[bluekeybox]

Philosophical question (don't take offense, please):

Why should we be rewarding "unlucky" gametes?

Please note that I don't consider the likely answer "because they have something useful to contribute to society" as a good one because it assumes that one individual mind (with all its hopes and biases) can comprehend what is really good for society in the long run (think thousands or tens of thousands of years).

[barrkel]

ISTM you're approaching a social Darwinist (i.e. 20th century fascist) perspective there.

Take your philosophical angle: do you think society is better off in the long run for having had Socrates, Plato, Aristotle?

How many unlucky Aristotles are we wasting in poverty in Africa?

I can't directly address your question, because it doesn't seem well formed to me. Which "one individual mind" is comprehending, and what is it doing with this comprehension (is it a judge)? Why is tens of thousands of years important - is that because you explicitly want to discount intelligence and knowledge, and only look at the biological ramifications? By that metric, humans might be better off if we wiped out all mammals and devolved into flowers - you haven't established what good even means (it cannot be survival, since that fails Hume's is/ought rule).

[hueving]

>I can't directly address your question, because it doesn't seem well formed to me.

Let me see if I can take a stab at re-wording it. Why should someone who provides little value to society be rewarded the same as people that provide more value to society?

[gress]

That's a strawman - the alternative to a meritocracy is not necessarily communism.

[nikatwork]

Although The Communist Manifesto rails against capitalism's devaluing of art, philosophy and anything else that can't immediately be converted into ka-ching.

[gress]

Sure, the point is that meritocracy and communism are not the only options.

[bluekeybox]

Thank you for your response. You bring up some good points, but I would like to contest others.

First, I agree that humans should probably not "devolve" into flowers (although "devolve" is a funny word -- technically, evolution, like entropy, is a one-way process, where even parasites can be said to evolve in their own way).

Second, I agree that exceptional individuals like the Greek scholars you mentioned contributed enormously to the human progress in the past two thousand years.

Third, I agree that average human condition in Africa is currently deplorable compared to average human condition on all other Earth's continents.

Where we seem to disagree is in the way we frame our questions and our solutions. Assuming I am an individual of significant wealth with altruistic motives, I would like to produce as many Aristotles, Platos, and Socrates in as short of a time frame as possible. Africa seems like a terrible, terrible place to invest my money with that goal in mind. First, as an individual investor, I can only invest during a timeframe of no more than approximately 20-30 years. Second, even if I open a foundation in my name that would continue doing my work after my death for centuries, Africa still looks bad (the worst in fact) because what happens if, for example, the country I invest in is taken over by a dictator or a warlord some fifty years from now (of which there is an extremely high risk throughout the entire continent of Africa) who brings the country back to the Middle Age or worse, while taking advantage of the invested results. Dictators have a common tendency of "cutting the tall poppies" when they come to power, which means that the African Aristotle I invested into will most likely be imprisoned or dead before he even becomes anything close to Aristotle.

I (as well as my foundation) would get a much better return on investment in a country like Romania that is "almost there" in terms of development and whose political situation is kept secure by a strong supranational organization like EU or NATO.

Finally, let me explain what I mean by the difference between individual and supra-individual. If you look at humanity's history over the past 3000 years, you will see that our attitude to things concerning politics was very different throughout. We had had pluralistic societies like Ancient Greece which simultaneously condoned slavery. Aristotle, for example, believed that certain individuals are superior "by natural right", and that others were better off serving their superiors, i.e. he was anti-egalitarian. I consider myself more egalitarian than Aristotle was, however I do not believe that our current fashion of rather extreme egalitarianism represents some final development; to me it appears as more of a "moral fashion" that always occurs at a certain phase of an outward wave of what I call "literatization" (as opposed to "civilization").

So to an individual mind in the early 21st century some truths (such as that societies have to be structured in one way and not another) may seem to be self-evident, but that's because an individual is always anchored to his or her historical epoch. Moreover, the desire to structure the society in a particular way seems to follow one's biological idiosyncrasies. For example, the primary driver of intellectual activities of a tall person may be an internalized wish to arrange the society in such a way that tall people are not discriminated against. Similarly, the primary driver of intellectual activities of a department of economics of a country X might be a motivation that the elite of that country stays in power.

For that reason, I tend not to trust neither egalitarians nor anti-egalitarians when it comes to evaluating whether a particular society is good or bad. Unfortunately, the only truly useful measure of a society's success (its ability to spread itself while maximizing the number of potential paths of realization of its individuals) is somewhat beyond of what can be measured over one's lifetime. So I tend to prefer to stay close to natural laws, and assume that if a particular gamete is "lucky", it is perhaps lucky for some reason that is unknowable to me.

[anigbrowl]

Aristotle should not be your only point of reference here. Socrates had his life cut off early by an intellectually intolerant cabal, but we're certainly much better of for having had him around for a while, even if not as much as we might have hoped for.

It's also arguable that breakthroughs (philosophical, technological, or whatever) often take place in less-than-ideal contexts, because adversity is often synonymous with necessity. In a society where the majority of the population has it pretty good, there's opportunity for many flowers to flourish but it's hard to say whether any of them are very tenacious since the soil and growing conditions are ideal. If you're on the lookout for a rare flower, you're not likely to discover it in a greenhouse.

[EGreg]

How do you know Socrates even existed?

As an aside - Socrates and Jesus seem to have many things in common. Socrates never wrote anything himself, his teachings challenged the status quo, he was accused of "corrupting the youth" and executed for blasphemy by the religious ruling group from his own people...

[cubancigar11]

> I can only invest during a timeframe of no more than approximately 20-30 years

What you have concluded in you comment can be summed up in one word - short-sightedness. The only way to defend that position (which, in fact, you use) is to say that most people are and historically have been short-sighted, hence it is 'natural' ergo correct. You further imply that this... process... is out of our control.

This is disingenuous, and I will tell you why. You question egalitarianism because historically societies can be seen as contrarian among themselves. But you whitewash over the fact that we ARE in fact much much better-off than most people who have ever lived. We are better off than Aristotle himself and a large part of it can be attributed to the fact that he existed. He obviously didn't foresee the future and how he is going to literally effect it, but he did contribute to it because he was egalitarian.

But you already agree that you want more Aristotles, Platos and Socrates. What is disagreeable that you want them in a short of time frame at the cost of everything else because of 'particular gamete being lucky' or some other factor you don't know. In short, you are looking for profit and explaining away the lack of moral imperatives by invoking Darwinism. But:

1. There is no immediate pressure on us to produce Aristotles et. al. because they are not going to bring immediate benefit. We CAN plan for a long term future, though, and that means we can improve our chances of survival.

2. Darwinism requires diversity. Hence it is simply better to invest in disadvantaged, if you were egalitarian.

Let us be honest - the truth is that you are coming from a position of an individual with significant wealth who is looking for next Aristotle to increase his personal wealth by taking his, and you don't really care about Aristotle or his effect on anyone else. All the arguments are simply dressings to make that short-sightedness and greed look good.

[bluekeybox]

> What you have concluded in you comment can be summed up in one word - short-sightedness.

No. My conclusion was predicated on a belief that it is better that we have our Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle in the next 100-200 years rather than in the next 1000-2000. If you have budget of several tens of billions and you want to be judicious where you invest, it is unrealistic to expect to create magic in Africa over 100-200 years. In that situation the best you could hope to achieve for that continent is to invest in medicine aka what Bill Gates is doing, and hope that it will help turn the continent from 3rd world to something like Mexico (which is still far from great). And then what hope do you have that once all the work is done that people there won't elect someone like Chavez and start beating up students at local universities with baseball bats?

> you whitewash over the fact that we ARE in fact much much better-off than most people who have ever lived

Perhaps yes, but not if you listen to egalitarian vanguard. Just talk to OWS participants if you don't believe me. Though if we are indeed better off, how much of that is a function of technology rather than egalitarianism?

> you are looking for profit

What do you mean by "looking for profit"? As I said, my (hypothetical) motives are purely altruistic. I have fifty billion dollars and I am willing to spend them all to the last penny. All I want in return is the next Plato/Aristotle/Socrates within the next 100-200 years. Is that too much to ask? How do you interpret this motivation as "profit"? Who profits?

> There is no immediate pressure on us to produce Aristotles et. al. because they are not going to bring immediate benefit

First of all, it could be argued that someone like Plato has made a huge contribution to Greek and Roman civilizations. Aristotle was the personal tutor of Alexander the Great for God's sake. These individuals contributed tremendously, both within their lifetimes and in the millennia after. Second, even if you discount the influence these people had in the Ancient world, and assume that the majority of it is felt 1000 years after their death, then still it is better to have them sooner rather than later. For that means waiting 1000 years for the next step in our civilization rather than 2000 years.

> Darwinism requires diversity. Hence it is simply better to invest in disadvantaged

Why not invest in diverse but advantaged then? How is it that you jump from one proposition to the other (i.e. that diversity equals disadvantaged)?

> the truth is that you are coming from a position of an individual with significant wealth who is looking for next Aristotle to increase his personal wealth by taking his

No. We both agree that the next Aristotle probably wouldn't be the next billionaire. He will probably not be a poor man, but it is highly unlikely that he will turn my fifty billion into fifty trillion.

> All the arguments are simply dressings to make that short-sightedness and greed look good.

There! Just add that I'm a Zionist homosexual free-masonic Illuminati overlord. Perhaps you are that OWS supporter I mentioned above? In which case, I don't even have to invoke one as a literary device!

[cubancigar11]

> There! Just add that I'm a Zionist homosexual free-masonic Illuminati overlord. Perhaps you are that OWS supporter I mentioned above? In which case, I don't even have to invoke one as a literary device!

I wasn't being personal, instead I was referring to 'Assuming I am an individual of significant wealth with altruistic motives' part of your comment. But since you have taken it personally so it is better we stop here. I will clarify one thing, though: I am not from USA so I don't know anything about OWS. I don't even know you or what pushes all the wrong buttons in USA. I saw a bent towards the ugly side of Nietzsche in your comment which is why I felt compelled to reply.

[bluekeybox]

I didn't take it personally, was just having fun with words and certain populist stereotypes.

[hueving]

>Let us be honest - the truth is that you are coming from a position of an individual with significant wealth who is looking for next Aristotle to increase his personal wealth by taking his, and you don't really care about Aristotle or his effect on anyone else. All the arguments are simply dressings to make that short-sightedness and greed look good.

Ah! A personal attack... what a wonderful way to dilute an otherwise decent argument.

[tim333]

If by 'rewarding "unlucky" gametes' you mean helping out the less bright and similar, we do it because it's nice and most people prefer it that way. An alternative of weeding out the unlucky gametes was tried by Hitler but proved unpopular.

[rhizome]

Consider a different angle: can luck be created for others? Is it already? Is there a benefit in expanding the amount of luck in the world? Consider the possibility that a subtext of a lot of these discussions is the hoarding of luck.