"Super Education" or other technological privileges?

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,281
Brassicaland
#12
Hello !!!!

Unfortunately,
Economic Inequality is a serious problem that concerns education - the site -> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/nha3.20206 - tells about how economic inequality affects education, the process of education, children who go to universities, schools, and colleges,
Education can only improve people’s abilities and skills so much; we are not physically upgrading the human body yet.
 

Ichon

Ad Honorem
Mar 2013
3,477
#13
Ironically the university system is quite communistic in how tuition is valued vs eventual wages expected.

Wealth usually concentrates because having wealth gives more opportunities to create more wealth especially for someone who started with very little wealth. Most families and companies make the majority of their principal with a single founder. Then that money is transferred gradually by the carekeepers or descendants into new assets and only very rarely completely lost as it takes numerous foolish decisions by a number of people for that to occur.

Personally I believe there are three main factors- ability to withstand risk, money as power&influence to 'game' the system (why so many companies find monopoly and lobbying a better investment than improving their production), and finally success attracts success.
 

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,281
Brassicaland
#15
Ironically the university system is quite communistic in how tuition is valued vs eventual wages expected.

Wealth usually concentrates because having wealth gives more opportunities to create more wealth especially for someone who started with very little wealth. Most families and companies make the majority of their principal with a single founder. Then that money is transferred gradually by the carekeepers or descendants into new assets and only very rarely completely lost as it takes numerous foolish decisions by a number of people for that to occur.

Personally I believe there are three main factors- ability to withstand risk, money as power&influence to 'game' the system (why so many companies find monopoly and lobbying a better investment than improving their production), and finally success attracts success.
In Liu Cixin's story of "Wage of Humanity", even these qualities can be purchased.
So, where does the so-called 99% suggestion come from?
 

Ichon

Ad Honorem
Mar 2013
3,477
#18
The idea that a small group of wealthy people at the top of society disproportionately benefit from society is not a new idea. It is actually true in my opinion but I think the correlation with wealth is more modern aspect of most societies hierarchies.

The idea that a small group of people at the top actively control events and scheme to deprive their social inferiors is conspiracy theorist bs most of the time. It might happen occasionally but most schemes are aimed at people of the same social class with unpopular minorities being more infamous for being repeat victims with their abusers escaping accountability vs people who try to deprive their social peers are almost always held to account if caught.

I am sure there will be people who attempt to ensure their children inherit the very best genes- even some who might be ok with the fact those genes aren't their own but that future is a bit away and might actually be better. Now when there is favouritism for children of your social class or nepotism the odds are only slightly better than even the person benefiting is any better than someone picked by a random lottery yet such things occur frequently. With genetic engineering the odds will become much better and society might function more smoothly with competent people in charge more often.

The most likely alternative is that it leads to a genetic arms race and the extinction of 'normal' humans simply because only the most successful can afford children and they will always elect to genengineer for competitive reason. Second most likely is that having the genetic 'best' occupy all the top positions in society won't actually decrease the frequency of malfeasance, incompetence, or accidents nor lead to vastly more productive society exposing the fact that most things which happen in an extremely successful individual's life are not due to innate talent or merit but being in the right (or wrong when disaster strikes) place at the right or (wrong) time. I think many people will refuse to accept that even if it is objectively true because it smacks of nihilism when in fact it should make people more happy and value something other than outlier examples of success and focus on more practical things. Basically in that case society probably will not change that much at all- people will still be people and making poor choices not due to lack of foresight or ability but willful ignorance.