5 ms·

Affluence and opportunity are currently not evenly distributed amongst the human population (or, if you like, the American population). Certain groups, for hist

by jrmg 3y ago

Affluence and opportunity are currently not evenly distributed amongst the human population (or, if you like, the American population). Certain groups, for historical reasons, have way ‘better’ lives than others. I don’t think this is at all arguable. I would like to live in a world where every child has an equal opportunity to make their own way in life. It doesn’t seem likely that this will (or can) happen without diversity increasing - in geographic as well as socioeconomic terms.

jojobas 3y ago
There's no reason every child has to have equal opportunity. A child to a successful couple must have a better hand at life, otherwise why even be trying. Every parent with half a brain wants their child to have the best opportunity. Every group with half a brain joins forces to give their group's children the best opportunity. Also, modern world-city diversity mostly perpetuates the native group vs the uber driver groups, with some exceptions that are to the detriment of the native group. The most revered/successful societies on earth are the complete opposite of diverse.
- p-e-w 3y ago
  > The most revered/successful societies on earth are the complete opposite of diverse. And "primitive" societies, which through evolution shaped how our social capacities operate, also have essentially zero diversity in the modern sense. They are almost by definition culturally uniform, and their members are often closely interrelated.
  - orbisvicis 3y ago
    Hmm sounds like you think a two step process is ideal: evolve independent societies towards uniform, mix the societies and have them compete, reward successful traits with survival. Then rinse/repeat. Though I think the point of evolution is to avoid uniformity. So perhaps a uniform culture is evolutionarily unfit.
    - jojobas 3y ago
      So far in pure evolutionary terms Sub-Saharan Africa is way ahead of everyone else (also made up of quite uniform groups). What traits thereof do you reckon the rest of the world could pinch?
      - orbisvicis 3y ago
        I've only ever visited Sub-Saharan Africa through the fiction of various countries, though admittedly that's self-selected by whatever imports are financially successful here. The only common themes I can identify are diversity, vivacity, gregariousness and corruption, and those are hardly what I would deem evolutionary traits. But there's always so much diversity - so many disparate languages and ethnic groups - it seems like urban Africa is quite the melting pot. From this brief list of recently evolved traits [1] (which I can't narrow by geographic region), I honestly can't say that any characterize the zeitgeist of a modern improved homo sapiens. What modern biological traits do you think were evolved in Africa? [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_human_evolution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_human_evolution
- orbisvicis 3y ago
  > There's no reason every child has to have equal opportunity. No evolutionary reason, that is. On the other hand, if your descendents are born into such deep disadvantage without hope of redemption, that's another evolutionary black hole. The best hope would be to band together with others of similar circumstances and burn it all down. It's in everyone's best interest for this not to happen. Which leads me to wonder if there is some optimal equilibrium between advantage and disadvantage. And interesting corollary is that society has basically trumped evolution. There are so many competing contradictory forces that only the most basic changes have a hope of surviving. Edit: In hindsight I somewhat disagree with this. Nearly all post-scarcity fictions depict societies in which all are given equal opportunity to realize their personal ambitions. Status and additional allocation of societal-level resources then depends on the outcomes. So for some definition of opportunity I think it is theoretically possible to afford everyone equal opportunity.
  - jojobas 3y ago
    >No evolutionary reason, that is. So, no reason that would stick a couple of generations down. >The best hope would be to band together with others of similar circumstances and burn it all down. They are trying, last seen on 7 Oct 2023. I'd say long odds. >It's in everyone's best interest for this not to happen. Which leads me to wonder if there is some optimal equilibrium between advantage and disadvantage. It's indeed undesirable that the evolutionary black hole is in your own group, therefore various safety nets. That's still just the lower bound, removing the higher bound is Harrison-Bergeron-style societal suicide. >And interesting corollary is that society has basically trumped evolution. There are so many competing contradictory forces that only the most basic changes have a hope of surviving. It's just the first time that we know of when the fittest don't want to breed. There's plenty of arguments out there to the effect that it sucks. >In hindsight I somewhat disagree with this. Nearly all post-scarcity fictions depict societies in which all are given equal opportunity to realize their personal ambitions. Status and additional allocation of societal-level resources then depends on the outcomes. So for some definition of opportunity I think it is theoretically possible to afford everyone equal opportunity. If the parents' success have no bearing on the children the best strategy is to push out as many kids as you can. Something of commons, can't put my finger on it.
- jrmg 3y ago
  There's no reason every child has to have equal opportunity. Wow, that’s bleak. Perhaps it’s true if you’re operating in an amoral framework. The society I was raised in has aphorisms such as “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and “love thy neighbor” as pretty basic tenets (not that they’re often completely lived up to). Pretty much every human society has similar basic rules. I like to think they’re meaningful.
  - jojobas 3y ago
    They are meaningful within a group where you can expect reciprocity. There is no expectation of that in a diverse society. Evolution doesn't know morality, unwarrantedly nice guys finish last.
    - drewdevault 3y ago
      > There is no expectation of [reciprocity] in a diverse society. [citation needed] > Evolution doesn't know morality, unwarrantedly nice guys finish last. Incorrect. Citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperation_(evolution) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperation_(evolution)
      - jojobas 3y ago
        This is about the few cases where it's not unwarranted, i.e. kin selection and related matters.
        drewdevault 3y ago
        It's not, a cursory review of the literature would tell you otherwise. If you want narratives: the introduction of agriculture to human society is a cooperative effort which generalizes labor such that some can provide for the food supply and others can pursue other forms of labor, e.g. intellectual labor. The strictly competitive approach would not favor the establishment of agriculture. Human progress is measured in cooperation; in fact our cooperative nature it is one of the distinguishing traits of humanity and is largely responsible for the establishment of complex society, which was the greatest evolutionary achievement of humanity over the rest of the animal world. Would the device you wrote your comment on have been possible without a nigh-incomprehensible level of human cooperation? If you wish to build a society without cooperation, you are welcome to start your potato farm on a free plot of land out west. The potatoes you grow, by the way, were a product engineered by millennia of cooperative bioengineering on the part of indigenous farmers, but feel free to disregard that in your daydreaming.
- drewdevault 3y ago
  > The most revered/successful societies on earth are the complete opposite of diverse. [citation needed] Which societies? Revered by whom? Successful by what metric?
p-e-w 3y ago
> It doesn’t seem likely that this will (or can) happen without diversity increasing That sounds like a complete non sequitur to me. Can you explain how Triangles will become richer by living near Squares? Or, to turn it around, how Squares will become poorer by living among Triangles? More importantly, how does this claim relate to the example I gave? There are societies that are much more diverse than others (urban vs. rural). If diversity itself is a positive, cities should be, in some obvious sense, better societies than villages. Are they?
- taneq 3y ago
  Wait, I thought the triangles were the wealthy ones? /s (Seriously though, was it implied that there was any material difference between the shapes? I thought they just looked different.)
  - krsrhe 3y ago
    [dead]
- jrmg 3y ago
  Affluence would not equalize _because_ they’re living near each other. Living near each other, though, seems to me to be something that would have to evolve alongside a more equal society. If we go by your assumption that the squares are richer or happier, it seems obvious to me that if they are biased to only want shapes like them to live near them it’s likely they also don’t want them to associate with them at work. Associating together is surely necessary if the triangles are to better their lot in life? I suppose you might argue that if squares and triangles are equal in talents, they could eventually form separate but equal societies, even if they did not want to associate. If they’re starting off from different baselines that seems unlikely to me though. It also seems to me to carry an assumption that not wanting to associate is at best a morally neutral position, which I don’t believe - but I think you may? To your more specific example: there are so many differences between urban and rural societies that I don’t believe that looking as diversity as the attribute that explains their current states is particularly illuminating, especially if you’re trying to decide which one is ‘better’. I do believe, though, that historical bias has a hand in explaining why even diverse societies like cities are still so stratified on racial lines (so, _not_ diverse).
bruce511 3y ago
>> I would like to live in a world where every child has an equal opportunity to make their own way in life. Your wording is very specific, so I'm quoting it here. I see some of the replies missed the subtlety though, so I'd like to emphasise that. You are specifically pointing out the opportunity to "make their own way". You are not implying that every child has the same opportunities. Every child is born different. To different parents. In different communities. In different countries. Those differences are material, and will shape both opportunities and abilities. Genetics means I'll never be a pro athlete. I play sports but no one has (or ever will) give me spotting 'opportunities'. My sporty friend can't draw, and no one us offering her the opportunity of a gallery show. This is probably a good thing as I have no desire to he an athlete and she has no desire to be an artist. That does not negate the opportunity we both have to live in a country, and time, when we can both pursue the life we (realistically) want. 100 years ago, her, not so much. Life is not fair. I was blessed with a good education, a brain to get value from it, and some luck to turn it into a living. In turn we give opportunities to others. Of course all children everywhere do not have the right to choose their own path. Indeed that's a -very- recent development, and is still not universal. External factors still collide all too often. No child wants to be born into poverty, or famine, or war. Or be told their sexuality is offensive. Or be economically excluded because they're not white enough, or too white. Life is not fair. It never will be. And I can't fix most of that. I'm ahead of fair, only because of accidents in genetics, heritage and timing. All I can strive to do is create opportunities for others, and try and play fair, overcoming some of the prejudices that got me here. I am encouraged by the progress of the last 100 years. I hope that progress continues for the next 100.
- drewdevault 3y ago
  > That does not negate the opportunity we both have to live in a country, and time, when we can both pursue the life we (realistically) want. This is a very narrow and simplistic view of opportunity, both in the present and historical contexts. I assume that you (a man) and your friend, a sporty woman, live in a country and time (the US?) where she enjoys some of the wins of early feminist movements in the US, namely the right to vote, to have a bank account without her husband's permission, etc etc. Life is in perfect harmony and institutional bias has been solved, hooray! It's possibly true that women in the US have it better now than they have at any other time in history. However, the opportunities of women are still not equal to that of men. Perhaps your friend has opportunities to pursue passions in women's sports, but what if she wanted to enter the corporate world and work her way up to management, C-level, etc? She will find it more difficult to pursue this opportunity than you would. Even in women's sports she will have a different (and subjectively worse) experience than a man would have in his sporting career: to this day women in sports earn less than men and are often treated not as athletes but as sexual objects that compete for the attention of male viewers -- for example, in 2021 the European Handball Federation imposed a fine on the Norwegian women's team because they wore shorts instead of bikinis during their match, like the men's uniform. > Of course all children everywhere do not have the right to choose their own path. Indeed that's a -very- recent development, and is still not universal. External factors still collide all too often. Children not having the right to choose their own path is not a recent development, it is a fact which has long been historically true and in the context of this history draws a throughline to reduced opportunities to this day. To give one oft-cited example, consider generational wealth disparities between white and black Americans. White families have had generations to accumulate relative wealth, comfort, and security, dating back to the founding of the United States, wealth in many cases built from slave labor, in other cases from discriminatory laws such as the Homestead Act and redlining. This wealth gives them access to opportunities, such as economic access to higher education, but also access to better (more expensive) neighborhoods with better schools and so on. Black families in the US have been historically unable to build generational wealth due specifically to this history of racism, and today a black child has significantly reduced opportunities for these reasons among others (institutional racism in other forms is still a big deal in the US). A black family has never been able to choose the same paths as a white family in the United States, now and throughout the history of the country. > I am encouraged by the progress of the last 100 years. I hope that progress continues for the next 100. We don't really live in a progressive moment, in the US but also generally. Women's rights, LGBTQ rights, and others, are regressing right now.

by jrmg 3y ago

jojobas 3y ago

There's no reason every child has to have equal opportunity. A child to a successful couple must have a better hand at life, otherwise why even be trying. Every parent with half a brain wants their child to have the best opportunity. Every group with half a brain joins forces to give their group's children the best opportunity. Also, modern world-city diversity mostly perpetuates the native group vs the uber driver groups, with some exceptions that are to the detriment of the native group. The most revered/successful societies on earth are the complete opposite of diverse.

p-e-w 3y ago
> The most revered/successful societies on earth are the complete opposite of diverse. And "primitive" societies, which through evolution shaped how our social capacities operate, also have essentially zero diversity in the modern sense. They are almost by definition culturally uniform, and their members are often closely interrelated.
- orbisvicis 3y ago
  Hmm sounds like you think a two step process is ideal: evolve independent societies towards uniform, mix the societies and have them compete, reward successful traits with survival. Then rinse/repeat. Though I think the point of evolution is to avoid uniformity. So perhaps a uniform culture is evolutionarily unfit.
  - jojobas 3y ago
    So far in pure evolutionary terms Sub-Saharan Africa is way ahead of everyone else (also made up of quite uniform groups). What traits thereof do you reckon the rest of the world could pinch?
    - orbisvicis 3y ago
      I've only ever visited Sub-Saharan Africa through the fiction of various countries, though admittedly that's self-selected by whatever imports are financially successful here. The only common themes I can identify are diversity, vivacity, gregariousness and corruption, and those are hardly what I would deem evolutionary traits. But there's always so much diversity - so many disparate languages and ethnic groups - it seems like urban Africa is quite the melting pot. From this brief list of recently evolved traits [1] (which I can't narrow by geographic region), I honestly can't say that any characterize the zeitgeist of a modern improved homo sapiens. What modern biological traits do you think were evolved in Africa? [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_human_evolution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_human_evolution
orbisvicis 3y ago
> There's no reason every child has to have equal opportunity. No evolutionary reason, that is. On the other hand, if your descendents are born into such deep disadvantage without hope of redemption, that's another evolutionary black hole. The best hope would be to band together with others of similar circumstances and burn it all down. It's in everyone's best interest for this not to happen. Which leads me to wonder if there is some optimal equilibrium between advantage and disadvantage. And interesting corollary is that society has basically trumped evolution. There are so many competing contradictory forces that only the most basic changes have a hope of surviving. Edit: In hindsight I somewhat disagree with this. Nearly all post-scarcity fictions depict societies in which all are given equal opportunity to realize their personal ambitions. Status and additional allocation of societal-level resources then depends on the outcomes. So for some definition of opportunity I think it is theoretically possible to afford everyone equal opportunity.
- jojobas 3y ago
  >No evolutionary reason, that is. So, no reason that would stick a couple of generations down. >The best hope would be to band together with others of similar circumstances and burn it all down. They are trying, last seen on 7 Oct 2023. I'd say long odds. >It's in everyone's best interest for this not to happen. Which leads me to wonder if there is some optimal equilibrium between advantage and disadvantage. It's indeed undesirable that the evolutionary black hole is in your own group, therefore various safety nets. That's still just the lower bound, removing the higher bound is Harrison-Bergeron-style societal suicide. >And interesting corollary is that society has basically trumped evolution. There are so many competing contradictory forces that only the most basic changes have a hope of surviving. It's just the first time that we know of when the fittest don't want to breed. There's plenty of arguments out there to the effect that it sucks. >In hindsight I somewhat disagree with this. Nearly all post-scarcity fictions depict societies in which all are given equal opportunity to realize their personal ambitions. Status and additional allocation of societal-level resources then depends on the outcomes. So for some definition of opportunity I think it is theoretically possible to afford everyone equal opportunity. If the parents' success have no bearing on the children the best strategy is to push out as many kids as you can. Something of commons, can't put my finger on it.
jrmg 3y ago
There's no reason every child has to have equal opportunity. Wow, that’s bleak. Perhaps it’s true if you’re operating in an amoral framework. The society I was raised in has aphorisms such as “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and “love thy neighbor” as pretty basic tenets (not that they’re often completely lived up to). Pretty much every human society has similar basic rules. I like to think they’re meaningful.
- jojobas 3y ago
  They are meaningful within a group where you can expect reciprocity. There is no expectation of that in a diverse society. Evolution doesn't know morality, unwarrantedly nice guys finish last.
  - drewdevault 3y ago
    > There is no expectation of [reciprocity] in a diverse society. [citation needed] > Evolution doesn't know morality, unwarrantedly nice guys finish last. Incorrect. Citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperation_(evolution) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperation_(evolution)
    - jojobas 3y ago
      This is about the few cases where it's not unwarranted, i.e. kin selection and related matters.
      - drewdevault 3y ago
        It's not, a cursory review of the literature would tell you otherwise. If you want narratives: the introduction of agriculture to human society is a cooperative effort which generalizes labor such that some can provide for the food supply and others can pursue other forms of labor, e.g. intellectual labor. The strictly competitive approach would not favor the establishment of agriculture. Human progress is measured in cooperation; in fact our cooperative nature it is one of the distinguishing traits of humanity and is largely responsible for the establishment of complex society, which was the greatest evolutionary achievement of humanity over the rest of the animal world. Would the device you wrote your comment on have been possible without a nigh-incomprehensible level of human cooperation? If you wish to build a society without cooperation, you are welcome to start your potato farm on a free plot of land out west. The potatoes you grow, by the way, were a product engineered by millennia of cooperative bioengineering on the part of indigenous farmers, but feel free to disregard that in your daydreaming.
drewdevault 3y ago
> The most revered/successful societies on earth are the complete opposite of diverse. [citation needed] Which societies? Revered by whom? Successful by what metric?

p-e-w 3y ago

> It doesn’t seem likely that this will (or can) happen without diversity increasing That sounds like a complete non sequitur to me. Can you explain how Triangles will become richer by living near Squares? Or, to turn it around, how Squares will become poorer by living among Triangles? More importantly, how does this claim relate to the example I gave? There are societies that are much more diverse than others (urban vs. rural). If diversity itself is a positive, cities should be, in some obvious sense, better societies than villages. Are they?

taneq 3y ago
Wait, I thought the triangles were the wealthy ones? /s (Seriously though, was it implied that there was any material difference between the shapes? I thought they just looked different.)
- krsrhe 3y ago
  [dead]
jrmg 3y ago
Affluence would not equalize _because_ they’re living near each other. Living near each other, though, seems to me to be something that would have to evolve alongside a more equal society. If we go by your assumption that the squares are richer or happier, it seems obvious to me that if they are biased to only want shapes like them to live near them it’s likely they also don’t want them to associate with them at work. Associating together is surely necessary if the triangles are to better their lot in life? I suppose you might argue that if squares and triangles are equal in talents, they could eventually form separate but equal societies, even if they did not want to associate. If they’re starting off from different baselines that seems unlikely to me though. It also seems to me to carry an assumption that not wanting to associate is at best a morally neutral position, which I don’t believe - but I think you may? To your more specific example: there are so many differences between urban and rural societies that I don’t believe that looking as diversity as the attribute that explains their current states is particularly illuminating, especially if you’re trying to decide which one is ‘better’. I do believe, though, that historical bias has a hand in explaining why even diverse societies like cities are still so stratified on racial lines (so, _not_ diverse).

bruce511 3y ago

>> I would like to live in a world where every child has an equal opportunity to make their own way in life. Your wording is very specific, so I'm quoting it here. I see some of the replies missed the subtlety though, so I'd like to emphasise that. You are specifically pointing out the opportunity to "make their own way". You are not implying that every child has the same opportunities. Every child is born different. To different parents. In different communities. In different countries. Those differences are material, and will shape both opportunities and abilities. Genetics means I'll never be a pro athlete. I play sports but no one has (or ever will) give me spotting 'opportunities'. My sporty friend can't draw, and no one us offering her the opportunity of a gallery show. This is probably a good thing as I have no desire to he an athlete and she has no desire to be an artist. That does not negate the opportunity we both have to live in a country, and time, when we can both pursue the life we (realistically) want. 100 years ago, her, not so much. Life is not fair. I was blessed with a good education, a brain to get value from it, and some luck to turn it into a living. In turn we give opportunities to others. Of course all children everywhere do not have the right to choose their own path. Indeed that's a -very- recent development, and is still not universal. External factors still collide all too often. No child wants to be born into poverty, or famine, or war. Or be told their sexuality is offensive. Or be economically excluded because they're not white enough, or too white. Life is not fair. It never will be. And I can't fix most of that. I'm ahead of fair, only because of accidents in genetics, heritage and timing. All I can strive to do is create opportunities for others, and try and play fair, overcoming some of the prejudices that got me here. I am encouraged by the progress of the last 100 years. I hope that progress continues for the next 100.

drewdevault 3y ago
> That does not negate the opportunity we both have to live in a country, and time, when we can both pursue the life we (realistically) want. This is a very narrow and simplistic view of opportunity, both in the present and historical contexts. I assume that you (a man) and your friend, a sporty woman, live in a country and time (the US?) where she enjoys some of the wins of early feminist movements in the US, namely the right to vote, to have a bank account without her husband's permission, etc etc. Life is in perfect harmony and institutional bias has been solved, hooray! It's possibly true that women in the US have it better now than they have at any other time in history. However, the opportunities of women are still not equal to that of men. Perhaps your friend has opportunities to pursue passions in women's sports, but what if she wanted to enter the corporate world and work her way up to management, C-level, etc? She will find it more difficult to pursue this opportunity than you would. Even in women's sports she will have a different (and subjectively worse) experience than a man would have in his sporting career: to this day women in sports earn less than men and are often treated not as athletes but as sexual objects that compete for the attention of male viewers -- for example, in 2021 the European Handball Federation imposed a fine on the Norwegian women's team because they wore shorts instead of bikinis during their match, like the men's uniform. > Of course all children everywhere do not have the right to choose their own path. Indeed that's a -very- recent development, and is still not universal. External factors still collide all too often. Children not having the right to choose their own path is not a recent development, it is a fact which has long been historically true and in the context of this history draws a throughline to reduced opportunities to this day. To give one oft-cited example, consider generational wealth disparities between white and black Americans. White families have had generations to accumulate relative wealth, comfort, and security, dating back to the founding of the United States, wealth in many cases built from slave labor, in other cases from discriminatory laws such as the Homestead Act and redlining. This wealth gives them access to opportunities, such as economic access to higher education, but also access to better (more expensive) neighborhoods with better schools and so on. Black families in the US have been historically unable to build generational wealth due specifically to this history of racism, and today a black child has significantly reduced opportunities for these reasons among others (institutional racism in other forms is still a big deal in the US). A black family has never been able to choose the same paths as a white family in the United States, now and throughout the history of the country. > I am encouraged by the progress of the last 100 years. I hope that progress continues for the next 100. We don't really live in a progressive moment, in the US but also generally. Women's rights, LGBTQ rights, and others, are regressing right now.