3 ms·

You might think that, but many/most humans care more about relative differences than absolute. We are social creatures which calibrate our satisfaction to our

You might think that, but many/most humans care more about relative differences than absolute. We are social creatures which calibrate our satisfaction to our circumstances. We can be happy with little, and equally happy with plenty. In the 1930s, Keynes imagined that humans would live lives of leisure as productivity doubled every 20 years. However, the human hunger for material comforts is bottomless, largely because it is not the absolute quantity, but relative amount that matters. For the most part, people have no measure for the material quality of their lives besides comparing it to others in they see. It doesnt matter if you have wealth and comforts beyond your grandparents wildest dreams, if it seems like you are worse off than 90% of the people on the street.

roenxi 2y ago
I agree with pretty much every word. But what those words are identifying is (1) there is an emotional response at play and (2) it is a heuristic for something else that in the modern age is no longer an reasonable heuristic (ie, your instincts don't understand capitalism and the benefits of having vast amounts of capital on hand, they are calibrated for a hunter-gatherer society with maybe some light farming and a few hundred people). The emotional response to inequality has led to some of the biggest government-sponsored mass murders in history [0]. It is perhaps the worst-scaling social response that evolution has cursed us with. Focusing on it is stupid, and we'd all be better off if we focused on absolute living standards instead. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll#Political_leaders_and_regimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anthropogenic_disaster... - Communism was flat out worse than a Mongol invasion. Best case scenario it was the same ballpark. Best attempt ever made at solving inequality though.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I tend to agree with you in principle as an aspirational goal. I'm not sure people are ready from the practical sense. I hope we can navigate through this period of hyperfocus on inequality. In my opinion, attention on the monetary differences exagerates the difference in experience and comfort. That is to say, Wealth inequality is much less relevant than difference in consumption and utilization, to the degree that either matter. Musk might have 1,000,000x the net worth of the median American (200B vs 200K), but he is not eating one million times as many hamburgers, living in a house 1 million times larger, ect. People struggle to understand that "net worth" is simply a name on a paper associated with resources someone else is utilizing. It is not proportional to spending or consumption.

roenxi 2y ago

I agree with pretty much every word. But what those words are identifying is (1) there is an emotional response at play and (2) it is a heuristic for something else that in the modern age is no longer an reasonable heuristic (ie, your instincts don't understand capitalism and the benefits of having vast amounts of capital on hand, they are calibrated for a hunter-gatherer society with maybe some light farming and a few hundred people). The emotional response to inequality has led to some of the biggest government-sponsored mass murders in history [0]. It is perhaps the worst-scaling social response that evolution has cursed us with. Focusing on it is stupid, and we'd all be better off if we focused on absolute living standards instead. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll#Political_leaders_and_regimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anthropogenic_disaster... - Communism was flat out worse than a Mongol invasion. Best case scenario it was the same ballpark. Best attempt ever made at solving inequality though.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
I tend to agree with you in principle as an aspirational goal. I'm not sure people are ready from the practical sense. I hope we can navigate through this period of hyperfocus on inequality. In my opinion, attention on the monetary differences exagerates the difference in experience and comfort. That is to say, Wealth inequality is much less relevant than difference in consumption and utilization, to the degree that either matter. Musk might have 1,000,000x the net worth of the median American (200B vs 200K), but he is not eating one million times as many hamburgers, living in a house 1 million times larger, ect. People struggle to understand that "net worth" is simply a name on a paper associated with resources someone else is utilizing. It is not proportional to spending or consumption.