sc94597 said:
stlwtng4Dmdrxip said:
sc94597 said:
Rab said:
NightDragon83 said:
That some folks out there have more money than others? Right, like THAT'S never happened before in human history. T |
Look to science to answer that one
In most of Human existence (100,000 years) we have had little wealth inequality (hunter gather culture) people would share most resources mostly evenly, it's only roughly in the past 5000 years where moderate to high levels of wealth inequality has become common
Lets not kid ourselves we have evolved with sharing most resources most of the time, that's' how we survived to later become the dominated species of Earth, it's part of who we are, we naturally don't like it when others get far more than us, we accept it once we are conditioned, but we naturally feel most comfortable when people are mostly equal to each other.
Since agriculture we have changed this basic principle into one where some have a lot more resources than others, and the ones with the most resources often use it to control the ones with less, creating social problems because people feel less looked after and feel less valued unlike in our hunter gather ancestors who felt valued because they mostly shared in the spoils of the hunting and gathering
I don't blame people for thinking we have always have to live with inequality, it because it's all we have know and are conditioned to it, but the reality for vast periods of Human culture is that is was very different and equatable, our Human DNA has evolved to work best and happiest in as close to an equatable society as possible
|
By this logic, should we revert to tribalism and hunter-gatherer life-styles? I'm pretty sure NightDragon's point wasn't that sharing common resources hasn't existed, but as an alternative wealth-inequality and capitalism exist, just as naturally as the first. Anybody literate in economics would know that with a flat, centralized, redistribution of resources productivity would not only fail to pick up, there would be no reason to (hence tribal lifestyles.)
As for the bolded, I do wish to see biological, psychological, sociological, or economic data which substantiates your statement, otherwise it's just a conjecture.
As for the underlined, how in the world do you know this? Have you spoken with them?
As for italics, please cite the biological source that the need for equality is a genetic feature found in all human beings, otherwise, stop making unsubstantiated claims as if they were facts.
|
Aren't you awnsering your own question? It shouldn't be all or nothing, there should be a ballance in society and not the " rich people get everything", or "we need to go back to the jungle".
|
I don't agree that the society we live in today is "rich people get everything" when in fact, in the last century, poverty rates have decreased from 80% of the world's population to 20% of the world's population. In basic economics one learns about Adam Smith and his conclusion that free-trade benefits all who take part in it, not because these people have a bigger omniscence of the economic reality, but because these people all work in their own self-interest and work with others from that perspective.
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our necessities but of their advantages."
It was only through socialism, mercantilism, and corporatism that we were impoverished before free-trade and capitalism benefited all human beings, the rich, and the poor creating the so abhored (by socialists) bourgeoisie (middle class) in the process.
|
