4 ms·
The problem with your suggestion is that it implicitly suggests death for loser commoners, of which there will always statistically be more. The loser commoners
by lusus_naturae 3y ago
The problem with your suggestion is that it implicitly suggests death for loser commoners, of which there will always statistically be more. The loser commoners need some way to ensure their basic needs are met, or they find a way to do that anyways. For example, see all the "eat the rich" rhetoric. I don't think there's anything wrong with suggesting that people should try to make the most of what they have, but suggesting that you need math skills or a Stanford degree to be guaranteed basic human needs or rights is a shortsighted perspective that doesn't account for the variety of human experience, eventually leading to surmounting misery for others. For anyone with a consequentialist pov, consider this: increasing societal misery only leads to broken communal structures, and failures in social contracts (implicit or otherwise). Simply, more poor and sad people = more chances of societal unrest = less safe society for everyone (including elites).
- drivebyhooting 3y agoGreat. So is your suggestion that high school students should focus on politics and building an equitable society instead of optimizing for themselves? That would be very altruistic indeed.
- lusus_naturae 3y agoI guess we’ve come far enough from being hunter-gatherers that the value of acts that ensure group cohesion and community wellbeing seem like some sort of extra effort or altruism, instead of a fundamental aspect of optimizing survival as a whole. That said, I was talking about governance and policies, not what career choices someone should or could make.
- carabiner 3y agoIn the US at least, you're most likely to effect systemic change by having a lot of money.
- lusus_naturae 3y agoNot unique to the U.S., and also is called corruption or cronyism in general terms when money mostly enables one to “effect systemic change”. The U.S. civil rights protests stand in stark contrast as one example, at least.
- xboxnolifes 3y agoPeople only call it corruption when they disagree with it. When they agree with using money to solve problems it's called charity.
- lusus_naturae 3y agoHmm, I am not sure. If you look at different examples of corruption vs. charity, a defining characteristic of corruption (I think) is that it benefits a small and select group of organizations or people who would have been find even if they had not received that benefit. OTOH charity is usually beneficiary-blind, absent any criteria for being a recipient, e.g. being afflicted with a disease, or coming from economically disadvantaged backgrounds etc. Secondly, organizations or people who receive charity do not experience an increase in power or influence upon the receipt of a benefit, which is usually the case in receiving a benefit under corrupt circumstances. But it really all depends, and there are of course overlapping scenarios. It just means that auditory processes are required, not that one should assume "charity for causes I don't like" = corruption.