On fairness, equality and other things.

[OinkBoink]

How well can our laws which aim to provide equality and fairness work when people are inherently unequal among other things like environmental factors?

How "fair" is it that someone lucky enough to be born with a genetic gift of intelligence and/or physical beauty will have a much better chance of being meritorious and successful than someone who does not have these inherent gifts? Apart from inherent gifts, the environment people are born into also makes a difference. Someone who is poverty stricken may have a harder time being successful than someone who is born into wealth. As another case (which is not very talked about), someone born into wealth but not into an environment which promotes mental stability and provides intellectual stimulation may also have a hard time being successful and may even be less successful than some poverty stricken people in terms of achievements.

Now, I understand that inherent factors like genetics and biology only take you so far and that "hard work" is important. That being said, I also wonder how genetics and biology influence drive/motivation/ambition. (?) Apart from that, how do environmental factors affect these qualities? It's socially palatable to talk about things which can be improved by working hard but not about things which you're stuck with (as of now, considering present day science) as a result of genetics, biology etc.

I'm not asserting anything here. Merely inquiring and hoping to see an interesting discussion.

 

[jaqie]

The only society which can ever even hope of being truly fair and equal begins with an entire populace truly willing to sacrifice advantages they have to help less fortunate others. The human race is far, far from ready to even have a hope at being a fair, equal society.

 

[Craig234]

This is often discussed in terms of 'equality of opportunity' rather than 'equality of outcome'.

It is recognized that factors for children in homelessness, malnutriotion, education and more create inequality in opportunity, and we take measures to try to avoid that.

To do that, we need to have things like affordable education universally available.

The thing is, the most powerful and wealthy are not as interested in maximizing productivity for society, in widespread prosperity. Their interests are often at odds with those interests - they want to acquire and keep as much as possible. So things like monopoly are pretty wonderful for them. You'll see things like 'legacy admissions' to try to 'cut in line', and battles for things like minimized inheritance taxes to try to keep as much as possible.

This is the basic battle of our society, plutocracy versus egalitarianism.

The rich exist and do great in either - everyone else suffers in plutocracy. The rich just don't own as large a percent of everything in egalitarianism.

An example how this plays out is the finance industry. They siphon off vast amounts of our economic productivity for themselves as a sort of tax, because they can. We've learned in recent years they siphon off even more in scandalous manipulations of things like interest rates and speculation (several dollars of every fillup you do goes to the pockets of speculators for nothing). Their desire to recklessly leverage to take even more threatened the world economy and cost trillions in 2008.

If you want to do something to make money, you will likely have them taking a cut somehow.

That exclusive power they have to do all this is not about 'equal opportunity', but nearly the opposite.

Even our armed forces are no longer 'equal opportunity' to serve in wars -with a volunteer force, they get some patriots but recruitment centers on those who are poorer and need the position while the 'priviliged' can vote and donate for wars they profit from without any risk of serving.

 

[OinkBoink]

What about inherent inequalities? Given the same environment, the genetically gifted have a higher chance of being successful, creating knowledge, being meritorious, accumulating wealth, having the approval of society etc. This sort of inequality is often not discussed and the answer to address this inequality lies in science.

Opportunities aren't of much use when people are unable to use them well because of inherent factors.

I would say genetic inequality is a harder thing to deal with, because you can give people all the opportunities you want and they'll still lag behind if they aren't genetically as good and you're back to square one again.

Again, hardwork is important, but how do both genetic and environmental factors affect drive, motivation and ambition? Can anyone provide any studies on this? I read about some studies on rats a while back in relation to drive and dopamine levels I think but I'm not sure.

 

[Craig234]

What about inherent inequalities? Given the same environment, the genetically gifted have a higher chance of being successful, creating knowledge, being meritorious, accumulating wealth, having the approval of society etc. This sort of inequality is often not discussed and the answer to address this inequality lies in science.

Opportunities aren't of much use when people are unable to use them well because of inherent factors.

On the one hand, we accept a lot of that. We don't require you to listen to someone who sounds terrible singing instead of a singer with a great voice.

We don't give gold medals at the Olympics to every spectator in the stand.

On the other, we do take measures for some things. We might provide taxpayer-funded care for some things. We pass laws to give assistance to the disabled - from access laws (requiring ramps) to disabled parking to those newer street crossing machines that can talk to the pedestrian for the blind and more.

Really, we have far larger issues of equality of opportunity that can be addressed with just basic things like a fairer tax rate structure.

 

[OinkBoink]

As I wrote after I edited my post, you can give people all the opportunities you want, but the genetically gifted will make use of those opportunities and amass wealth, power etc. and you're back to square one where you're trying to address the issues of equality and fairness all over again. I'd really like some rapid progress in some of these biological areas of science so that less people have to suffer the indignity of being "inferior" to others due to factors that are beyond their control (this begs the question, what's really under our control anyway? ).

 

[Anarchist420]

What about inherent inequalities? Given the same environment, the genetically gifted have a higher chance of being successful, creating knowledge, being meritorious, accumulating wealth, having the approval of society etc. This sort of inequality is often not discussed and the answer to address this inequality lies in science.

I agree with that for the most part.

I love Murray Rothbard's "Egalitarianism as a Revolt against Nature"... it explains a lot about how IQ is 80% heritable and that egalitarianism is not desirable anyway.

If you look at the States with the most diverse populations, they tend to have more inequality of income, while those that are like 90% white tend to have more income equality.

More public spending on education doesn't increase equality of outcome because many people don't want to be educated.

 

[randomrogue]

I agree with that for the most part.

I love Murray Rothbard's "Egalitarianism as a Revolt against Nature"... it explains a lot about how IQ is 80% heritable and that egalitarianism is not desirable anyway.

If you look at the States with the most diverse populations, they tend to have more inequality of income, while those that are like 90% white tend to have more income equality.

More public spending on education doesn't increase equality of outcome because many people don't want to be educated.

This is a racist argument.

There are only a handful of states with white populations like that. Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, West Virginia, Iowa, Wyoming, North Dakota, Montana, Idaho, and Kentucky. A few follow closely like Wisconsin, Nebraska, Utah, and South Dakota.

All these states are sparsely populated.

It's relatively easy to have homogenous populations when your population is tiny.

 

[Craig234]

This thread topic is starting to seem like some bizarre hidden agenda, like it is about racism or something.

 

[Anarchist420]

This is a racist argument. There are only a handful of states with white populations like that. Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, West Virginia, Iowa, Wyoming, North Dakota, Montana, Idaho, and Kentucky. A few follow closely like Wisconsin, Nebraska, Utah, and South Dakota. All these states are sparsely populated. It's relatively easy to have homogenous populations when your population is tiny.

How is it a racist argument?

there is less inequality the more similar people are ethnically. Most countries in the EU have more regressive tax policy than we do here, probably enough to offset their egalitarian spending policy yet there is more equality of wealth there.

 

[OinkBoink]

This thread topic is starting to seem like some bizarre hidden agenda, like it is about racism or something.

Umm. No. At least not from my side. It's more about individual differences than class differences (though one may influence the other, but that's another thing). Understanding this in an objective manner almost always ends up with people attacking each other and I've grown to accept that. I'm sorry if any of this has seemed offensive (even in a subtle manner) which really wasn't and isn't my intention.

 

[boomerang]

A fair and equal society is not even desirable. It encourages complacency. Fair and equal is a progressive dream that must be kept in check or we'll all be equally miserable with no reason to excel at anything.

You may think your dog loves you but he's smart enough to know that his basic need is being met with virtually no effort on his part. He's being fed. The bonus is that he's in out of the weather too. The difference between him and a human is that he doesn't possess the capacity for greed and envy. He's happy with what's provided for him. A capacity most humans don't possess because our nature is to to try to achieve more. It's something that our modern society represses as the nanny state flourishes in attempts to gain political favor within the masses.

Humans need three things to survive in the U.S. of A. Food, clothing and shelter. That's it. How many in this country have died of starvation? Clothing is plentiful. How many died from exposure to the elements? How many are happy with just those three things?

We guarantee equal opportunity for our citizens but not equal outcome. That's essentially the answer to the OP's post. The answer to the question raised. We cannot legislate equal outcome. It's little more than common sense. Instead of teaching our children that it's wrong for others to have more than they do, we should start again teaching them that there are no limits on what they can achieve. It will take three generations to turn things around. Time is short.

 

[OinkBoink]

A fair and equal society is not even desirable. It encourages complacency. Fair and equal is a progressive dream that must be kept in check or we'll all be equally miserable with no reason to excel at anything.

You may think your dog loves you but he's smart enough to know that his basic need is being met with virtually no effort on his part. He's being fed. The bonus is that he's in out of the weather too. The difference between him and a human is that he doesn't possess the capacity for greed and envy. He's happy with what's provided for him. A capacity most humans don't possess because our nature is to to try to achieve more. It's something that our modern society represses as the nanny state flourishes in attempts to gain political favor within the masses.

Humans need three things to survive in the U.S. of A. Food, clothing and shelter. That's it. How many in this country have died of starvation? Clothing is plentiful. How many died from exposure to the elements? How many are happy with just those three things?

We guarantee equal opportunity for our citizens but not equal outcome. That's essentially the answer to the OP's post. The answer to the question raised. We cannot legislate equal outcome. It's little more than common sense. Instead of teaching our children that it's wrong for others to have more than they do, we should start again teaching them that there are no limits on what they can achieve. It will take three generations to turn things around. Time is short.

Yes, I agree with a lot of that, but I would like to add some more. Though incentives certainly motivate us to do better, our primary motivation is survival, curiosity and the desire to improve, innovate and find out more about the universe we live in (apart from our desire to have a comfortable life, a stable society etc.).

I don't think that anyone should teach anyone else that it is wrong for others to have more than they do. But is it also wrong when a person expects to be as intelligent/beautiful/creative/admired as another person (or perhaps more)? Think of it as jealousy in the sense that you want to hurt someone for being better than you versus envy in the sense that you wish you had what they did, without harboring negative feelings toward them. Though working hard at achieving our goals certainly helps, some things can't be changed to the extent that we want by mere hardwork. Teaching children that there are no limits to what they can achieve would be a good thing in an ideal world (and in fact, even in this world depending on the way it is taught), in this world there are some factors which may lower your probability of success and there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that and wanting to change/improve that. Can we really tell a young girl, who has obesity in her blood, that she has the same chance of becoming a supermodel as another girl who is born physically beautiful? Can we do that with a straight face without pretending just a little bit? Yes, we can tell her that she can work out, work hard etc. and improve, but I think telling her the truth about her condition would be a responsible thing to do. The truth may hurt for a moment, but it brings in long term acceptance and relief. It may also bring in the desire to change that "truth" (or maybe to accept it the way it is).

Keep in mind that this isn't just about legislation and laws, but about science and biology too (which are more concrete and have real laws versus legal laws which are man-made constructs and can be twisted, broken, turned and burnt).

Feel free to rebut me, as I for one, am always looking to improve.

 

[Moonbeam]

The conversation here is about self hate, a dissatisfaction with an inferior state. This is a state that is based on the duality created by words and thought as a divisive process, the categorization of terms. One person is told he is more or less intelligent, more or less attractive, more or less industrious, more or less valuable than another, all this competitive comparison, the creation of a motivation to be better than one already is.

We have been taught to hate what we are and to imagine that we are something far better, that by believing in this set of nonsense or that we can become much more superior. In this way we all become deniers of our self hate, unwilling to feel our inferiority pain that we learned long ago to hide.

We were all born perfect and thus totally equal and then turned into competitive jokes.

Nobody sees the invisible among us, the humble and unaffected, the meek, the modest, the self surrendered, full of a being joy within themselves we cannot imagine, all those who are their true selves.

 

[OinkBoink]

The conversation here is about self hate, a dissatisfaction with an inferior state. This is a state that is based on the duality created by words and thought as a divisive process, the categorization of terms. One person is told he is more or less intelligent, more or less attractive, more or less industrious, more or less valuable than another, all this competitive comparison, the creation of a motivation to be better than one already is.

We have been taught to hate what we are and to imagine that we are something far better, that by believing in this set of nonsense or that we can become much more superior. In this way we all become deniers of our self hate, unwilling to feel our inferiority pain that we learned long ago to hide.

We were all born perfect and thus totally equal and then turned into competitive jokes.

Nobody sees the invisible among us, the humble and unaffected, the meek, the modest, the self surrendered, full of a being joy within themselves we cannot imagine, all those who are their true selves.

Well, this is a sort of philosophical argument and I do agree with it in a certain way. That being said, can we ignore the reality of an intelligent person being more practically useful to society/an organisation or a physically attractive person eliciting heightened sexual responses from people attracted to said person? If all of us truly imbibe the outlook that you have presented, then maybe we can shed our notions of inferiority and superiority.

But till pragmatism exists, these notions might exist. Comparison will always exist in the sense that a potential employer will always choose a candidate who meets his needs and/or who is (relatively) productive among a host of other candidates. And people's sense of self worth is often closely tied to their achievements which are usually judged in a relative sense. I'm not saying that it should necessarily be this way, but it often is.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well, this is a sort of philosophical argument and I do agree with it in a certain way. That being said, can we ignore the reality of an intelligent person being more practically useful to society/an organisation or a physically attractive person eliciting heightened sexual responses from people attracted to said person? If all of us truly imbibe the outlook that you have presented, then maybe we can shed our notions of inferiority and superiority.

But till pragmatism exists, these notions might exist. Comparison will always exist in the sense that a potential employer will always choose a candidate who meets his needs and/or who is (relatively) productive among a host of other candidates. And people's sense of self worth is often closely tied to their achievements which are usually judged in a relative sense. I'm not saying that it should necessarily be this way, but it often is.

I have a friend who has faith. He takes a long view of things. He sees life from the point of view of eternity. The things that might stress you or me make him laugh. He doesn't care about money or fame or power or position. He enjoys thinking deeply about things.

So the answer to your question as to what we can ignore depends greatly on the person who asks the question.

Only you can prevent forest fires just as only you count with what you see.

You look at the world from the wrong perspective, I think. You have defined the reality of the world but can undefined it too. It is all a matter of perspective. What you call reality is a delusion created by comparison and the comparison takes place within you. Don't compare and all that will collapse. It is how you see and not how you think the world sees that matters. When what the world sees matters doesn't matter to you it will not matter in reality. Only you can define what is real. The only change that is required is one of perspective. It is the perspective from which you view the world that creates what is real. My friend is what he sees.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

If you look at the States with the most diverse populations, they tend to have more inequality of income, while those that are like 90% white tend to have more income equality.

If you're going to make a claim like that, you need to back it up.

Even if I assume you can, correlation doesn't imply causation. You are not taking into account demographic factors that would tend to create greater inequality in areas of higher diversity, such as the fact that rich people tend to live in cities and suburbs, and so do the very poor. Says nothing about genetics.

 

[cwjerome]

I don't think that anyone should teach anyone else that it is wrong for others to have more than they do. But is it also wrong when a person expects to be as intelligent/beautiful/creative/admired as another person (or perhaps more)? Think of it as jealousy in the sense that you want to hurt someone for being better than you versus envy in the sense that you wish you had what they did, without harboring negative feelings toward them. Though working hard at achieving our goals certainly helps, some things can't be changed to the extent that we want by mere hardwork. Teaching children that there are no limits to what they can achieve would be a good thing in an ideal world (and in fact, even in this world depending on the way it is taught), in this world there are some factors which may lower your probability of success and there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that and wanting to change/improve them. Can we really tell a young girl, who has obesity in her blood, that she has the same chance of becoming a supermodel as another girl who is born physically beautiful? Can we do that with a straight face without pretending just a little bit? Yes, we can tell her that she can work out, work hard etc. and improve, but I think telling her the truth about her condition would be a responsible thing to do. The truth may hurt for a moment, but it brings in long term acceptance and relief. It may also bring in the desire to change that "truth" (or maybe to accept it the way it is).

This seems a bit off to me. People surprise. People do things nobody thought they could. You want people to "accept" what they are, and that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It's almost as if you're promoting predestination, like people should be tested early and be told the "truth" about what they can and cannot do in life. Either way, your comments bring to mind a dystopia that goes against basic American values.

 

[OinkBoink]

^^Perhaps you missed this:

How well can our laws which aim to provide equality and fairness work when people are inherently unequal among other things like environmental factors?

How "fair" is it that someone lucky enough to be born with a genetic gift of intelligence and/or physical beauty will have a much better chance of being meritorious and successful than someone who does not have these inherent gifts? Apart from inherent gifts, the environment people are born into also makes a difference. Someone who is poverty stricken may have a harder time being successful than someone who is born into wealth. As another case (which is not very talked about), someone born into wealth but not into an environment which promotes mental stability and provides intellectual stimulation may also have a hard time being successful and may even be less successful than some poverty stricken people in terms of achievements.

Now, I understand that inherent factors like genetics and biology only take you so far and that "hard work" is important. That being said, I also wonder how genetics and biology influence drive/motivation/ambition. (?) Apart from that, how do environmental factors affect these qualities? It's socially palatable to talk about things which can be improved by working hard but not about things which you're stuck with (as of now, considering present day science) as a result of genetics, biology etc.

I'm not asserting anything here. Merely inquiring and hoping to see an interesting discussion.

This:

What about inherent inequalities? Given the same environment, the genetically gifted have a higher chance of being successful, creating knowledge, being meritorious, accumulating wealth, having the approval of society etc. This sort of inequality is often not discussed and the answer to address this inequality lies in science.

Opportunities aren't of much use when people are unable to use them well because of inherent factors.

I would say genetic inequality is a harder thing to deal with, because you can give people all the opportunities you want and they'll still lag behind if they aren't genetically as good and you're back to square one again.

Again, hardwork is important, but how do both genetic and environmental factors affect drive, motivation and ambition? Can anyone provide any studies on this? I read about some studies on rats a while back in relation to drive and dopamine levels I think but I'm not sure.

This:

As I wrote after I edited my post, you can give people all the opportunities you want, but the genetically gifted will make use of those opportunities and amass wealth, power etc. and you're back to square one where you're trying to address the issues of equality and fairness all over again. I'd really like some rapid progress in some of these biological areas of science so that less people have to suffer the indignity of being "inferior" to others due to factors that are beyond their control (this begs the question, what's really under our control anyway? ) .

and this:

Yes, I agree with a lot of that, but I would like to add some more. Though incentives certainly motivate us to do better, our primary motivation is survival, curiosity and the desire to improve, innovate and find out more about the universe we live in (apart from our desire to have a comfortable life, a stable society etc.).

I don't think that anyone should teach anyone else that it is wrong for others to have more than they do. But is it also wrong when a person expects to be as intelligent/beautiful/creative/admired as another person (or perhaps more)? Think of it as jealousy in the sense that you want to hurt someone for being better than you versus envy in the sense that you wish you had what they did, without harboring negative feelings toward them. Though working hard at achieving our goals certainly helps, some things can't be changed to the extent that we want by mere hardwork. Teaching children that there are no limits to what they can achieve would be a good thing in an ideal world (and in fact, even in this world depending on the way it is taught), in this world there are some factors which may lower your probability of success and there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that and wanting to change/improve them. Can we really tell a young girl, who has obesity in her blood, that she has the same chance of becoming a supermodel as another girl who is born physically beautiful? Can we do that with a straight face without pretending just a little bit? Yes, we can tell her that she can work out, work hard etc. and improve, but I think telling her the truth about her condition would be a responsible thing to do. The truth may hurt for a moment, but it brings in long term acceptance and relief. It may also bring in the desire to change that "truth" (or maybe to accept it the way it is).

Keep in mind that this isn't just about legislation and laws, but about science and biology too (which are more concrete and have real laws versus legal laws which are man-made constructs and can be twisted, broken, turned and burnt).

Feel free to rebut me, as I for one, am always looking to improve.

And yes, people do surprise. I don't see a contradiction between that and what I've written.

Being a non-American, I really don't know much about American values and I'm not going to comment on that with little knowledge. These are human issues that apply to people everywhere.

I'm not saying that people will definitely end up where testing tells them they might. It's more complicated than that. There are a lot of factors that affect outcomes. There may also be factors which affect test results. Some tests may have an inherent degree of inaccuracy. It's more an issue of probability and being prepared than anything absolute really.

As a simple example, let's take a math(s) exam for instance. Someone averagely intelligent may outperform someone more intelligent if the averagely intelligent person has prepared better or if the more intelligent person has a poor mental state. Does this test really tell us their potential in terms of absolutes without considering other factors that influence the test scores? Same thing (or rather, something similar).

 

[Moonbeam]

This seems a bit off to me. People surprise. People do things nobody thought they could. You want people to "accept" what they are, and that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It's almost as if you're promoting predestination, like people should be tested early and be told the "truth" about what they can and cannot do in life. Either way, your comments bring to mind a dystopia that goes against basic American values.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I believe that the principle of equality can exist only where the recognition of a fundamental identity between people is a truth perceived as self evident. In short, to know the fundamental identity of people is something you know because you know it. It is not something you can prove, only perceive, and you can perceive it only if you yourself have knowledge of your real identity. It was the enlightenment that brought this kind of self knowledge to the fore in America's founders, in no small part, I would imagine, through Masonry, a branch of Sufi activity. I have even seen claims that the G at the fulcrum of the compass is a Q for the Quran.

 

[cwjerome]

^^Perhaps you missed this:

This:

This:

and this:

And yes, people do surprise. I don't see a contradiction between that and what I've written.

Being a non-American, I really don't know much about American values and I'm not going to comment on that with little knowledge. These are human issues that apply to people everywhere.

I can sum up some of these values as "Don't let anyone stop you from your dreams." I'm not sure it's your (or society's) place to tell people what they can and can't do in this respect. Maximize opportunity and let the cards fall where they may. I see no value in some rigidly tracked, hyper-orderly, hyper-organzied society that manages people to the degree you seem to suggest.

The idea of laws providing equality and fairness only means providing a environment where people can reach their potential... whatever that might be. I don't know why you would think it means everyone has the same potential in all areas.

 

[OinkBoink]

I can sum up some of these values as "Don't let anyone stop you from your dreams." I'm not sure it's your (or society's) place to tell people what they can and can't do in this respect. Maximize opportunity and let the cards fall where they may. I see no value in some rigidly tracked, hyper-orderly, hyper-organzied society that manages people to the degree you seem to suggest.

The idea of laws providing equality and fairness only means providing a environment where people can reach their potential... whatever that might be. I don't know why you would think it means everyone has the same potential in all areas.

I don't think that. And that's what the whole discussion has been about. Also, I edited my post. You may want to re-check it. It's precisely this inequality of different people having different potentials that I'm trying to address. And hence the talk about genetics and biology. I'm interested in how these inherent disparities can be overcome (among other things) by using the tools of science.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm not saying that people will definitely end up where testing tells them they might. It's more complicated than that. There are a lot of factors that affect outcomes. There may also be factors which affect test results. Some tests may have an inherent degree of inaccuracy. It's more an issue of probability and being prepared than anything absolute really.

When oppression exists even the bird dies in the nest. A saying

The idea that all men are created equal is, in my opinion, a rather advanced and sophisticated idea, one that requires a proper environment in which to manifest. The presence of fear, tyranny, poverty, hatred, hopelessness, etc, are factors that create a very conservative mental state. To sustain liberal ideas in a population, there needs to be a lot of light. The organs of perception necessary for the revolutionary idea that men have innate equality by birth, is the result of need. As we race walking backward into our own extinction, via competition and greed, the need for that old evolution in thinking will increase in the world's population. That a new consciousness that all of us are one and the same is increasing. Let us hope the pace of this understanding is fact enough to prevent our extinction.

 

[OinkBoink]

When oppression exists even the bird dies in the nest. A saying

The idea that all men are created equal is, in my opinion, a rather advanced and sophisticated idea, one that requires a proper environment in which to manifest. The presence of fear, tyranny, poverty, hatred, hopelessness, etc, are factors that create a very conservative mental state. To sustain liberal ideas in a population, there needs to be a lot of light. The organs of perception necessary for the revolutionary idea that men have innate equality by birth, is the result of need. As we race walking backward into our own extinction, via competition and greed, the need for that old evolution in thinking will increase in the world's population. That a new consciousness that all of us are one and the same is increasing. Let us hope the pace of this understanding is fact enough to prevent our extinction.

Well, I agree with that in a certain sense. Even if men are created unequal in a pragmatic sense, the fact that men have the desire to improve (be it intrinsic or extrinsic improvement) and overcome all barriers is the most important thing.

Apart from that, that people are "equal" irrespective of their practical utility is certainly a more spiritual/philosophical (and important) idea.

 

[cwjerome]

I don't think that. And that's what the whole discussion has been about. Also, I edited my post. You may want to re-check it. It's precisely this inequality of different people having different potentials that I'm trying to address. And hence the talk about genetics and biology. I'm interested in how these inherent disparities can be overcome (among other things) by using the tools of science.

The advances in genetics are huge and have major political implications... but I'm not sure I follow your question. Can you give me an example of tools of science being used to overcome inherent disparities?