What Would Society Look Like If Extreme Wealth Were Impossible?
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
- "no one deserves such excess, that people would be better off morally and psychologically without it"
The extremes of what we have achieved - both good and bad mark out the features of humanity. We are not good or bad, we're animals functioning in nature, and nature's one core characteristic is competition, competition in everything.
I think we're really good at competing within our environment. So good in fact, that we're hitting the limits of our environment in many ways. Bacteria in a petri dish go through rapid growth, stability and then inevitably reach the final death phase. I wonder it that's what awaits us.
I hope that we can self modify quickly enough to morph into something other than human because our humanity is the defining feature that got us to where we are right now.
edit - grammar
Our political, economic and cultural systems are all rooted in growth. We define wealth as owning and using more than before. Our economies and pensions etc. are built on the expectation of continuous growth. Our cultures revolve in large parts around wealth.
I think the question is no longer what can we do to prevent billions from dying, rather our decisions today will decide how many billions.
Side-note: The perspective above is human centric or supremacist depending on who you ask. We share this world with so many other lifeforms, as of now they don't have a seat at the table. What if we manage to save humans and smartphones from extinction but only us? Is that a world worth living in?
To quote Tom Murphy:
> Energy transition aspirations are similar. The goal is powering modernity, not addressing the sixth mass extinction. Sure, it could mitigate the CO2 threat (to modernity), but why does the fox care when its decline ultimately traces primarily to things like deforestation, habitat fragmentation, agricultural runoff, pollution, pesticides, mining, manufacturing, or in short: modernity. Pursuit of a giant energy infrastructure replacement requires tremendous material extraction—directly driving many of these ills—only to then provide the energetic means to keep doing all these same things that abundant evidence warns is a prescription for termination of the community of life.
Yes it is.
I can’t believe that is even a question.
It would be no worse than living on a colony on Mars or the moon.
You might now think, hey that's not the same thing. That line is arbitrary, it's called white supremacy. And what you are suggesting is human supremacy. A world by humans for humans and no one else!
In my viewpoint both are wrong, I fail to see why only one of them would be wrong.
God doesn't exist; else he would stop us.
Remember, you can’t stop the engine while it’s running or everyone starves to death, and not figuring out useful alternatives (and getting them setup and working and all the major kinks ironed out) will stop the engine.
‘The wheel’ turns. It’s what it does.
Trying to stop it just results in being crushed under it.
Trying to break it, or change it, just results losing any ability to steer we might have had, and uncontrollable direction with more resulting damage.
Realizing that, working to understand it and perhaps help steer it instead of stopping it, can sometimes produce better outcomes and less pain.
No guarantees though. In the end, existence is what happens, not what we wished had happened.
Delusion has a very, very strong draw though. In many cases, it’s the foundation that society is built on.
Trying to control existence causes pain. Trying to deny it, causes pain. Life always includes some pain - it has to. Pain is reality trying to teach us something. It rarely goes away if we refuse.
If we like that or not, does not matter to it, and never has.
In countries with growing populations, yes. Look at the Japanese pensions’ expectations. They literally don’t need real growth as long as the population shrinks. The economies of scale of marginal growth aren’t worth it if you can’t consume all its fruits. On the other hand, economies of scale mean getting more with less: they are why the amount of materials and energy we require to generate one unit of GDP has broadly been falling over the years.
I literally gave an example where this is not true. Falling GDP per capita would create problems. But falling GDP per se is fine. Their required real return is zero. It’s nice to earn more, but the math balances at zero.
Furthermore, it's not how high to top is per se, it's that so few arw that high (i.e., the concentration); it's how far away the top is from the bottom.
The top is embrassassing, but the bottom is shameful.
Why would we restrict ourselves to current tech in the future? AI has the potential to be a human force multiplier on the scale of the industrial revolution, and more. We can't deliver the political power of a billionaire to everyone but we can deliver the material prosperity, which is a heck of a consolation prize.
No we can't. There are so many signs that all point to that not happening https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2023/09/can-modernity-last/
Yes, resources are limited. So then why are key entities (e.g., The Fed) so insantant on squandering those resources for The Few? The buck literally starts and stops here. Solving the after the fact symptom(s) is a fool's errand. If we - The Many - continue to be fools, nothing is going to change. In fact, the concentration and distribution of financial wealth is getting worse. But sure, let's keep obcessing over symptoms.
Because we're led to believe the symptons are the actual problems. Solving the core issues would be bad for the rich and powerful, and so they work to keep us distracted and misinformed
> If we - The Many - continue to be fools,
I think this unfairly shifts the majority of blame to ordinary citizens, as if aren't misled or outright lied to at every turn by "The Few"
If the lies of The Few keep working, why should they stop?
If The Many are well aware they have been lied to *repeatedly*, and yet continue to suck up the lies as gospel, whose fault is that?
"First time, shame on you. Second time, shame on me." But The Many can't count past one.
Are you proposing we should outlaw the putting of the thumb on the scale?
That's a wonderful idea. Do you happen to have any details? Maybe some references.
The only thing I could think of is called "checks and balances". The reference to that is fairly standard, it's called the US Constitution.
Are you saying that's not enough? Ok, then the fix you are proposing is what? An amendment or a replacement? If it's an amendment, what would it be? If it's a replacement, I'm honestly not that interested.
Whether or not that's viewed positively probably depends on how you view the US though. ;)
For this are known Denmark, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Finland, Sweden.
For example, I know, even when in Sweden exist very active venture system, but nearly all startups flew out there, after passed first two-three years and achieve some big valuation.