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.