[Qom]

Disclaimer: I am not a STEM guy so don't go calling me an elitist.

This might seem like a callous view but I think it's better to invest money on helping the scientist caste (wherever they might have been born) than to simply cure a bunch of random people. In the movie Elysium (2013), they send magic machines to help the masses, which achieves nothing since they are just as poor as before but a bit healthier. I left the movie theater feeling depressed and angry.

What we need is real technological progress. If we could for example synthesize objects or food easily à la Star Trek, we would solve poverty and inequality more efficiently than thousands of years of social programs.

Consider the fact that Isaac Newton's scientific output was worth more than 99% of the work of every other intellectual in the world in the past few centuries leading up to his birth. What's even more amazing is that Newton spent only a tiny fraction of his time doing actual science; he was obsessed with mysticism and other pseudo-scientific doctrines. So giving a billion dollars to the next Newton will be many order of magnitudes smarter than spending that same billion curing laborers. However, it's not politically correct, so I doubt it will be feasible.

[Volpe]

There is more than enough money and resources to go around. It isn't a supply problem. We have heaps of everything. So being able to synthesise it wouldn't change that fact.

The problem is we suck at distributing it. We have a system that allows the super rich (and thus super poor) to exist.

If we could magically create any object we like, the rich/powerful would make sure they had a monopoly on that technology so they could maintain their richness/power. There is a great talk given by G.A Cohen against capitalism that illustrates this point wonderfully[1]

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA9WPQeow9c [Video]

EDIT:

Sorry just saw your strange reference to Newton as well. You are saying technological advancement is more important than people, and we should prioritise advancement over people... why? Why should we advance technology for technologies sake?

[Qom]

>Sorry just saw your strange reference to Newton as well. >You are saying technological advancement is more important >than people, and we should prioritise advancement over people... >why? Why should we advance technology for technologies sake?

That's not what I said at all. On the contrary, I'm saying that if you want to help people technological progress will be vastly more efficient than anything else, and particularly aid programs. I don't care about progress for its own sake, nobody does. I'm saying that some people are objectively more valuable than others in the long term and that we should help them instead of helping huge numbers of less productive people. A single great invention could save all those people better than any amount of aid money.

[Volpe]

Why are they more valuable? You are saying they are more valuable because they provide more technological advancement.

I guess my question is: Why are you trying to measure the 'value' of one (or many) human lives? Why are we not all equal?

[Qom]

Our goal is to help everyone achieve a better life, right? Then some people are more valuable to that goal than others. They aren't more valuable in an absolute sense (no one is) but according to our current problems they are relatively more useful. Governments are trying to spend their money in the smartest way possible. I'm saying that we should prioritize a certain type of spending over another. With enough tech, we will be able to achieve real equality that is today impossible. Once that is achieved, we can forget about tech or value of human beings. These will be problems of the past.

[Volpe]

> Our goal is to help everyone achieve a better life, right?

No, I don't think it is. I don't think there is a collective goal that everyone subscribes to.

As my earlier point pointed out... we have everything we need to achieve "real equality". What are we missing? Which piece of technology are you waiting for, for "real equality"?

[moron4hire]

The problem it's that you don't know where the next Newton will come from. Better to give everyone the chance because, as you say, he was so influential.