Yes. The problem with Gates is not the good stuff his foundation does, it's the fact that a monopoly concentrated so much money in just a few folks (oligarchs) hands. This was an obvious problem as far back as the late 1990s, but as I recall nobody except a few cranks said anything about it.
Having since read the 'article' (read: puff piece), the above predictions are 4.5/5 (giving a generous half point for the one line mentioning Epstein).
So why am I flagged? Is it really just the opinion of "cranks" to want better than this now?
Has nearly everyone in the tech community really forgotten the decades of Gates cynically crushing promising businesses? Did I mess a memo where HN prohibits calling out puff pieces now?
> as I recall nobody except a few cranks said anything about it.
Well, even the DoJ took issue with it, eventually. It took a lot of broken dreams to get there though, and
Billionaire is a euphemism for oligarch. It's time we start calling them this.
Statistically, oligarchs are terrible for society. They all start out evil - that's a prerequisites for amassing a fortune/power this large.
Then, for each one who pivots to doing some good in later life, there's at least another twenty who continue to be evil, or gradually slide from moderate evil into full on fascism.
The only answer is for society to reject the oligarchy. Ideally by taxation or something civil like that. But the longer we take to act, the more likely that more extreme measures will be needed.
The problem is a lot more complex than meets the eye. As long as the structure of society is shaped like that of a tall pyramid, someone will always take the place at the apex. It is at the very least ingrained in human nature, if not in mammals or even life itself.
Humans have made attempts at freeing themselves from this reality of nature, as history hints at the flattening of this pyramid, even if it is at a relatively slow pace. This does not mean revolutions are good though, since the problem at hand is about human nature, and activism only results in a bloody rebellion against our very own nature.
The battle may very well be spiritual because it could be the only way to transcend nature and its hierarchical grasp that condemns every living being to partake in a brutal hierarchy of some kind.
> As long as the structure of society is shaped like that of a tall pyramid, someone will always take the place at the apex.
That doesn't absolve them of evil.
> It is at the very least ingrained in human nature, if not in mammals or even life itself.
That's not remotely true. You can't look at humans under capitalism and extrapolate that to humanity, and even to mammals. That's like observing wolves in captivity and saying they act like that in nature, or observing rats in tiny cages and extrapolating to ourselves.
In fact, for most of humanity, we were pretty damn egalitarian. Capitalism changed things, and the problem is getting rapidly worse - precisely because of billionaires [0].
> the problem at hand is about human nature
Nope. It's about human nature being warped. By billionaires and their pets.
> The battle may very well be spiritual
It is - because human nature is being warped. Every loophole in our evolutionary psychology is being weaponized... By billionaires. Inequality is right at the heart of all of our current crises.
>In fact, for most of humanity, we were pretty damn egalitarian. Capitalism changed things, and the problem is getting rapidly worse - precisely because of billionaires [0].
No, it's scale that changed things. Larger pre-capitalistic societies (which are still relatively recent as far as the history of the species goes) were even less egalitarian. It's only smaller groups that were less structured where you find much less inequality, the problem is they lose to more organised, larger, and materially wealthier groups.
Ok, I mean agriculture allowed for great inequality and large cities... Still, capitalism changed things even more. Scale isn't the reason why inequality is the highest it's ever been right now; it's because billionaire oligarchs are making all the decisions, and are selling the planet's future for a little bit more.
> Larger pre-capitalistic societies (which are still relatively recent as far as the history of the species goes) were even less egalitarian.
I don't think scale is the defining issue there, but if you can bring a paper or something I'd be happy to look at it. Also, keep in mind that despite all our advancements inequality is the highest it has ever been (and global destruction has never been closer).
You seem to be interpreting "most of humanity" as "most of recorded history", resulting in error. Recorded history is a tiny fraction of "most of humanity".
There's no shortage of scientific research on this topic, and it's in broad agreement that for most of our history we lived relatively egalitarian lives compared to the modern era.
> capitalism, the source of all of our problems
Right now? Pretty much. It's literally the source of most of our biggest problems: Climate catastrophe, AI doom, mass pollution, the anthropocene extinction, historic wealth inequality (!), massive political corruption (!), resource depletion, media manipulation, etc etc.
In other words, it changed things.
> By all means we were all living happy, egalitarian existences in the past. Certainly no recorded histories of monarchs or warlords, no records of inequity.
Again, there's plenty of research on this, if you care to look at the original argument and not your strawman version.
Btw, during all the monarchs and warlords, was wealth inequality ever as high as right now? (Spoiler alert: it was not).
Also, capitalism didn't originate "in the early 19th century". You might be thinking of the industrial revolution, which is when it globally coalesced.
> are you a complete idiot?
Often. Glad we agree on the need to rein in our oligarchs though, that's the main thing. Try to be a little more polite; we don't talk like that here.
To be fair I don't think fascists were too big fans of the oligarchy either. Much like other kind of socialists, they used the state power to challenge the liberal oligarchy of their time. So it's more correct to say that wealth disparity and unchecked billionaires with too much power may encourage the masses to support radical political movements, such as fascism and communism, as a counter measure.
https://archive.ph/4SLDJ
[flagged]
Yes. The problem with Gates is not the good stuff his foundation does, it's the fact that a monopoly concentrated so much money in just a few folks (oligarchs) hands. This was an obvious problem as far back as the late 1990s, but as I recall nobody except a few cranks said anything about it.
Having since read the 'article' (read: puff piece), the above predictions are 4.5/5 (giving a generous half point for the one line mentioning Epstein).
So why am I flagged? Is it really just the opinion of "cranks" to want better than this now?
Has nearly everyone in the tech community really forgotten the decades of Gates cynically crushing promising businesses? Did I mess a memo where HN prohibits calling out puff pieces now?
> as I recall nobody except a few cranks said anything about it.
Well, even the DoJ took issue with it, eventually. It took a lot of broken dreams to get there though, and
Billionaire is a euphemism for oligarch. It's time we start calling them this.
Statistically, oligarchs are terrible for society. They all start out evil - that's a prerequisites for amassing a fortune/power this large.
Then, for each one who pivots to doing some good in later life, there's at least another twenty who continue to be evil, or gradually slide from moderate evil into full on fascism.
The only answer is for society to reject the oligarchy. Ideally by taxation or something civil like that. But the longer we take to act, the more likely that more extreme measures will be needed.
The problem is a lot more complex than meets the eye. As long as the structure of society is shaped like that of a tall pyramid, someone will always take the place at the apex. It is at the very least ingrained in human nature, if not in mammals or even life itself.
Humans have made attempts at freeing themselves from this reality of nature, as history hints at the flattening of this pyramid, even if it is at a relatively slow pace. This does not mean revolutions are good though, since the problem at hand is about human nature, and activism only results in a bloody rebellion against our very own nature.
The battle may very well be spiritual because it could be the only way to transcend nature and its hierarchical grasp that condemns every living being to partake in a brutal hierarchy of some kind.
> As long as the structure of society is shaped like that of a tall pyramid, someone will always take the place at the apex.
That doesn't absolve them of evil.
> It is at the very least ingrained in human nature, if not in mammals or even life itself.
That's not remotely true. You can't look at humans under capitalism and extrapolate that to humanity, and even to mammals. That's like observing wolves in captivity and saying they act like that in nature, or observing rats in tiny cages and extrapolating to ourselves.
In fact, for most of humanity, we were pretty damn egalitarian. Capitalism changed things, and the problem is getting rapidly worse - precisely because of billionaires [0].
> the problem at hand is about human nature
Nope. It's about human nature being warped. By billionaires and their pets.
> The battle may very well be spiritual
It is - because human nature is being warped. Every loophole in our evolutionary psychology is being weaponized... By billionaires. Inequality is right at the heart of all of our current crises.
0 - https://www.oxfam.org/en/takers-not-makers-unjust-poverty-an...
>In fact, for most of humanity, we were pretty damn egalitarian. Capitalism changed things, and the problem is getting rapidly worse - precisely because of billionaires [0].
No, it's scale that changed things. Larger pre-capitalistic societies (which are still relatively recent as far as the history of the species goes) were even less egalitarian. It's only smaller groups that were less structured where you find much less inequality, the problem is they lose to more organised, larger, and materially wealthier groups.
> it's scale that changed things.
Ok, I mean agriculture allowed for great inequality and large cities... Still, capitalism changed things even more. Scale isn't the reason why inequality is the highest it's ever been right now; it's because billionaire oligarchs are making all the decisions, and are selling the planet's future for a little bit more.
> Larger pre-capitalistic societies (which are still relatively recent as far as the history of the species goes) were even less egalitarian.
I don't think scale is the defining issue there, but if you can bring a paper or something I'd be happy to look at it. Also, keep in mind that despite all our advancements inequality is the highest it has ever been (and global destruction has never been closer).
[flagged]
You seem to be interpreting "most of humanity" as "most of recorded history", resulting in error. Recorded history is a tiny fraction of "most of humanity".
There's no shortage of scientific research on this topic, and it's in broad agreement that for most of our history we lived relatively egalitarian lives compared to the modern era.
> capitalism, the source of all of our problems
Right now? Pretty much. It's literally the source of most of our biggest problems: Climate catastrophe, AI doom, mass pollution, the anthropocene extinction, historic wealth inequality (!), massive political corruption (!), resource depletion, media manipulation, etc etc.
In other words, it changed things.
> By all means we were all living happy, egalitarian existences in the past. Certainly no recorded histories of monarchs or warlords, no records of inequity.
Again, there's plenty of research on this, if you care to look at the original argument and not your strawman version.
Btw, during all the monarchs and warlords, was wealth inequality ever as high as right now? (Spoiler alert: it was not).
Also, capitalism didn't originate "in the early 19th century". You might be thinking of the industrial revolution, which is when it globally coalesced.
> are you a complete idiot?
Often. Glad we agree on the need to rein in our oligarchs though, that's the main thing. Try to be a little more polite; we don't talk like that here.
You need to sober up my dude.
To be fair I don't think fascists were too big fans of the oligarchy either. Much like other kind of socialists, they used the state power to challenge the liberal oligarchy of their time. So it's more correct to say that wealth disparity and unchecked billionaires with too much power may encourage the masses to support radical political movements, such as fascism and communism, as a counter measure.