2 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
View submission: /r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | February 24, 2025
I mean I don't think anyone is trying to deny that competition is a variable, I disagree that it's the sole one.
But see it's not by any random occurrences those resources being allocated since there are those who are better at hacking the game than others and thus those resources will be allocated to them, can we least agree on that ?
But that is not necessarily true, lets take for example those who are born in harsh climate where ressources are scarce. They could theoretically be the most intelligent and competitive yet they would have no chance of even matching the ressources of those in more favorable environments.
Even if it were true I struggle to understand how the vague notion of "better at hacking the game" would imply that competition is it's sole precursor. Being arbitrarily in a location where ressource extraction is favorable would naturally result in higher allocation regardless of any human trait involved.
All am essentially pointing out is any form of competition in any enterprise you choose to examine, inequality will always arise from it once people figure out they can hack the game better than others
It's impossible to contradict this as you've created a tautology. Those who manage to have more have more therefore inequality.
You say that inequality will arise once this occurs, but seem to agree that equality would occur regardless, I am struggling to understand what you're trying to point out.
Comment by Formless_Mind at 25/02/2025 at 19:35 UTC
1 upvotes, 2 direct replies
But that is not necessarily true, lets take for example those who are born in harsh climate where ressources are scarce. They could theoretically be the most intelligent and competitive yet they would have no chance of even matching the ressources of those in more favorable environments.
The problem here is the assumption those people in favourable environments have the means to obtain those resources which is often not the case in reality especially in this interconnected world where l can be in harsh climates but so long as l've the means to obtain those resources, that factor isn't a problem which is what you see all the time
For example Africa is the most minerally rich continent and so by your line of reasoning those people in Africa should have more resources to allocate to themselves since they are in more favorable environments but that's not been the case as western nations have controled that distribution of resources
Even if it were true I struggle to understand how the vague notion of "better at hacking the game" would imply that competition is it's sole precursor.
Because competition breeds intelligence which has always been the most accurate predictor of obtaining resources matter what variables are involved
You say that inequality will arise once this occurs, but seem to agree that equality would occur regardless, I am struggling to understand what you're trying to point out.
I never agreed equality would occur but said if you were to remove those traits then equality might be of possibility but also said am not interested in that kind of utopian thinking