Hacker News Reader

Sure, if you define the word rich as "owns more than a naked caveman" then everyone is rich in the world I suppose.

But you are just playing words games.

but if you define rich as "having more than your fellow human beings", then you cannot ever have everyone be rich. But that definition is not what most people would use.

I'd maybe define a rich person as "someone who is capable of working but does not need to labor ever again in order to have a comfortable amount of food, water, shelter, and medical care."

Everyone probably cannot be rich like this unless we invent some sort of frighteningly advanced automation to take care of our basic needs.

> unless [the exact scenario Naval is talking about]

Good example of "all or nothing thinking" here. "Toiling every day on the backs of humans for our every need" OR "Frighteningly advanced automation" — reality is higher fidelity than that.

We're already SO far towards the latter scenario (washing our clothes magically with the press of a button), painting it as a dichotomy only serves to highlight how out of touch with reality the immutable scarcity worldview is.

Or is it? Being rich is a moving target. The same as being successful.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com