4 ms·

Society is a complex mix of different genetic pools that mix like water and oil. Small pools end up with all the money because they operate on an abstraction la

Society is a complex mix of different genetic pools that mix like water and oil. Small pools end up with all the money because they operate on an abstraction layer higher than the rest. Life for them is like walking around picking up 100 dollar bills. The rest of us scrounge for nickels.

klipklop 4y ago
This didn't happen as part of some organic process. They use force to keep the system rigged in their favor.
- fdgsdfogijq 4y ago
  It absolutely has. People like mark zuckerberg and the google founders became wildly wealthy from raw intellect and business cunning. Over long time spans, these types of people will collect in the upper crust of society. Everyone just wants to believe the game is rigged, on a long enough time frame genetic winners are at the top
  - specialist 4y ago
    "Behind every great fortune lies a great crime." -- Honoré de Balzac
    - Pr0ject217 4y ago
      A nihilist's viewpoint. It's false if one person on the planet made a fortune honestly and ethically. A weak argument and unhelpful perspective.
      - NewJazz 4y ago
        A nihilist's viewpoint What, would you prefer that of a national socialist? It's false if one person on the planet made a fortune honestly and ethically Yeah, that is the whole point of the statement. No fortune is honest or ethical. The concepts are incompatible. A weak argument and unhelpful perspective It is only unhelpful if you want to perpetuate the crime of wealth hoarding.
        Pr0ject217 4y ago
        > No fortune is honest or ethical. The concepts are incompatible. How so? Scenario: Assume that someone was born intelligent, and chose to sacrifice their time and money to become a surgeon, and then earned a lot of money. They chose to invest that money to generate more money. It isn't unethical because they didn't break a law. It isn't dishonest because they worked for it. What do you see that I don't see?
        CameronNemo 4y ago
        It isn't unethical because they didn't break a law Bahahahahahaha
      - specialist 4y ago
        Perhaps you've confused me with someone else? "Political nihilism is the position holding no political goals whatsoever, except for the complete destruction of all existing political institutions—along with the principles, values, and social institutions that uphold them.[105] Though often related to anarchism, it may differ in that it presents no method of social organisation after a negation of the current political structure has taken place. An analysis of political nihilism is further presented by Leo Strauss."
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > Everyone just wants to believe the game is rigged, on a long enough time frame genetic winners are at the top Is that a good game? Why not just appoint the natural-born redheads as kings? Seriously, if I'm born into a "game" where I'm predestined to lose by my birth status, then I'd rather not play that game at all, thank you very much. However, you have to wonder about the mentality of not seeking wealth as your primary goal in life. The smartest are not necessarily the wealthiest. Was Einstein the richest person in the world? No. He chose to pursue science, not business. I feel that society should actually deter people who are obsessed with wealth-seeking over all other values. That's unhealthy personally and socially. Money is not the true measure of a man.
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      The game will always be imbalanced. People will seek to find a way to give their offspring an advantage. I argue that this is good for society overall. It’s far better for my wife and I to do our best to raise successful children (for whatever definitions of success we choose) than to leave them to fend for themselves. Inherent in parents trying to do their best with/for their kids is that some parents will do that more effectively than others. Other parents will simply be not good parents. Being born to not good parents will suck for sure.
      - lapcat 4y ago
        > It’s far better for my wife and I to do our best to raise successful children (for whatever definitions of success we choose) than to leave them to fend for themselves. That's a bit questionable, because overbearing or helicopter parents can do a lot of damage to a kid. ;-) Anyway, it seems like a bit of a false dichotomy too, because Plato argued in the Republic that children should be raised communally rather than by individual parents.
        sokoloff 4y ago
        Parents who subscribe to Plato’s view can choose that. There are many roads to Rome/Athens. I’m not here to dictate choices that are other parents’ to make.
  - galoisscobi 4y ago
    > mark zuckerberg and the google founders became wildly wealthy from raw intellect and business cunning Mark Zuckerberg went to Exeter before going to Harvard. Raw intellect alone doesn't open doors to schools like Exeter. It would also be fair to say that attending Exeter also increased Zuckerberg's probability to attend Harvard, which increased his probability to come across groundbreaking ideas that he could then steal.
  - klipklop 4y ago
    Sorry no. There are people smarter and more cunning than those three that had worse outcomes. Most generational wealth that is not protected by a standing army rarely lasts a few generations. A lot of lasting generation wealth is from cronyism as well. For example many of the large land owners (even to this day) in England descended from folks that were involved in the Norman invasion of England. Some of those didn't directly use their 'superior genes' to conquer the land, they just happened to be buddies with William I. There was a lot of propping up of google/fb in their early days by other wealthy investors and in the case of Google, the US government. Feel free to continue to worship your tech gods for their superior genetics though. Circumstance, luck and timing has a lot to do with the current set of billionaires we have in tech. They rode a wave of technological innovation that they themselves didn't even invent. Well other than maybe Pagerank. That was pretty awesome. Most of the ideas were lifted from the "greatest hits" of computer science though. In the end there has to be a 'winner.' It could have easily been a different group of people if public preference was ever so slightly different. I could be easily typing this message on a AOL browser right now if the outcome was slightly different. This purely "genetic winner" viewpoint is super narrow viewpoint that if one is not careful can quickly get disgusting. Genes that are advantageous in one situation can be poor in another. Barring outliers, there is sometimes no "best" when talking about genetics/expression of genes. Pugs do much better around humans than wolves. Who has the better genetics?
- thunky 4y ago
  It's much more boring than that: generational wealth. If you're lucky enough to have parents and ancestors that put their money to work compounding over a long time period, it would be growing more each year than the rest of us can hope to earn in our lifetimes. No evil plan needed. Just time.
  - est31 4y ago
    A large percentage of millionaires are first generation. Also, even if they manage to get rich, often the wealth is gone again by 1-2 generations. But yes, families where wealth has been exant and growing for hundreds of years do exist. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/5-huge-lies-generational-wealth-181719865.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/5-huge-lies-generational-weal...
rnk 4y ago
genetics has nothing to do with it, as in some benefit of the actual genes you have. You could be lucky to be born to some billionaire. You are actually fortunate to be born to a rich person, or even "just" an educated person in a western country, who can give you all the opportunities. As a software engineer, I'm doing alright. I'm not jealous of the idiots of the world who are idiotic and think they are some kind of genius, like a Trump or a Kushner.
- yrgulation 4y ago
  [dead]
- reducesuffering 4y ago
  > genetics has nothing to do with it Have you ever seen how overrepresented children of professors are in cognitive fields and exceptional attainment? It's a lot higher than rich parents.
  - hotpotamus 4y ago
    Professoring can pay fairly well in the right field (and surprisingly low in the wrong one), but in general I haven't known of many I'd call rich.
  - yrgulation 4y ago
    [dead]
  - rnk 4y ago
    I'd say that goes back to improved educational opportunities for wealthy and educated parents who know how to help you succeed. A relative has a child with learning disabilities, guess what they can afford to get them specialized instruction and aid to counter that extra challenge, and that will make that person vastly more likely to succeed.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- aiqq 4y ago
lapcat 4y ago
> Life for them is like walking around picking up 100 dollar bills. And then there are those who make so much money that it's not even worth their time or effort to bend over and pick up a hundred dollar bill.
hotpotamus 4y ago
Is this to say that the rich are several orders of magnitude smarter? It would seem your statement is a bit abstract for my poor ability to comprehend.

klipklop 4y ago

This didn't happen as part of some organic process. They use force to keep the system rigged in their favor.

fdgsdfogijq 4y ago
It absolutely has. People like mark zuckerberg and the google founders became wildly wealthy from raw intellect and business cunning. Over long time spans, these types of people will collect in the upper crust of society. Everyone just wants to believe the game is rigged, on a long enough time frame genetic winners are at the top
- specialist 4y ago
  "Behind every great fortune lies a great crime." -- Honoré de Balzac
  - Pr0ject217 4y ago
    A nihilist's viewpoint. It's false if one person on the planet made a fortune honestly and ethically. A weak argument and unhelpful perspective.
    - NewJazz 4y ago
      A nihilist's viewpoint What, would you prefer that of a national socialist? It's false if one person on the planet made a fortune honestly and ethically Yeah, that is the whole point of the statement. No fortune is honest or ethical. The concepts are incompatible. A weak argument and unhelpful perspective It is only unhelpful if you want to perpetuate the crime of wealth hoarding.
      - Pr0ject217 4y ago
        > No fortune is honest or ethical. The concepts are incompatible. How so? Scenario: Assume that someone was born intelligent, and chose to sacrifice their time and money to become a surgeon, and then earned a lot of money. They chose to invest that money to generate more money. It isn't unethical because they didn't break a law. It isn't dishonest because they worked for it. What do you see that I don't see?
        CameronNemo 4y ago
        It isn't unethical because they didn't break a law Bahahahahahaha
    - specialist 4y ago
      Perhaps you've confused me with someone else? "Political nihilism is the position holding no political goals whatsoever, except for the complete destruction of all existing political institutions—along with the principles, values, and social institutions that uphold them.[105] Though often related to anarchism, it may differ in that it presents no method of social organisation after a negation of the current political structure has taken place. An analysis of political nihilism is further presented by Leo Strauss."
- lapcat 4y ago
  > Everyone just wants to believe the game is rigged, on a long enough time frame genetic winners are at the top Is that a good game? Why not just appoint the natural-born redheads as kings? Seriously, if I'm born into a "game" where I'm predestined to lose by my birth status, then I'd rather not play that game at all, thank you very much. However, you have to wonder about the mentality of not seeking wealth as your primary goal in life. The smartest are not necessarily the wealthiest. Was Einstein the richest person in the world? No. He chose to pursue science, not business. I feel that society should actually deter people who are obsessed with wealth-seeking over all other values. That's unhealthy personally and socially. Money is not the true measure of a man.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    The game will always be imbalanced. People will seek to find a way to give their offspring an advantage. I argue that this is good for society overall. It’s far better for my wife and I to do our best to raise successful children (for whatever definitions of success we choose) than to leave them to fend for themselves. Inherent in parents trying to do their best with/for their kids is that some parents will do that more effectively than others. Other parents will simply be not good parents. Being born to not good parents will suck for sure.
    - lapcat 4y ago
      > It’s far better for my wife and I to do our best to raise successful children (for whatever definitions of success we choose) than to leave them to fend for themselves. That's a bit questionable, because overbearing or helicopter parents can do a lot of damage to a kid. ;-) Anyway, it seems like a bit of a false dichotomy too, because Plato argued in the Republic that children should be raised communally rather than by individual parents.
      - sokoloff 4y ago
        Parents who subscribe to Plato’s view can choose that. There are many roads to Rome/Athens. I’m not here to dictate choices that are other parents’ to make.
- galoisscobi 4y ago
  > mark zuckerberg and the google founders became wildly wealthy from raw intellect and business cunning Mark Zuckerberg went to Exeter before going to Harvard. Raw intellect alone doesn't open doors to schools like Exeter. It would also be fair to say that attending Exeter also increased Zuckerberg's probability to attend Harvard, which increased his probability to come across groundbreaking ideas that he could then steal.
- klipklop 4y ago
  Sorry no. There are people smarter and more cunning than those three that had worse outcomes. Most generational wealth that is not protected by a standing army rarely lasts a few generations. A lot of lasting generation wealth is from cronyism as well. For example many of the large land owners (even to this day) in England descended from folks that were involved in the Norman invasion of England. Some of those didn't directly use their 'superior genes' to conquer the land, they just happened to be buddies with William I. There was a lot of propping up of google/fb in their early days by other wealthy investors and in the case of Google, the US government. Feel free to continue to worship your tech gods for their superior genetics though. Circumstance, luck and timing has a lot to do with the current set of billionaires we have in tech. They rode a wave of technological innovation that they themselves didn't even invent. Well other than maybe Pagerank. That was pretty awesome. Most of the ideas were lifted from the "greatest hits" of computer science though. In the end there has to be a 'winner.' It could have easily been a different group of people if public preference was ever so slightly different. I could be easily typing this message on a AOL browser right now if the outcome was slightly different. This purely "genetic winner" viewpoint is super narrow viewpoint that if one is not careful can quickly get disgusting. Genes that are advantageous in one situation can be poor in another. Barring outliers, there is sometimes no "best" when talking about genetics/expression of genes. Pugs do much better around humans than wolves. Who has the better genetics?
thunky 4y ago
It's much more boring than that: generational wealth. If you're lucky enough to have parents and ancestors that put their money to work compounding over a long time period, it would be growing more each year than the rest of us can hope to earn in our lifetimes. No evil plan needed. Just time.
- est31 4y ago
  A large percentage of millionaires are first generation. Also, even if they manage to get rich, often the wealth is gone again by 1-2 generations. But yes, families where wealth has been exant and growing for hundreds of years do exist. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/5-huge-lies-generational-wealth-181719865.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/5-huge-lies-generational-weal...

rnk 4y ago

genetics has nothing to do with it, as in some benefit of the actual genes you have. You could be lucky to be born to some billionaire. You are actually fortunate to be born to a rich person, or even "just" an educated person in a western country, who can give you all the opportunities. As a software engineer, I'm doing alright. I'm not jealous of the idiots of the world who are idiotic and think they are some kind of genius, like a Trump or a Kushner.

yrgulation 4y ago
[dead]
reducesuffering 4y ago
> genetics has nothing to do with it Have you ever seen how overrepresented children of professors are in cognitive fields and exceptional attainment? It's a lot higher than rich parents.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  Professoring can pay fairly well in the right field (and surprisingly low in the wrong one), but in general I haven't known of many I'd call rich.
- yrgulation 4y ago
  [dead]
- rnk 4y ago
  I'd say that goes back to improved educational opportunities for wealthy and educated parents who know how to help you succeed. A relative has a child with learning disabilities, guess what they can afford to get them specialized instruction and aid to counter that extra challenge, and that will make that person vastly more likely to succeed.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
aiqq 4y ago

lapcat 4y ago

> Life for them is like walking around picking up 100 dollar bills. And then there are those who make so much money that it's not even worth their time or effort to bend over and pick up a hundred dollar bill.

hotpotamus 4y ago

Is this to say that the rich are several orders of magnitude smarter? It would seem your statement is a bit abstract for my poor ability to comprehend.