> 1) see that envy and egoism is considered a primary motivator for advancement (if you like free market theories, e.g. Adam Smith and the "egoism of the butcher", etc.)
I agree it's a primary motivator for advancement, but if the government redistributes wealth it destroys that motivation and the benefits that come along with people having it (new businesses, higher productivity, increased education, etc).
> 2) accept that humanity should progress in tandem, not just let some people get the majority of the benefits of today, just because the vast majority is also "better off compared to people in the past" (if you prefer socialist theories).
I think at some point there's little point to everyone increasing their standard of living. We're already reaching a point here in the US where people are simply bored. Would we all be better off as a society if everyone had an extra 500 sq. ft. added to their homes, or a Tesla in their garage, or designer clothes? We are reaching the point of diminishing returns when it comes to material possessions, unless it's all about envy like I suggested in my previous reply.
> If they take away your internet access, will you be fine with that because people in 1850 lived in log cabins without internet, electricity or running water and you still have it so much better than them?
Well, I'm not being "given" my internet access, I pay for it. But yes, if I could no longer afford to pay for my internet access I would still thank my lucky stars I have electricity and running water. Duh?
I agree it's a primary motivator for advancement, but if the government redistributes wealth it destroys that motivation and the benefits that come along with people having it (new businesses, higher productivity, increased education, etc).
> 2) accept that humanity should progress in tandem, not just let some people get the majority of the benefits of today, just because the vast majority is also "better off compared to people in the past" (if you prefer socialist theories).
I think at some point there's little point to everyone increasing their standard of living. We're already reaching a point here in the US where people are simply bored. Would we all be better off as a society if everyone had an extra 500 sq. ft. added to their homes, or a Tesla in their garage, or designer clothes? We are reaching the point of diminishing returns when it comes to material possessions, unless it's all about envy like I suggested in my previous reply.
> If they take away your internet access, will you be fine with that because people in 1850 lived in log cabins without internet, electricity or running water and you still have it so much better than them?
Well, I'm not being "given" my internet access, I pay for it. But yes, if I could no longer afford to pay for my internet access I would still thank my lucky stars I have electricity and running water. Duh?