4 ms·

> Now lets look at it in a realistic context. The society where rich people can afford something today is a society where poor people said something tomorrow.

> Now lets look at it in a realistic context. The society where rich people can afford something today is a society where poor people said something tomorrow. And where there will be another thing (of some critical importance) that the poor cannot afford tomorrow that the rich can. > You're arguing that folks should die "forever" in order to spare the feelings of people who died "unnecessarily" during a "while". Do you really believe that people saved later are worth so little? No, I'm arguing that a society where progress is slightly slower (i.e the pie grows more slowly), but has lesser income disparity will probably be happier than one with massive income disparity and faster overall progress. I'm not saying it's 'right' or 'wrong', but I am saying that this is a fact. Happier societies generally have lower income disparities than those displayed in the US, and really, what else do you need to justify it? > Oh really? You find what I say to be "lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere"? On what basis? Because I think when people say it that their motivation is not accuracy, it's just an excuse to justify not caring about the poorer segment of society - a way to ignore the fact that although the absolute amount of pie they get has increased, there's still a problem.

anamax 18y ago
> And where there will be another thing (of some critical importance) that the poor cannot afford tomorrow that the rich can. Yup. And then that thing will become available to the poor. Do you really want to argue that it's good to slow down that cycle? > No, I'm arguing that a society where progress is slightly slower (i.e the pie grows more slowly). Actually, you weren't. You explicitly stated "the society where the cure does not exist at all, and all are in the same boat". Even if we rewrite that to "no availability short of universal", we end up with "no progress" because you can't start with universal. You have to start with expensive and rare and grow from there. Me - I'm glad that rich people are willing to pay to be alpha testers. > I am saying that this is a fact. Actually, it's largely a construct of an envy campaign. Telling people that they have it bad has consequences. > Happier societies generally have lower income disparities than those displayed in the US, and really, what else do you need to justify it? Do you really think that "happy, brutish, short" needs no justification? (Not to mention that "happy" is overstated.) >> Oh really? You find what I say to be "lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere"? On what basis? > Because I think when people say it that their motivation is not accuracy, it's just an excuse to justify not caring about the poorer segment of society - a way to ignore the fact that although the absolute amount of pie they get has increased, there's still a problem. Look. You've accused ME of lying. How about some actual evidence. As far as "caring" goes, you've conceded that my way results in faster delivery of essential goods to poor people. That leaves us with I'm evil and your way kills people.
- AlisdairO 17y ago
  > Yup. And then that thing will become available to the poor. Do you really want to argue that it's good to slow down that cycle? To an extent, yes - we've gone over this already. As mentioned, the very fact of this imbalance can cause a society that is overall less happy. > Actually, you weren't. You explicitly stated "the society where the cure does not exist at all, and all are in the same boat". Even if we rewrite that to "no availability short of universal", we end up with "no progress" because you can't start with universal. You have to start with expensive and rare and grow from there. Whew, way to quote out of context. Yes, I stated that the society where such a cure was unknown is likely to be happier. This is not the same as advocating zero advancement. There is a suffering generated by partial availability of such a cure, and a suffering generated by the total unavailability of such a thing - and my point is that in the US and UK the latter is neglected. quoth me: "No, I am not a commie, and I am in full favour of some income disparity as a motivator towards useful output". You've set up a straw man. I could do the same to you - I could imply that you favour a society where the richest 1% have 99% of the wealth, can afford genetic manipulations that make them vastly physically and intellectually superior to the rest of society, while the rest have little more than they do now. Really, though, in the end we're talking about a matter of degree, not absolutes. > Me - I'm glad that rich people are willing to pay to be alpha testers. Poor analogy, implies that there's some kind of cost/downside to the rich in this role. > Actually, it's largely a construct of an envy campaign. Telling people that they have it bad has consequences. So the fact that people know they're massively less well off than another segment of society (despite working 63 jobs and getting hardly any time off) makes them unhappy? Sounds, well, kind of like what I've been saying. > Do you really think that "happy, brutish, short" needs no justification? (Not to mention that "happy" is overstated.) You're right, the lives of western european nations are happy, brutish, and short, thanks to their smaller income disparity. Have you ever visited? They tend to be happier, have longer lives, and experience less suffering. Class mobility is vastly higher than in the US. It would probably be a stretch to call them brutish, although those who spend much time driving in Paris may disagree ;). > Look. You've accused ME of lying. How about some actual evidence. shrugs I have none. After all, I can't see inside your head. That's why I said 'I think'. It's not so much of a stretch, though - it's in the interest of the wealthy to advance justifications to support their position, whether they're reasonable or not.

anamax 18y ago

> And where there will be another thing (of some critical importance) that the poor cannot afford tomorrow that the rich can. Yup. And then that thing will become available to the poor. Do you really want to argue that it's good to slow down that cycle? > No, I'm arguing that a society where progress is slightly slower (i.e the pie grows more slowly). Actually, you weren't. You explicitly stated "the society where the cure does not exist at all, and all are in the same boat". Even if we rewrite that to "no availability short of universal", we end up with "no progress" because you can't start with universal. You have to start with expensive and rare and grow from there. Me - I'm glad that rich people are willing to pay to be alpha testers. > I am saying that this is a fact. Actually, it's largely a construct of an envy campaign. Telling people that they have it bad has consequences. > Happier societies generally have lower income disparities than those displayed in the US, and really, what else do you need to justify it? Do you really think that "happy, brutish, short" needs no justification? (Not to mention that "happy" is overstated.) >> Oh really? You find what I say to be "lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere"? On what basis? > Because I think when people say it that their motivation is not accuracy, it's just an excuse to justify not caring about the poorer segment of society - a way to ignore the fact that although the absolute amount of pie they get has increased, there's still a problem. Look. You've accused ME of lying. How about some actual evidence. As far as "caring" goes, you've conceded that my way results in faster delivery of essential goods to poor people. That leaves us with I'm evil and your way kills people.

AlisdairO 17y ago
> Yup. And then that thing will become available to the poor. Do you really want to argue that it's good to slow down that cycle? To an extent, yes - we've gone over this already. As mentioned, the very fact of this imbalance can cause a society that is overall less happy. > Actually, you weren't. You explicitly stated "the society where the cure does not exist at all, and all are in the same boat". Even if we rewrite that to "no availability short of universal", we end up with "no progress" because you can't start with universal. You have to start with expensive and rare and grow from there. Whew, way to quote out of context. Yes, I stated that the society where such a cure was unknown is likely to be happier. This is not the same as advocating zero advancement. There is a suffering generated by partial availability of such a cure, and a suffering generated by the total unavailability of such a thing - and my point is that in the US and UK the latter is neglected. quoth me: "No, I am not a commie, and I am in full favour of some income disparity as a motivator towards useful output". You've set up a straw man. I could do the same to you - I could imply that you favour a society where the richest 1% have 99% of the wealth, can afford genetic manipulations that make them vastly physically and intellectually superior to the rest of society, while the rest have little more than they do now. Really, though, in the end we're talking about a matter of degree, not absolutes. > Me - I'm glad that rich people are willing to pay to be alpha testers. Poor analogy, implies that there's some kind of cost/downside to the rich in this role. > Actually, it's largely a construct of an envy campaign. Telling people that they have it bad has consequences. So the fact that people know they're massively less well off than another segment of society (despite working 63 jobs and getting hardly any time off) makes them unhappy? Sounds, well, kind of like what I've been saying. > Do you really think that "happy, brutish, short" needs no justification? (Not to mention that "happy" is overstated.) You're right, the lives of western european nations are happy, brutish, and short, thanks to their smaller income disparity. Have you ever visited? They tend to be happier, have longer lives, and experience less suffering. Class mobility is vastly higher than in the US. It would probably be a stretch to call them brutish, although those who spend much time driving in Paris may disagree ;). > Look. You've accused ME of lying. How about some actual evidence. shrugs I have none. After all, I can't see inside your head. That's why I said 'I think'. It's not so much of a stretch, though - it's in the interest of the wealthy to advance justifications to support their position, whether they're reasonable or not.