| > 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. |
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!