In an article I wrote a few weeks ago, I laid out a choice between living in a society that values abundance more than fairness (like the modern USA, for example, or China) versus a place where social justice is considered a more important goal than material comfort.
Here is how I introduced the question:
Would you give up some of the consumer comforts you presently enjoy in order to live in a society that places a very high value on fairness, equality, and social justice? Or are you okay with a certain amount of "bending the rules" so the privileged class can attain more benefits and accumulate much more power and wealth as long as you also enjoy a higher standard of living?
But are those two directions the only choices we can make?
Is it plausible to imagine -- and possible to construct -- a society in which we could have more fairness and more abundance at the same time?
And if you think that is the case, then isn't it also reasonable to suggest that too much unfairness could lead to much less abundance, not more?
I alluded to the point just above in my earlier article, when I described three scenarios in which the growing inequality of wealth and power does not prove sustainable and the whole system eventually comes crashing down. If that happens, then almost nobody is better off - expect maybe those who've stashed their ill-gotten hoard in secret offshore bank accounts.
In response to what I wrote, several commenters offered fresh perspectives. For example, 'Summerspeaker' said:
The choice between material wealth and equality may well be a false dilemma. A rational economy of universally distributed abundance would make everyone comfortable.
I think the question itself can be dangerous because it poses equality and comfort as opposed. It echoes that old capitalist yarn that communism will make everyone poor. For those of us who don't live terribly well right now, even an inefficient egalitarianism would almost certainly improve our access to goods and services.
Another person, 'dor', said:
Today, we hopefully can imagine multiple, interacting economic systems. We need more alternatives than simply being part of a corporate structure (or in the service of such) or being relegated to subsistence living.
What has not been mentioned is that the natural resources that are the raw ingredients for much of the wealth production are perceived as "free for the taking" rather than as resources that belong to all people. These include land rights, fuels, and water.
The problem with "trickle down" economics/justice/morality is that wealth breeds isolation and loss of empathy. Those who have the greatest amount of autonomy also develop a great sense of entitlement. Soon, they begin to not be aware that there are those who suffer, and further to not care and to feel that those who suffer somehow deserve it.
I agree with both of these commenters. I did pose (deliberately) a false dilemma, in order to stimulate exactly the kind of thoughtful responses I got.
I also agree that one of the great challenges of our time is to account for unbridled exploitation of resources -- the "Tragedy of the Commons" -- that enriches the few at the expense of the many.
When I raise these sorts of questions within the tech-enthusiast community, one of the retorts I get is that very soon fabulous new technologies will take us into an era of post-scarcity, a time when everyone will have everything they want and need.
Even better, our magical new tech will enable us to easily stop climate change, restore the environment, and give every nerdy 20-something male a dozen Jessica Albas for their personal pleasure. (Okay, I added that last one, but you know that's what they're thinking.)
Is emerging technology really the solution to all our problems?
At the conclusion of one comment, 'Summerspeaker' said: "If present-day humans cannot possibly enact such a system, that doesn't mean future AIs will fail."
That's right, it doesn't mean they will fail. But it also doesn't mean they will succeed.
To their credit, at least some Singularitarians recognize that making a supersmart computer isn't by itself a recipe for happiness. Unless we can figure out some way to endow that big AI brain with "friendliness" toward humans, we might all end up as sticky paperclips.
Beyond that, of course, counting on a supersmart computer to fix all the things we can't fix seems not far removed from counting on a deity to return and cleanse the Earth of evil. It is a belief in a literal Deus ex machina.
So, since we can't be certain that a big AI brain will come along someday soon and start answering all the questions that have always confounded us, it's really up to us to decide now what sort of society we want to be part of.
And even though the emerging technologies we're so interested in may not of themselves fix everything, they may function as powerful new tools to aid us in reaching toward a world that values fairness and that offers increasing abundance. That is a goal worthy of this new millennium.