It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

When did inequality start?

page: 7
3
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

To be fair though, how many apes have been taught algebra? While it's a step below algebra I have seen many studies where birds have been taught addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. I've seen other studies too where dogs have been taught to read.

Human intelligence basically comes down to one factor. We invented written and verbal communications that are more than just grunts. While animals teach basic survival skills from generation to generation we do that, but we also store knowledge and teach it. Animals don't seem to have this ability, though some have learned when given a chance.

Humans are still smarter, but animals aren't as dumb as many like to believe.




posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: veracity
"Did you know that in the middle ages the gap between a king and a peasant was smaller than the gap between someone in the middle class and a billionaire today?" - Aazadan

I totally believe this


It's something I picked up in a history class. Then I went about researching it and I believe it to be correct. The King had more servants for sure, but the King also only got a very small share of the taxes. Nations operated on much smaller budgets back then. Any ordinary billionaire today has far more impact on the ordinary persons life today, and their political pull also happens to be much greater once you get into the era of parliments and out of total rule.

What I wanted to get at though, is that we need to bring down wealth inequality because wealth translates into political pull. I'm not saying we all need to be equal, because some wealth inequality encourages people to innovate and improve but if you go too far you remove the political voice from the ordinary person. The bottom 50% have 0.2% of the wealth, and optimistically 0.2% of the political power today. Would things be so bad if the bottom 50% had 2% instead?



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: Aazadan

Are you familiar with Barnum statements?

That's what the answer feels like to me.


I am, but I believe I can defend this statement. Back in those days government was much smaller and Kings exercised their authority over only a few people. Command structures were hierarchical mirroring the military or a corporation today. With small governments and very small budgets Kings had little power. Contrast that with todays billionaires who exert immense political pressure and have products that everyone either uses or knows of. I can prove this with just a couple names. Kochs, Soros, Gates, Buffet. How much impact have those 5 had? And that's just a few that come to mind.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

It makes me wonder why we wanted to evolve from an animal state. They don't need clothes, childbirth is less painful for the animals, and they don't need cooked food, and all are on equal footings. Simple math is all they need.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: Devino

Personally, i would have rather the Native Americans not been pillaged and raped so their influence would still be alive and strong today. Their cooperation, equality, compassion and spirituality coupled with a time of discovery and invention...I can just imagine how great it would be today...so peaceful. No melting icecaps, no global warming.

I agree but this is unfortunately not the case. Even though we have advanced technologically we have digressed socially. Some of the Native American influence lives on today in the hearts and minds of those that look for it.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

People don't have equal opportunity though. Kids are inherently limited by what their parents enable them to do. More broadly, people are limited by what their country allows for. If you grow up in some hellhole like Zimbabwae you don't have the same opportunity as someone who grew up in the US. This even exists in the US, those who grow up in a city with better schools have more opportunity in life than those who don't.

You send your child to a private school right? Is that to give them an inequal opportunity to everyone else? Does that child in public school have an equal opportunity?



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

I can happily accept all of that. Defended well, but I've gotta save face and pretend to be smart,
Most people have relevantly heard of Kochs, Soros, Gates and Buffet.

Before them you had your Ceasar's and Kahn's.
Before them you had your Whosits and Whatsits.
Before them you had Ugg and Ergg.

Why are the Ugg's and the Buffet's in charge?

When did they gain the power?



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: Devino

Personally, i would have rather the Native Americans not been pillaged and raped so their influence would still be alive and strong today. Their cooperation, equality, compassion and spirituality coupled with a time of discovery and invention...I can just imagine how great it would be today...so peaceful. No melting icecaps, no global warming.



Native Americans practiced slavery too. Some tribes did human sacrifice. I'm sure adopting the mesoAmerican practice of ripping still beating hearts out of our vanquished foes' chests in order to appease the rain gods would be a wonderful cultural practice.
Even though this is true it can be considered cherry picking history.
No one can hold a candle to the European slave trade, as one example.
There is evidence that human sacrifice in Mesoamerica was due to extreme environmental conditions that brought on drought and mass starvation. If you look past this part of history you will find centuries of cooperation and peace among the people living in the Americas.

Take Caral, Peru for example;
The 5,000-year-old Pyramid City of Caral


No trace of warfare has been found at Caral: no battlements, no weapons, no mutilated bodies. Ruth Shady's findings suggest it was a gentle society, built on commerce and pleasure.
Caral-Wiki Source
My point is that history is likely far different from what we all were taught. Any true understanding was lost in an attempt to make it look better from a Eurocentric perspective.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: peck420

Interesting, so are you saying that equality isn't possible?


OP there si equality in one thing DEATH. everything else is a pipe dream.


That's the spirit!

But si there equality in birth too?



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Does that mean that inequality is the natural state of things?


I think that yes, inequality is the natural state of things. When I look at physical inequality what I see is genetic diversity, and genetic diversity is required in order for reproduction to work. Without it, changing climate results in death. Therefore that diversity is required, where many die due to being weak in order for a few to survive and carry on.

However, the dark side of this is that it means survival is a competition, and in a competition there is only one winner. This means that an iron clad dictatorship like North Korea is also the natural state of things. Something competes, reaches the height, and conditions change only for a new person to take over. Humans however came up with a better idea, the idea of democracy which also introduces it's own form of diversity through the shared opinion of the masses. The problem is, this form of diversity can only exist when most or all are represented. In the US right now this isn't the case, because money has a corrupting influence on politics. There are relatively few voices speaking for people, and the lower down the income scale you go the fewer voices you have. As I've pointed out many times, the bottom 50% only have 0.2% of the wealth. With such a small share, how can they effectively lobby their government?

This is what happens when wealth inequality is pushed too far... it stifles political diversity, and that leads to stagnation.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Devino
My point is that history is likely far different from what we all were taught.


How good were your teachers?

What we were taught is probably what a hungover 25yr old teacher told to some dumb kids.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
I can happily accept all of that. Defended well, but I've gotta save face and pretend to be smart,
Most people have relevantly heard of Kochs, Soros, Gates and Buffet.

Before them you had your Ceasar's and Kahn's.
Before them you had your Whosits and Whatsits.
Before them you had Ugg and Ergg.

Why are the Ugg's and the Buffet's in charge?

When did they gain the power?


The moment there were two people one had some power over the other. Ugg is in charge because he has the resources to convince others who are in charge that he has good ideas and should be followed.

Money and power have been intertwined forever, before currency it was achieved with barter. Taken on it's own, that's not all that bad... like anything else there probably should be some political inequality as we don't want to consider ideas from the least capable citizens equally to the most capable but if you go too far down this path, then only a few have a say in how they're governed and that goes against the idea of our nation that all are entitled to representation.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

What nation?

I don't support your nation as much as mine.
And I wouldn't expect you to support mine more than yours.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I'm referring to the US here. Wealth inequality and representation in most (all?) other developed countries isn't nearly as bad.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: Abysha

Today's inequality surely grew from a starting point.

I'm interested in what that starting point was.


You're looking at the question backwards. The real question is when did the idea of "equality" start? IN the modern era you can start with Jefferson: "All men are created equal." That idea simply wasn't there in the era when the Divine Right of Kings was the prevailing thought on ruling others. The idea of "equality" was new and revolutionary. And from that moment on we've been splitting hairs and pointing out inequalities. We've become more all-inclusive even as we've often decided equality of opportunity must mean equality of achievement. And we've made a mockery of the idea. We now live in an era when people actually think it's okay for one sex to pretend to be the other and now that's a 'civil rights' issue instead of one of mental health. It really is an existential crisis for Western Civilization. And it's not going to end well.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: ketsuko

People don't have equal opportunity though. Kids are inherently limited by what their parents enable them to do. More broadly, people are limited by what their country allows for. If you grow up in some hellhole like Zimbabwae you don't have the same opportunity as someone who grew up in the US. This even exists in the US, those who grow up in a city with better schools have more opportunity in life than those who don't.

You send your child to a private school right? Is that to give them an inequal opportunity to everyone else? Does that child in public school have an equal opportunity?


America is the land of equal opportunity. The rest of world's countries and experiences may vary.

People in those countries living under those systems have different laws and cultures.

I was discussing the US in my reply to darkbake.

My actual answer to this thread is that inequality started with DNA and biodiversity. If we were all equal, then there would be no differences at all on the genetic level and we might as well be clones, identical in every way, shape and form.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler
Well said.

When I was in the military I learned that I preferred a team of misfits, over a team of programmed and conditioned recruits, because the misfits could handle the unexpected. Instead of sitting around debating who or what caused the glitch, my misfits just fixed it.

Sometimes being equal is not what is important. What fits and what works to get the job done is what should really matter.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 04:20 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

And I included US specific examples. Florida, Kansas, and Illinois to name 3 have failing school systems. Connecticut, Massachusetts, and North Dakota have good schools. Do the kids in those states have equal opportunity, or are they victims of circumstance?

The US is a far cry from equal opportunity. We're not outright racist anymore, but there's more factors at play in life that inhibit opportunity than race.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 06:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Krazysh0t

To be fair though, how many apes have been taught algebra? While it's a step below algebra I have seen many studies where birds have been taught addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. I've seen other studies too where dogs have been taught to read.

Human intelligence basically comes down to one factor. We invented written and verbal communications that are more than just grunts. While animals teach basic survival skills from generation to generation we do that, but we also store knowledge and teach it. Animals don't seem to have this ability, though some have learned when given a chance.

Humans are still smarter, but animals aren't as dumb as many like to believe.

I agree with this. Animals are QUITE intelligent, yet we still have the edge over them. There is a reason I mentioned dolphins, rats, and apes earlier as they are considered some of the smartest animals other than humans on the planet.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 07:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: ketsuko

And I included US specific examples. Florida, Kansas, and Illinois to name 3 have failing school systems. Connecticut, Massachusetts, and North Dakota have good schools. Do the kids in those states have equal opportunity, or are they victims of circumstance?

The US is a far cry from equal opportunity. We're not outright racist anymore, but there's more factors at play in life that inhibit opportunity than race.


HuffPo disputes you.

Kansas is nowhere near failing. In fact, they're one of the top spenders.


The top scorers were New Jersey, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire and then Kansas. The site dubbed the areas with the worst school systems as Nevada, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and, lastly, the District of Columbia.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join