[110011]

I haven't read the book but I wonder.. as a billionaire he clearly stands to gain a lot from spreading a message of optimism and collective progress over the last century presumably to maintain status quo when an equally factual but completely opposite perspective on the world (unprecedented levels of inequality, our global lack of response to climate change, etc.) is also there for us to see.

I find it very hard to believe that his motives are so pure.

[TeMPOraL]

A lot depends on your viewpoint. What you call "unprecedented levels of inequality" is, at the same time, unprecedented rise in quality of life for pretty much everyone - yes, for some people the improvement was greater than for others, but it's still a big improvement for everyone.

(I don't want to dismiss this issue, but reading about it, sometimes it sounds to me like a case of pretty much the most pathetic human behaviour - getting $10 for free and, instead of being grateful, getting angry that someone else got $1000.)

Hell, WRT climate change, we need some optimism, and we need to devote less time to usual social bickering, and more time to fixing what's important.

> I find it very hard to believe that his motives are so pure.

Everything he's doing nowadays fits perfectly the theory that his motives are pure, and about the well-being of humanity. Is there anything in particular you're aware of that is evidence to the contrary?

[dragonwriter]

> A lot depends on your viewpoint. What you call "unprecedented levels of inequality" is, at the same time, unprecedented rise in quality of life for pretty much everyone

That kind of assumes “quality of life” is a simple function of absolute material wealth and not strongly influenced by relative position. While certainly many people have moral beliefs that that should be the case, there is plenty of reason in all of human history to believe that it is not in fact the case.

[Pyxl101]

Why is inequality a problem? It seems like what people should care about is how well off they are absolutely, not how well off they are relative to other people.

Let me put it this way: if everyone in the human race was so rich that they owned an entire planet full of machines that cater to their every whim, then there might still be people who are "rich" and own thousands of planets. Does that wealth inequality matter? No, it doesn't, because you're still so rich you own a goddamn planet! People who own planets have no reason to be indignant.

The same is true in our world. The only thing that should really matter to people is how well off they are absolutely. Anything more than that is simply coveting other people's wealth. In America, it turns out that even people who are considered "poor" by the government are well off by material possessions:

https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/air-c...

> As scholar James Q. Wilson has stated, “The poorest Americans today live a better life than all but the richest persons a hundred years ago.” In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or a PlayStation.[4] In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.

> The home of the typical poor family was not overcrowded and was in good repair. In fact, the typical poor American had more living space than the average European. The typical poor American family was also able to obtain medical care when needed. By its own report, the typical family was not hungry and had sufficient funds during the past year to meet all essential needs.

[Retra]

The problem is that greater relative wealth turns into greater absolute power, a power which preferentially hoards limited resources whether you need them to survive or not.

If everyone was rich enough to own a planet.. but the richest owned all the planets with food on them, then you are screwed the next time a famine happens and they are not.

Besides: the majority of people would be much better off absolutely if there were less inequality given a fixed amount of wealth. So at no point will people not have a reason to consider inequality a problem unless they are wealthier than average.