[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"?