[pmiller2]

That is an absolutely disingenuous reading of what the article was trying to say. It's more like "this will not be available to regular people in our lifetimes." It's neither "Rich people having things I can't have is bad!" nor "it's better for everyone to stay the same than everyone get better, if some people get better by a bigger amount."

Can you rephrase your critique using what the article actually said, rather than what you're reading into it?

[mixedCase]

I quoted directly from the article, and said that as a characterization of what I see the underlying problem behind his statements are.

You may interpret it differently, but I clearly and unequivocally see that sentiment behind it. And to be more specific, I could be more charitable in my interpretation should the second line I quoted not be in the article verbatim.

[pmiller2]

This

> AKA "This is for rich people! And rich people having things I can't have is bad!"

and this

> When and where did this line of thought of "it's better for everyone to stay the same than everyone get better if some people get better by a bigger amount" started being socially acceptable within grown adults?

have no basis in the article text. You made it up out of your own interpretation. Stop trying to be intellectually dishonest while pretending you did nothing.