Equality Does it exists ? Well the Gap ever disperse ?

Does Equality in Humanity truly Exists ?

We have varying classes of people through out the world who woe over there station in life and wish to climb up the ladder of society per say and achieve greatness.
However some remain poor while others benefit from having won the genetic lottery etc. Is there anything that can be done to make this gap non-existence with the introduction of robotics or some sort off augmentation ?

I don't think robot legs is going to fix inequality. Maybe back in prehistoric times when "might makes right" was a viable life philosophy.

There is no way to fix inequality even with robotics because not all people want to be equal.

Let me put it this way, you talk about those inner city black kids that turn to crime and say that equality doesn't exist for them. Maybe it doesn't fully exist for them but they don't want it to. There are resources out there to help people overcome their situations. My aunt for example was literally a nobody black girl in some Zimbabwe village. She ended up becoming a diplomat, shook hands with Nelson mendella and now lives in canada working for the Canadian government. She's lived in 8 different countries.

People overcome. History is full of people who work within the systems of the world or move to a place where they can benefit and succeed.

So I'm really getting sick of most inequality talks because it's not inequality it's laziness.

There are no countries in North America or Europe that deny people school admission or work opportunities or marriage or a chance to start a new life or even deny you entry into the country based on gender or race.

I think we need to focus on fixing gender and race equality before who can kick a ball better. Also if robotic limbs existed only the rich could afford them marketing your hypothetical fix worsen the problem.

Just erase the concept of "human races" and you'll get a far better behavior from everyone, be they lazy or not, worshiping or not for wealth sharing, with "potential"/whatever or not.

Just erase the traditional two-genders conception of society, and you'll get a far better tolerance toward LGBT as also a fix for probably lot of sexually related problems (ex : spousal abuse victims encountering death, are females at 85-90%).


Technologies are not the "answers". All is about education.

This is the excuses that people make. It's genetics. Maybe for some people but that's a very small minority. Very very small minority. For the general public in first world countries, there are things like affirmative action that help people who are "disadvantaged". Which is something that I'd like to point out isn't always true, because for example white people make up 95% of the applications to Harvard, yet only account for 46% of the Harvard enrolment. Or how men make up less than 30% of university graduates compared to women.

There is inequality everywhere, and there is every advantage in the world for those who would seize the opportunity. Maybe there is a genetic superiority for those who are innately motivated to do more, this would be the core of survival instinct left in our species.

Unfortunately inequality is not the problem. There is not enough resources at our current level of technology and consumption to have an ever increasing population of people who are being "equal" in their consumption level due to this new found freedom.

Our biggest problem isn't inequality, it's resources.

What form of equality are you talking about because not all are good. Also what are you talking about when you say genetic lottery?

No and no.

Also that won't help for the most part, even if surgeries and mechanical parts were dirt cheap.

What I mean is basically societal equality ex poor man/rich man the have and the have mot's,The downtrodden etc etc. As for the whole genetic lottery I meant having advantages like extreme athletic ability or superior intellect

Ok then, What do you or anyone else here propose to do about such issues. Keep in mind in trying to help it is very VERY easy to make the situation whatever it is worse, in some cases much worse. Also keep in mind that while you may feel that a certain situation is bad it may not actually be a bad situation.

How society distributes these resources is an issue. My take on this is worth. Is someone worthy of such rewards. Everyone having an equal opportunity and everyone being equally deserving are not the same because people are not equally deserving.

Some people are more talented, some people are smarter, some people work much harder than others, some people are specialized in certain things. And these people should be rewarded on what they are doing and what they are capable of.

Not everyone can be a fireman for example. Everyone has equal opportunity to learn to be a fireman, to train to be one, to apply for those jobs. But to have that level of physical fitness, to be able to rescue people and have the courage to face death with such persistence that they willingly throw self preservation aside, these are special people and should be better rewarded for their actions.

But it would be idiotic to treat everyone with such respect and give equal reward to people who aren't firefighters as if they were. That isn't equality, it's stupidity.

Genetics ? Seems you know nothing about the epigenetics. Know/hear this : even the embryo-development is not 100% "innate", it includes a fair amount of environmental influences -- which might even explains some tricks such as LGBT or violence.

There are even studies on induced parental ill-treatment on rats and how it is transmitted generation after generation by the means of (natural) DNA methylations. Just so you learn, methylations are an essential mechanism to ensure cells can as well go through differentiation as also to respond to environmental influences.

Just a point : roughly speaking genes code solely peptides/proteins which weight as 30~50% of a cell dry mass, knowingly a cell is averagely composed at 70% of water. One might simplify as genes coding 15% of our mass. So how comes we are so different from a mice or a jellyfish ? Mainly because of hundreds of thousands of selections of tiny sensibilities to environmental stimuli. There is no timer in the cell, just "information" about how is the cell's environment. That explains why some congenital malformations happen just by misplacement of the fetus, or how smokers' babies will fall harder for cigarettes, etc.

So don't be so hasty and fall for the "genetical superiority", because we mostly are rather equal as monozygotes, but the environment has a very decisive impact on any genetic variation and its regulation.

Let's also talk about neurogenesis : should you have some (fictional) "clever" allele yet grow as baby inside an under/ill-stimulating environment, your brain will never work as dreamed about "easily birthing clever thoughts" or what. Worst : having it easy at the very beginning of school, leads often to school failures because these children have no clue of how to really work when the time finally comes ; and they have great difficulties to overcomes their own failures. Also lot of people misunderstand having capacities and developing capacities.

The intelligence characteristic is one of the most influenced by environment -- because it is precisely a capacity to handle situations, in other words : handle environments.

So I would advise people to not over-estimate "genetics" into the intellectual capacities matter, nor under-estimate the role of environment into any development.


Our problem is that less than 1% of the world population handle/possess more than 90% of the world available resources.

Current economics pojections seem to predict it will worsen in future decades.

So what do either of you propose to do about such "problems"?

Resources are abundant and get even more so the more our knowledge and technology increase. There's plenty enough on this planet for everyone on it to have a decent living. As for the whole 1% thing, yes there are only a few billionaires on the planet but they for the most part got that way by providing something that people wanted.

Well it is true that when you speculate over the price of resources, you do possess them at least one moment or another. Like when WTO stopped the scandalous attempt to speculate over cereals and other critical food resources some years ago, or before when there was this broad speculation over real estate in european cities and all, etc. We might also look at how some big ones buy the little ones through shares, just to make them as some subsidiary then close them, which is pretty current to see.

What else could be a hindrance ? Maybe the patent trolls and copyright trolls ? All to say, there are ways for richer ones to make more and more money (and own resources) while the less "rich" ones can't follow :-/

Unless you mind to share with us if those billionaires would be producing something either by their real/own inventions, or by distributing things with never asking out some staff reduction just in order to increase the already positive dividend ? I'm not badmouthing billionaires but try to avoid making them "useful" when it comes to who actually product with his/her hands, who is distributing resources/productions with his/her hands, who is cashing your bills with his/her hands, and who is really making large profit over this but also overlooking some "little" things.




Let see... Taxing the richer ones for the sake of solidarity ? Breaking the tax heavens ? Preventing tax evasion ? Penalizing those ordering staff reduction even though the society is producing well with profit ? Penalizing the attempt to erase little rivals by buying all of them ? Penalizing the economics trolling and speculation ?...

There are numerous ideas and some of them are already in application here and there in the world.

I'm not sure you understand what speculating is. All it is is offering to buy a product at a certain price before it comes to the market, whatever that product may be(you can speculate on anything really). The point being that the speculator is betting that they are buying under what the price will be for the product once it reaches the market. They do this of course because they can make a profit(sometimes huge) by buying low and selling high, much as like stocks.

Now the media and politicians tell people that speculators are gambling and/or are making huge profits without having anything to do with the production of the product. It is true that they had nothing to do with the production of the product, however the reason people sell to speculators is to reduce risk(in other words the opposite of gambling). The most speculating is done in products that take a long time to get to the market(and are thus risky). You don't know what you will be able to sell such products for come time to take them to market, so selling them to a speculator reduces the risk of you losing a lot of money on your investment. Speculators reduce the risk to themselves by speculating in several different kinds of products at the same time. All in all it helps the overall economy by not only reducing risk but because risk has been reduced there will probably be more businesses entering into those portions of the economy than otherwise would be.

As for the whole tax thing you can try to tax the rich more but honestly they are already taxed quite high in many countries. In the US for example the top 5% of earners contribute something like 40% of tax revenue. You could tax rich people more than they already are and they have been in the past but what ends up happening is that they find ways to keep their money from being taxed. Now you could as you say eliminate the tax havens but lets say that happens there is one thing that you cant stop them from doing and that's moving.

Hm ? Where would be the "risk" of people not wanting to eat/buy first necessity type food ? Where would be the "risk" of people not wanting to shelter/inhabit with a roof over their head ? And so on.

I reckon that sometimes, some speculations (but far not "all") would look as a "gambling" and bear some "risks". But it's not the same as speculate over something owned/speculated with an artificial monopole -- such as patent trolls, copyright trolls, speculations over critical resources... For example, Japan met great troubles at the beginning of the Shouwa era because people were suffering of rice price speculations (there was lot of rice in Japan but people couldn't afford it and were sometimes even making foreign rice come to the Japan market in order to eat something ; later the japanese government gave social benefit in order to help poorer to eat, etc), even leading the Japan to have later a colonialist politic with what historically ensued.

Its not about if people would buy the product or not(unless its a new product) its whether the price you can get for it will pay back the cost of producing said product. The longer it takes to get a product to the market the more chance there is that the price you can get for it at market will not pay back the cost of producing it. This is where speculators come in, they alleviate the risk to the producer and thus take on said risk themselves.

The situation in Japan may or may not have been caused by speculation, but I get the feeling that speculation only exacerbated the issue, it did not cause it. However I'm not familiar with that situation(hadn't even heard of it till now) so I don't know for sure.

I'm also not sure about what you mean when you say patent trolls and copyright trolls, can you elaborate?

You can't because we're not equal, second of all because of the race to the bottom.

10 people, one person owns resources to provide jobs for 5 of them. It's a turbo capitalist world, competitive market, he plays mostly by his rules. Granted they all meet the minimum requirements for the job, he will give it to the 5 guys who will accept to work for 2/3 the regular wage. If all of them are fine with it, he will then give it to the people who will do overtime all week, if that's still not enough he will hire those willing to never take vacation. If one guy snaps and goes "don't you think that's enough?" you'll get two answers: one is "UR LAZY" and the other is "u gusy are a dime a dozen, I've got plenty begging for me 2 hire dem". Technically the guy complaining is right, but he has no way to control it, nor a way to stop it.

About resources, well.

As jobs are getting less and less, overpopulation and coming right after a generation living way above their means (boomers), what's happening is that we are getting equal, but equally poor, with a very small concentration of extremely rich people at the top. Middle class is eventually gonna get wiped out, a matter of few decades.