I mean, intelligence is also luck. And (as much as people hate this), so is conscientiousness. At some point we have to acknowledge that dividing things into luck and not-luck is incoherent, and that we should use more useful axes.
We're competing with each other via billions of years of selection - there are major advantages if you're smart (and if you're pretty). You can also add the quality PG is talking about here which requires some amount of smartness as a prereq (curiosity?). I'm not sure how much it can really be cultivated above baseline, but it'd be interesting to know more. I'd guess there are some strategies, but a lot may still be tied to your inborn stats.
I'd argue we should strive for a society where the suffering you're exposed to if you're unlucky enough to be in the bottom quartile is bounded, while still allowing for the top to be unbounded in pushing humanity forward. Accepting there's natural variance here is part of that.
We're not all the same, things aren't fair. We shouldn't ignore that or pretend otherwise, but we also shouldn't think that means those dealt a bad genetic hand need to be totally screwed in our society (imo) and it doesn't mean you need to handicap the outliers on the other side in some Bergeron like pursuit of 'fairness' [0].
> I'd argue we should strive for a society where the suffering you're exposed to if you're unlucky enough to be in the bottom quartile is bounded, while still allowing for the top to be unbounded in pushing humanity forward.
FWIW, being unbounded in pushing humanity forward is different from being unbounded in pushing your individual wealth up, so those aren't really two sides of the same topic.
Or perhaps you really meant something different from what you wrote, because what you really meant doesn't sound so nice.
I'll second the recommendation of the Ted Chiang short story, it's well worth a read.
They're often related (look at Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, etc.) - I think it's good that the upper quartile creates new wealth (usually through reinvesting and building stuff). I think it's reasonable to try to structure things so that wealth doesn't give too much outsized political influence (easier said than done).
Allowing the incentives of unbounded wealth creation at the top is desirable imo.
If the upperbound is unlimited doesn't the lower bound essentially converge to zero? Imagine the upper strata (literally and figuratively) in flying cars and flying restaurants. The simple farm house would now seem like a desolate situation. Or would it?
I think it should be split into two graphs, practical and moral.
Practically, we all have to pretend we have free will. Hard work, diligence and deferment of the present for the future should be encouraged.
Morally, we shouldn't judge people who struggle with the above. "There but for the grace of god go I", etc etc. Society should try to be kind to all, resources permitting.
I love this sentiment, and it's one of a few I try to keep at the ready. I think it's underrated, as simple lanes to guide one's thinking go. I'm all-around much better, including more content, FWIW, when successfully holding that lane in-place.
I mean, yeah, it's basically just one of the key heuristics of practicing Stoicism, plus a hundred other practical ethical frameworks and religions, but I think the particular framing & phrasing is especially apt.
Kindness does indeed seem to be lacking. I constantly remind myself that all work is noble and aspire to extend empathy, compassion and sympathy to others.
