Economic Disparity and Associated Social Issues

[RevolverRob]

As a scientist, I cannot think of an ecosystem where equal opportunity is tolerated. Can you? In fact, the whole premise of evolution is to give your offspring a competitive advantage in response to whatever selective pressures exist - be it a saber tooth tiger or economic, legal, educational, etc.

So, someone explain to me why I should embrace equal opportunity when 50,000 years of evolutionary pressure tells me that my genes are more likely to survive if my offspring is born with a competitive advantage? If your answer relies on some concept of “fairness” or survival of our current deteriorating social construct called America, well good luck with that.

Well...do you want the short or the long answer?

Short answer - I can think of dozens of examples where it has been evolutionary advantageous to provide equal access of each individual to the resources of the group. Ants and bees come to mind first, Meerkats, slime molds, and of course primates. By definition, primates are social creatures, the conceptual framework of "equal opportunity" has its limits of course, it's typically read: "equal opportunity for one's tribe". Regardless, we evolved (over the last 10 or so million years) in a largely cooperative framework, where sharing of resources, division of labor, etc. are fundamental aspects of human nature. Those Australopithicenes in Olduvai Gorge were not lone individuals out there, they appear to have worked together with at least some division of labor, for the good of their group. The way the tools look and are shaped indicate amounts of time where only an individual who had access to substantial food resources, could have made them.

In short the evidence suggests that we evolved tool use, culture, and the social structures that circumscribe "humanity" as adaptations to survive and continue moving forward, not in spite of them.

But, for what it's worth, the evolution of sociality and cooperation is indeed a perplexing one, because it is counter-intuitive to the general premise of natural selection and thus it has had thousands of pages of text and millions of hours given to it. It turns out that many systems have evolved degrees of cooperation or shared interdependence (remember, we even have a term for it, symbiosis). But we do see that after awhile these systems will break down, greed is inevitable. As it turns out, greed is what always destroys cooperative systems. If you want a justification for embracing "equal opportunity", it's because without some degree of cooperation, the system that is humanity will break down. It may come back, but it will be on a timescale that suggests that it will be dozens or hundreds of generations downstream before it does. So, if you value your species...-at least think about-*.

*By the by, I don't think this will happen fast. But based on studies of extinct systems, one aspect we see consistently is that each little break down of aspects of the ecosystem destabilizes it, until only a moderate push sends it over the edge and spiraling down into oblivion.

[Joe in PNG]

I worked in a Civil Service position for almost 26 years. The edit comment is exactly the system I worked in(fuck up & move up is what we called it). It was funny until I got promoted...

That's government for you.

[Sensei]

Well...do you want the short or the long answer?

Short answer - I can think of dozens of examples where it has been evolutionary advantageous to provide equal access of each individual to the resources of the group. Ants and bees come to mind first, Meerkats, slime molds, and of course primates. By definition, primates are social creatures, the conceptual framework of "equal opportunity" has its limits of course, it's typically read: "equal opportunity for one's tribe". Regardless, we evolved (over the last 10 or so million years) in a largely cooperative framework, where sharing of resources, division of labor, etc. are fundamental aspects of human nature. Those Australopithicenes in Olduvai Gorge were not lone individuals out there, they appear to have worked together with at least some division of labor, for the good of their group. The way the tools look and are shaped indicate amounts of time where only an individual who had access to substantial food resources, could have made them.

In short the evidence suggests that we evolved tool use, culture, and the social structures that circumscribe "humanity" as adaptations to survive and continue moving forward, not in spite of them.

But, for what it's worth, the evolution of sociality and cooperation is indeed a perplexing one, because it is counter-intuitive to the general premise of natural selection and thus it has had thousands of pages of text and millions of hours given to it. It turns out that many systems have evolved degrees of cooperation or shared interdependence (remember, we even have a term for it, symbiosis). But we do see that after awhile these systems will break down, greed is inevitable. As it turns out, greed is what always destroys cooperative systems. If you want a justification for embracing "equal opportunity", it's because without some degree of cooperation, the system that is humanity will break down. It may come back, but it will be on a timescale that suggests that it will be dozens or hundreds of generations downstream before it does. So, if you value your species...-at least think about-*.

*By the by, I don't think this will happen fast. But based on studies of extinct systems, one aspect we see consistently is that each little break down of aspects of the ecosystem destabilizes it, until only a moderate push sends it over the edge and spiraling down into oblivion.

I’d prefer an accurate version. None of the examples that you provided illustrate equal opportunity. Insect hives have a heirachy of drones, workers, and queens - each with various levels of access to resources and mating. Meerkats are matriarchal societies with a dominant female reserving all breeding rights to herself and even killing the pups born to subordinate females. As for slime molds, whatever.

[Duces Tecum]

Not everyone values owning a mansion and a fleet of cars- but everyone should have the opportunity to earn those if they do choose . . . For a capitalist economy to last everyone has to have the option to earn more. If it’s a rigged game, no one’s gonna play.

Perhaps the "option" is available, but you have to do more than "choose" to have a mansion and fleet. Thing is, sound personal financial decisions tend to yield favorable results, even today. Avoid drugs. Graduate from school before you get married. Get married before you have children. Live within your means. Buy income producing assets when you can. None of this is rocket science.

No sympathy is available for people who don't use each step of the ladder, then whine that their disappointment is the ladder's fault.

[GardoneVT]

Perhaps the "option" is available, but you have to do more than "choose" to have a mansion and fleet. Thing is, sound personal financial decisions tend to yield favorable results, even today. Avoid drugs. Graduate from school before you get married. Get married before you have children. Live within your means. Buy income producing assets when you can. None of this is rocket science.

No sympathy is available for people who don't use each step of the ladder, then whine that their disappointment is the ladder's fault.

The problem at hand is said ladder is only accessible to a shrinking portion of the population.

[RevolverRob]

I’d prefer an accurate version. None of the examples that you provided illustrate equal opportunity. Insect hives have a heirachy of drones, workers, and queens - each with various levels of access to resources and mating. Meerkats are matriarchal societies with a dominant female reserving all breeding rights to herself and even killing the pups born to subordinate females. As for slime molds, whatever.

Okay...

"Equal opportunity" is a sociocultural construct unique to humans. Ergo, your initial statement of why you should care about "equal opportunity when evolution tells you not to" is fundamentally flawed, because equal opportunity is not an evolutionary construct. Therefore, you cannot use an evolutionary justification for or against equal opportunity, in doing so, the argument you've effectively made is one made by eugenics, which as we've discussed here a bunch of times, is a perversion of the fundamental aspects of evolutionary law.

Short answer - you were wrong to make the comparison you did in your initial statement.

Now, in an attempt to translate "equal opportunity" from a sociocultural context into a evolutionary one. The first step is to recognize that "sociocultural" is in and of itself an evolutionary adaptation, whereby interactions of societies via culture collectively form to provide advantageous responses to perturbed environments. If equal opportunity is a widely accepted sociocultural value within a given population for multiple generations (remember in an evolutionary framework, a single generations acceptance or denial of a concept isn't sufficient), it stands to reason that it is of some evolutionary advantage (or at least neutral), because negative selection is a significantly strong force to wipe out bad ideas, fast.

Of course demonstrating this would involve us going down the hole of determining what are the various parameters that define "equal opportunity" and how those parameters would then be measured in past and present populations in comparable ways. Then actually measuring them and looking at the results to see if there appear to correlations between measurements and inferred booms in human populations. Such an approach has shown to be valid looking at other cultural phenomena (e.g., the rise of iron metallurgy, the rise of sedentary agriculture, the rise of industrialization) - thus is should reveal some interesting insights. Only then, do I think you will find a genuine answer as to whether or not there is evolutionary advantage of "equal opportunity". My default hypothesis would be, since the idea has persisted for several dozen generations across multiple societies now since the rise of in particular sedentary agriculture, it has some value as a concept, but that is only my hypothesis.

[Duces Tecum]

The problem at hand is said ladder is only accessible to a shrinking portion of the population.

Is that the portion of the population that (a) fails to avoid drugs, (b) does not graduate from school, (c) does not marry, (d) has children out of wedlock, (e) does not live within his or her means, and (f) has never bought income producing assets?

I would be more open to conversion if references were made to people who stepped firmly on each of those six rungs and still failed. If a person chooses to not follow a common plan that has demonstrated a high probability of success, why should the rest of us care more for his welfare than he does?

[GardoneVT]

Is that the portion of the population that (a) fails to avoid drugs, (b) does not graduate from school, (c) does not marry, (d) has children out of wedlock, (e) does not live within his or her means, and (f) has never bought income producing assets?

I would be more open to conversion if references were made to people who stepped firmly on each of those six rungs and still failed. If a person chooses to not follow a common plan that has demonstrated a high probability of success, why should the rest of us care more for his welfare than he does?

Perhaps because said person never had a chance to make the “proper choice” to begin with.

As is often said here, you don’t know what you don’t know. The option to make the so called “proper choice” doesn’t exist if you never knew it was available. Someone born into a household of drug addicts, drug dealers, child molesters, or in the wrong zip code/holler might have to fight just to stay out of the cemetery. Kicking such people while they’re down isn’t the American way.

As such, making sure everyone has a reasonable chance at the American dream is not only a pragmatic economic and national security policy, it’s also consistent with our national identity.

[Sensei]

I’m quite aware that equal opportunity is a social construct that is unique to humans. I’m just saying that it has never been achieved and will never happen. That tells me that trying to achieve it is probably maladaptive.

[Joe in PNG]

I’m quite aware that equal opportunity is a social construct that is unique to humans. I’m just saying that it has never been achieved and will never happen. That tells me that trying to achieve it is probably maladaptive.

It also means you have to make everyone into something that is not human- the New Soviet Man. And despite absolute power and an absolute willingness to kill and persecute, they never produced people who were pure selfless ants & bees. Because people are people. People are great at gaming the system, looking for loopholes, faking compliance, and just generally not going along with the program.

I'm a fan of the free market because unlike Socialism, it's a description of what people generally do.