4 ms·

I agree that oligarchs are a problem but some of the other assumptions are wrong. First, we are already in a very unequal world. Putting aside the oligarchs an

by ilaksh 3y ago

I agree that oligarchs are a problem but some of the other assumptions are wrong. First, we are already in a very unequal world. Putting aside the oligarchs and monopolies which again are very problematic, advanced technologies have the potential to lessen inequality and raise everyone's standard of living. I view the inequality and symptoms of that like oligarchs as a failure of societal organization and again, properly integrating high technology into society is probably the best tool we have for fighting that. That doesn't mean that I agree with the classical technocratic vision which is quite centralized and dated. These things fundamentally come down to a core difference in worldview. I see technology as helping to progress beyond the failures of human nature. Whereas the opposite view feels the status quo is not so bad, and just blames technology for making things worse.

edgyquant 3y ago
Technology is an amplifier, it doesn’t fix human nature.
digging 3y ago
As you say, technology has the potential to go either way. What we see over and over is that technology is used to deepen inequality. Because those with control of the most powerful technologies benefit most from inequality. The rich have incentive to take all they can get and shape society to benefit them more, so we should consider the default reaction to new technology to be deeper inequality. The answer is safeguards. There's no room for hope. We must build a system (of laws, most likely) that promotes equality and is robust against abuse, or we will continue to slide deeper into inequality.
- foobarian 3y ago
  Why is it so important to reduce inequality if even the worse off are better off than any other time in history? Why not revert back to pre-agricultural hunter/gatherer societies with (presumably) maximized equality?
  - unsui 3y ago
    > Why is it so important to reduce inequality Generally said by those who benefit from said inequality.
    - foobarian 3y ago
      I'll bet you most who complain about inequality are just salty they are not the ones with the $100M yacht. And would happily claw their way to the top if given the opportunity e.g. a bloody revolution. Me, I like my $200 big screen TV, my comfy trailer, cheap gas and electricity and prefer to enjoy them in peace. Now those who really have a case against inequality probably don't even have a voice and live invisibly in third world countries, providing the above amenities the Western "poor" take advantage of.
      - ddq 3y ago
        Wow, that is incredibly dismissive of perspectives you don't understand. This type of ignorance and close-mindedness is disappointing, yet unsurprising. Sad that there people like this in the world.
      - troyvit 3y ago
        That's an easy bet to make from your comfy trailer with cheap gas, electricity, and big screen TV. As you say the majority of people in the world don't have reliable access to those luxuries and would want nothing more but to claw their way up to just that. The voices you hear probably aren't the ones who want super-yachts. Instead they see those with a real case and are lending their voices to them.
  - science4sail 3y ago
    Wealth inequality reduces social cohesion and increases unrest. You can preach all you want about how envy is a sin, but banning envy would probably be just as successful as banning premarital sex.
  - slg 3y ago
    "You shouldn't be upset with the unfair treatment of someone if anyone in human history has had it worse than them" is not a particularly convincing moral argument. I believe income inequality is bad because many people don't have enough to live comfortably and my parents taught me sharing is important. We can get into all sorts of economic arguments, but at its heart it is really as simple as that.
- fallingknife 3y ago
  What do I care about inequality? If someone invents some new tech and makes a trillion dollars how am I worse off?
  - fnordsensei 3y ago
    In your hypothetical scenario where a trillion dollars spring into being without any other consequences: you’re not. If you want to sprinkle some consequences into the scenario, how about you lose your job, and the supply of positions for said job decreases to a third.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - orwin 3y ago
    Because children can't eat correct, even in the western countries (and while US and UK are the worst offenders, this isn't limited to them). That's also why I'm quite cross with the 'you should have children' crowd. No. Please don't. I've heard of a 14 yo girl prostitute herself in the toilets to guys her age (from her class even). A quick BJ for two meals. And I've seen her cry after that. Imagine the reputation she had in her highschool (this was circa 2010, so social networks already existed but no smartphone in the area). If we cannot take care of our children half-decently, everybody, even those with atrophic empathy, should care. The fact that we do not is a stain on humanity.
  - science4sail 3y ago
    The newly-minted trillionaire could use their wealth to monopolize positional goods: social status, housing, politicians' attention. This could worsen your standard of living if you compete with them for the same positional goods.
    - fallingknife 3y ago
      You define "standard of living" positionally, which is not how it is usually defined, but does make a lot of sense given the prevalence of envy. By that definition, yes, inequality does absolutely worsen standard of living. Points for being honest about your motivations, unlike every other person who rails against inequality.
rapnie 3y ago
> properly integrating high technology into society High tech is major expensive. Who owns it at the start? Won't this be like a trickle-down effect before it becomes broadly available? And when that happens isn't the cutting edge already far ahead and with the increasing wealth inequality even more in the hands of the few?

by ilaksh 3y ago

edgyquant 3y ago

Technology is an amplifier, it doesn’t fix human nature.

digging 3y ago

As you say, technology has the potential to go either way. What we see over and over is that technology is used to deepen inequality. Because those with control of the most powerful technologies benefit most from inequality. The rich have incentive to take all they can get and shape society to benefit them more, so we should consider the default reaction to new technology to be deeper inequality. The answer is safeguards. There's no room for hope. We must build a system (of laws, most likely) that promotes equality and is robust against abuse, or we will continue to slide deeper into inequality.

foobarian 3y ago
Why is it so important to reduce inequality if even the worse off are better off than any other time in history? Why not revert back to pre-agricultural hunter/gatherer societies with (presumably) maximized equality?
- unsui 3y ago
  > Why is it so important to reduce inequality Generally said by those who benefit from said inequality.
  - foobarian 3y ago
    I'll bet you most who complain about inequality are just salty they are not the ones with the $100M yacht. And would happily claw their way to the top if given the opportunity e.g. a bloody revolution. Me, I like my $200 big screen TV, my comfy trailer, cheap gas and electricity and prefer to enjoy them in peace. Now those who really have a case against inequality probably don't even have a voice and live invisibly in third world countries, providing the above amenities the Western "poor" take advantage of.
    - ddq 3y ago
      Wow, that is incredibly dismissive of perspectives you don't understand. This type of ignorance and close-mindedness is disappointing, yet unsurprising. Sad that there people like this in the world.
    - troyvit 3y ago
      That's an easy bet to make from your comfy trailer with cheap gas, electricity, and big screen TV. As you say the majority of people in the world don't have reliable access to those luxuries and would want nothing more but to claw their way up to just that. The voices you hear probably aren't the ones who want super-yachts. Instead they see those with a real case and are lending their voices to them.
- science4sail 3y ago
  Wealth inequality reduces social cohesion and increases unrest. You can preach all you want about how envy is a sin, but banning envy would probably be just as successful as banning premarital sex.
- slg 3y ago
  "You shouldn't be upset with the unfair treatment of someone if anyone in human history has had it worse than them" is not a particularly convincing moral argument. I believe income inequality is bad because many people don't have enough to live comfortably and my parents taught me sharing is important. We can get into all sorts of economic arguments, but at its heart it is really as simple as that.
fallingknife 3y ago
What do I care about inequality? If someone invents some new tech and makes a trillion dollars how am I worse off?
- fnordsensei 3y ago
  In your hypothetical scenario where a trillion dollars spring into being without any other consequences: you’re not. If you want to sprinkle some consequences into the scenario, how about you lose your job, and the supply of positions for said job decreases to a third.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- orwin 3y ago
  Because children can't eat correct, even in the western countries (and while US and UK are the worst offenders, this isn't limited to them). That's also why I'm quite cross with the 'you should have children' crowd. No. Please don't. I've heard of a 14 yo girl prostitute herself in the toilets to guys her age (from her class even). A quick BJ for two meals. And I've seen her cry after that. Imagine the reputation she had in her highschool (this was circa 2010, so social networks already existed but no smartphone in the area). If we cannot take care of our children half-decently, everybody, even those with atrophic empathy, should care. The fact that we do not is a stain on humanity.
- science4sail 3y ago
  The newly-minted trillionaire could use their wealth to monopolize positional goods: social status, housing, politicians' attention. This could worsen your standard of living if you compete with them for the same positional goods.
  - fallingknife 3y ago
    You define "standard of living" positionally, which is not how it is usually defined, but does make a lot of sense given the prevalence of envy. By that definition, yes, inequality does absolutely worsen standard of living. Points for being honest about your motivations, unlike every other person who rails against inequality.

rapnie 3y ago

> properly integrating high technology into society High tech is major expensive. Who owns it at the start? Won't this be like a trickle-down effect before it becomes broadly available? And when that happens isn't the cutting edge already far ahead and with the increasing wealth inequality even more in the hands of the few?