[sph]

> Because if spread equally and used responsibly

That ‘if’ is Atlas carrying the entire world on its shoulders.

It should be clear by now that at global scales and with competing interests, the entire premise is impossible.

[halperter]

I think the point hodgehog was trying to make is that overall wellbeing increased. Famine is down, disease is down, wars are down, security up, well-being up. Innovation overall benefits everyone in the long run. Global scales aren't the problem---goods once reserved for the wealthy are being copied and produced at markedly lower prices, with examples such as EVs and drones. I realize that "overall" is doing some heavy lifting but I think it's rather unreasonable to dismiss the entirety of human technological progress as only benefiting the elite.

[hodgehog11]

Not really, western countries were doing a lot of that in the 20th century (amongst themselves, anyway). Then the 80s happened.

Or what, do people think that the boomers were all that good, that they genuinely earned everything they got? The generations before just worked out how to govern properly.

[dag100]

The 80s happened because of the stagnation of the 70s.

[tancop]

only if you assume capitalism is the only stable economic system. without wealth differences there is nothing other than your own abilities that can make access to tech unequal.

[sph]

I assume that capitalism is viral enough that no alternative can be realistically by established on a global scale.

Ignoring wealth differences is another instance of dreaming of a magical world where greed has disappeared.

A good read is Mark Fisher’s book Capitalist Realism