3 ms·

The ruling class is a function of their social class. It is the immortality of the social class that is the problem. If the children inherit their parents' wea

by kiba 2y ago

The ruling class is a function of their social class. It is the immortality of the social class that is the problem. If the children inherit their parents' wealth, it is likely that the ruling class will persists. Also, stability and stagnation of social system be factored in. More dynamic society can outcompete and ultimately destabilize stagnant and morbid societies. North Korea and South Korea came to mind. The dictator of North Korea is younger than South Korea's president who was born in the 1960 as opposed to the dictator being born in 1982. The dictator continues his family's legacy of ruling over a stagnant and increasingly irrelevant country while South Korea continues to be a vibrant and dynamic society. South Korea definitely has problem, notably a looming demographic crisis, but it is not an inevitability in how they choose to deal with their problem.

pclmulqdq 2y ago
When successful, wealthy people die, they usually pass that wealth to more than one person. Those people in turn pass their more modest wealth down to more than one person. So it goes exponentially until the fortune dissipates. With the wealth goes the influence and power. Additionally, most rich people will now set up foundations that get the majority of their wealth, so the kids lose any claim to that pool of money. The timescale on which this happens today is surprisingly rapid compared to the lifespans that many immortality-lovers want. For example, the infamous Rothschild family is collectively worth only $1 billion now. That is the whole family, not any one individual. A modern example of the beginning of this process is the Walton family. Going back further, the descendants of many 1600s English barons have middle-class lives, but one person from each family retains the fancy title. The only societies that keep concentration of wealth are ones with primogeniture and other unequal distributions of wealth to children.

by kiba 2y ago

pclmulqdq 2y ago

When successful, wealthy people die, they usually pass that wealth to more than one person. Those people in turn pass their more modest wealth down to more than one person. So it goes exponentially until the fortune dissipates. With the wealth goes the influence and power. Additionally, most rich people will now set up foundations that get the majority of their wealth, so the kids lose any claim to that pool of money. The timescale on which this happens today is surprisingly rapid compared to the lifespans that many immortality-lovers want. For example, the infamous Rothschild family is collectively worth only $1 billion now. That is the whole family, not any one individual. A modern example of the beginning of this process is the Walton family. Going back further, the descendants of many 1600s English barons have middle-class lives, but one person from each family retains the fancy title. The only societies that keep concentration of wealth are ones with primogeniture and other unequal distributions of wealth to children.