[istjohn]

I wonder. I'm against wealth inequality, but for thousands of years, the human labor required to feed, clothe, and shelter a family wouldn't have allowed anyone to learn, preserve, and advance human knowledge without the labor of many being exploited one way or another by an elite few. That's not to justify anything or argue against egalitarianism today.

[District5524]

A great point! I beleive today the main problem is no longer the amount of human labor needed to feed or clothe, but to have access to those universities/labs/companies that have the necessary resources to enable meaningful research that humanity values. Costs of creating food and clothe have plummeted - this is good from any possible point of view, and clearly shows we do no longer "need" inequlity from these perspectives. However, access to human institutions does not follow the same democratization and pricefall. In several fields (space, medical and material sciences), advances we yearn for require lots of capital/military power. In many fields, innovations are tied to huge amounts of money to be spent (mostly accessible only in one particular capital market of the world). But even in "cheaper" fields (like mathematics, economics etc.) simply being heard requires working in prestiguous universities. And many of those have no choice but to select and hire people based on their previous work or their financial capabilities. Thus, reinforcing the same stratification as we've seen with food and clothing, and slowing the process of finding the right bright minds to do what they excel at in greater numbers. It's quite unlikely we will solve any major part of this social problem before 2086 (or any projected population peak)... People seem to be still stuck in celebrity culture in politics and everywhere.

[simpaticoder]

It's hard to differentiate between transients and steady-state on a short time-line. The "research factory" model, I believe, is a transient, at least in physics, sustained by the low-hanging fruit left between industrialization and now. Progress is slowing down asymptotically approaching zero. And I think that's okay - consider that the progenitors of the current approach all had day jobs, all of them did this in addition because they HAD to do it. As long as society allows people to have sufficient free time, we'll still get progress in the foundations of physics. (Note that this argument does NOT apply to capital intensive experimentation, e.g. the LHC, space telescopes, or fusion research).

Journeyman physics isn't all bad, and in fact can be quite good. Not only do you not have to worry about the social, administrative, political and funding headaches of academia, you are also not suffused in the always reasonable-sounding groupthink that persistently tells you what can and cannot be done, what should and should not be questioned. I strongly believe that the next truly big shift in physics, if it ever comes, must come from an outsider. (And if that happens, ironically, we'll have another period of fruitful professional academic physics, and later another iteration of this same discussion).

[abdullahkhalids]

I don't know where this viewpoint comes from where, even though a cursory look at history gives counter evidence. We have ample anthropological evidence of societies engaging in labor that is beyond eat, cloth and shelter.

The biggest such evidences are still there: The pyramids and other huge monuments, which took 100s of thousands or more of manhours to build. Many cultures had temples with ample evidence that people spent a lot of time engaging in religious activities there. Everywhere you evacuate, you see art pieces that had to be made by people spending time. The dead were often buried with weapons and food. There is plenty of evidence of people engaging in massive yearly festivals with lots of food, drinks and music.

How is all of this happening if humans were like cattle spending all their looking for food?

[istjohn]

The pyramids is a perfect example of an elite few exploiting the labor of many. All that labor to build tombs for a small handful of people looking for an advantage in the after-life.

Sure, in some places and times there was enough slack to allow common people to celebrate festivals or partake in elaborate religious activities. But I think you underestimate how costly education was when every book had to be painstakingly copied by hand.

[BLubliulu]

None of us is making cloth, working in fields or even baking.

We are so good, that we have an epidemic of people consuming too many calories.

There is no way for me right now to get social security and being allowed to be in university. But i would be able to get social security.

Officially universities throw you out after x years, but no one will bat an eye if you sit in a big lecture because there is plenty of space. But the documents/video recordings etc. is protected by some passwords for no particular reason.

Imagine were you could go to a campus for a few years and have enough for feeding yourself, paper, pen and books and basic oversight (not blocking the space for someone who would use it to learn while you only sit in your room gaming).

[mmooss]

> for thousands of years, the human labor required to feed, clothe, and shelter a family wouldn't have allowed anyone to learn, preserve, and advance human knowledge without the labor of many being exploited one way or another by an elite few.

That's quite a claim; is there a basis for it? Is there data? Research? Did manual labor really leave no time for other things - I've heard otherwise too.

And why do all those people working need an elite few taking most of the capital for themselves, e.g., to build massive homes and to guild their castles and churches? That capital could have been invested in the population and greatly improved the standard of living, technology (reducing the need for labor), knowledge, etc.

The elite few spent a lot of that capital fighting each other over power and land, not only consuming capital but destroying it - destroying much of what that labor built. They also use it to oppress many who could have raised humanity to greater fredom, knowledge, and prosperity.

We reside in a living example of the far, far more successful alternative - no authoritarian country, now or in the past, comes close to the prosperity of free, advanced democracies.

The justications for authoritarianism are popular these days.

[istjohn]

> That's not to justify anything or argue against egalitarianism today.

I was quite clear that I'm not defending past or present inequality. I said nothing to defend the lavish lifestyles of feudal lords.

I'm not a historian, but here's a description of the day-to-day life of a medieval peasant:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/mcgog5/comme...

[mmooss]

> I was quite clear that I'm not defending past or present inequality.

How is that reconciled with (from GGP):

> for thousands of years, the human labor required to feed, clothe, and shelter a family wouldn't have allowed anyone to learn, preserve, and advance human knowledge without the labor of many being exploited one way or another by an elite few.

That seems to advocate for or justify exploitation of the poor by the wealthy?

[immibis]

That doesn't have to mean exploitation. Labor can be done fairly (but not in capitalism, not really).