generally come from wealthy backgrounds because horses are an expensive hobby, or because being born into wealth provides you an innate ability to ride horses?