7 ms·

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

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.
  - foobarian 3y ago
    > I believe income inequality is bad because many people don't have enough to live comfortably and my parents taught me sharing is important. The "living comfortably" metric is useful. It rules out the "hunter gatherer" argument where we're back in stone age, presumably not comfortable but as equal as can be. If everyone had enough to live comfortably but inequality increased, would that be OK?
    - jfengel 3y ago
      Pretty much, yeah, with the priviso that "comfortable" is relative to the times. These days, "comfortable" would include a place to live that is clean and fairly safe, food that is more than just enough calories, ordinary medical care, and access to the Internet. This is a lot more than a century ago, but they're widespread and cheap enough that we can easily afford to provide it for every (Western) citizen. It's costly, but we could provide it, and the super-wealthy could still be incredibly wealthy. Shy of that, there's going to be a lot of tension. I can't predict what that will look like in the future, and I can't say what to do about the non-Western majority of the world who can't afford to do this. But at least for the here-and-near-future-now, it's something that would allow people to live without desperation. We now have so much unnecessary desperation, and that's what I find offensive. We'll still be faced with problems of meaning, but at least we're avoiding the hypocrisy of wealthy people saying, "Go find your meaning by working for me, while I take the vast majority of the profits just because I'm already rich."
    - slg 3y ago
      "Living comfortably" is obviously a subjective metric, but that is the general goal. Most people don't want equality of outcome in which everyone's life is exactly the same. Some range of wealth inequality is permissible in many people's minds, including mine. I think the problem with your hypothetical is that increasing wealth inequality generally comes at the expense of someone. It isn't simply that the billionaires' wealth grows faster than the wealth of the poorest. Often the billionaire is a billionaire because they have taken advantage of an unequal system which has real victims. Wealth inequality also leads to other issues of fairness that go beyond living conditions. For example, impact on the environment is one. That $100m yacht you mention will have a huge carbon cost. There is also a concern of political power in a democracy with free speech. If a billionaire can afford to plaster their political message on every TV network, radio station, and social media site, will that give them an outsized role in a democracy that is meant to grant political equality to all? This unequal distribution of political power can easily create a feedback loop that allows these billionaires to use their wealth to capture more wealth and political power.
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.

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.
- foobarian 3y ago
  > I believe income inequality is bad because many people don't have enough to live comfortably and my parents taught me sharing is important. The "living comfortably" metric is useful. It rules out the "hunter gatherer" argument where we're back in stone age, presumably not comfortable but as equal as can be. If everyone had enough to live comfortably but inequality increased, would that be OK?
  - jfengel 3y ago
    Pretty much, yeah, with the priviso that "comfortable" is relative to the times. These days, "comfortable" would include a place to live that is clean and fairly safe, food that is more than just enough calories, ordinary medical care, and access to the Internet. This is a lot more than a century ago, but they're widespread and cheap enough that we can easily afford to provide it for every (Western) citizen. It's costly, but we could provide it, and the super-wealthy could still be incredibly wealthy. Shy of that, there's going to be a lot of tension. I can't predict what that will look like in the future, and I can't say what to do about the non-Western majority of the world who can't afford to do this. But at least for the here-and-near-future-now, it's something that would allow people to live without desperation. We now have so much unnecessary desperation, and that's what I find offensive. We'll still be faced with problems of meaning, but at least we're avoiding the hypocrisy of wealthy people saying, "Go find your meaning by working for me, while I take the vast majority of the profits just because I'm already rich."
  - slg 3y ago
    "Living comfortably" is obviously a subjective metric, but that is the general goal. Most people don't want equality of outcome in which everyone's life is exactly the same. Some range of wealth inequality is permissible in many people's minds, including mine. I think the problem with your hypothetical is that increasing wealth inequality generally comes at the expense of someone. It isn't simply that the billionaires' wealth grows faster than the wealth of the poorest. Often the billionaire is a billionaire because they have taken advantage of an unequal system which has real victims. Wealth inequality also leads to other issues of fairness that go beyond living conditions. For example, impact on the environment is one. That $100m yacht you mention will have a huge carbon cost. There is also a concern of political power in a democracy with free speech. If a billionaire can afford to plaster their political message on every TV network, radio station, and social media site, will that give them an outsized role in a democracy that is meant to grant political equality to all? This unequal distribution of political power can easily create a feedback loop that allows these billionaires to use their wealth to capture more wealth and political power.

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.