[kmuber]

"Fairness" is an imaginary concept.

Inequality on the other hand is quite a natural concept, as in you see it everywhere in nature and the universe.

There is no known process happening in nature that is trying to achieve "fairness".

Temporary stability and equilibrium on the other hand is achievable. And technological progress is naturally inequality increasing/destabilizing to such systems.

Tigers in nature don't just grow sharper claws or canines to be "disruptive". It happens only in response to an increase in the number of prey. Which usually happens in response to more grass on the plains. Which is in response to more rains and so on.

If the tiger starts evolving hunting efficiency at a faster rate than the deer evolves defensive features like speed, hearing etc the tiger will kill more and the entire system will soon breakdown. see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVOHgztZ3XI

So to say "fairness and technological progress aren't mutually incompatible" is just not true.

[TheOtherHobbes]

There's nothing imaginary about fairness. It's an evolved response to resource misallocation in herd animals, including primates.

http://www.livescience.com/26245-chimps-value-fairness.html

What's imaginary is the idea that competitive advantage is always a good thing. The reality - as you say - is that too much competitive advantage leads inevitably to logistic collapse.

In humanity's case, the logistic collapse regularly leads to cultural extinction, and it's not impossible now for it to lead to physical extinction too.

The real problem is that competitive advantage is a very poor substitute for collective intelligence. we have an economy of competitive individualism, but we've yet to imagine an intelligence economy where growth is explicitly measured in increased collective insight and foresight.

[kmuber]

I meant imaginary in the sense that it exists in the minds of the chimps. It is imagined.

And for tech progress and "fairness" to coexist we need a better imagined version of it.

[arximboldi]

So what you are saying is that some humans are tigers and some are their preys.

Humans: the first massively cannibal species.

In fact, most developed mammals develop societies and specially in many apes these are quite egalitarian. In the same way as developing tools and understanding nature in order to adapt to it was key to the success of humans, I believe that the ability to cooperate and to feel for each-other via empathy is key as well.

Your mechanistic view of evolution and nature disregards all social aspects of human existence. It is unscientific and and excuse to support oppressive systems and the predatory behaviors that are putting the planet and humans themselves at risk.

Nature does not "disrupt", nature adapts and evolves. It creates symbiotic systems that enable long processes in which life, this weird mechanism constantly energy into movement, can happen. It created humans, with the abilities to discern, associate, help each other and pursue happiness. Your cannibalistic view of society is not gonna remove our "natural" thrive to build societies worth living in from the rest of us.

[kmuber]

I was responding to "fairness" and technological progress being able to exist side by side.

To talk about achieving fairness one must first accept it is a story we tell ourselves. A story that we collectively hardly ever agree upon and a story that needs improving.

There is nothing unscientific about that (which is why I posted the link) and there isn't any reason to feel insecure about it. Only after accepting that can the story improve.

[tashi]

a. That logic may apply to equilibrium in zero-sum games (I'm not sure it does), but in cooperative systems a rising tide is often helpful.

b. "Fairness" is a man-made concept, like "democracy" or "government" or "money." I'm not sure that disqualifies it from being of value to people.