[IAmTheKing]

Holy crap, apologies to all involved in the farmer/neurosurgeon debate - I've just realised I've been verging on mutualism, which is hardly equal. Although mutualism would be fairer in the sense that people willing to work could trade commodities/services. Any lazy people would be screwed.

[green.tea]

There are motivations other than money. Soldiers fight to win for example. A soldier that leads the charge wont get very much money for it because he'll probably be dead. The society id create would be financially unequal but i would try to motivate people with other things. I'd rather have books by people who have something to say and say it rather than books by people saying what they think will sell. I'd replace the celebrity culture with one of more worthwhile people and so do away with all the moronic rubbish in the media so that people aspired to be something more worthwhile than a spice girl. I'd try to ensure that people such as scientists who dont get all that much cash got greater recognition among the masses. More horizon and no im a pointless stupid celeb in the pretend jungle. People who wanted piles of cash still could but beyond having what you needed and wanted within reason it'd be culturally regarded as a lesser pursuit.

[Byrks]

(Original post by jordanosborn)
Yeah I understand what your saying. Yeah I also think that some people like scientists would do what they do regardless, due to curiosity. I am also curiosity driven so I would likely pursue being a scientist regardless of the money as long as it was enough to live on. But sadly most humans are profit driven. Your everyday man/woman. But I also believe that due to the ability to succeed many devices have come to fruition. I think many people who invented our everyday devices were profit driven. Discovery's would carry on but would we get better products via people wanting to compete and do better. In an equal society I think that discoveries would not stop but they would slow down significantly.

Thing is, Western societies need a culture shift, from the individual to the collective. People need to stop acting as individuals looking after their self-interest, and start acting as members of humanity, proud to be contributing to a common cause, the advancement of humanity.

Take Einstein, for instance. One of the greatest contributors to contemporary society, whose physical knowledge has allowed us to have many devices we didn't have before. He wasn't concerned about profit, but about the advancement of humanity (he once wrote a cool article called "Why Socialism?"). I truly believe that the world would be a much better place if we cooperated instead of competing.

[green.tea]

(Original post by Byrks)
Thing is, Western societies need a culture shift, from the individual to the collective. People need to stop acting as individuals looking after their self-interest, and start acting as members of humanity, proud to be contributing to a common cause, the advancement of humanity.

Take Einstein, for instance. One of the greatest contributors to contemporary society, whose physical knowledge has allowed us to have many devices we didn't have before. He wasn't concerned about profit, but about the advancement of humanity (he once wrote a cool article called "Why Socialism?"). I truly believe that the world would be a much better place if we cooperated instead of competing.

Yeah and we should have tv programs exploring the ideas of people like him in the place of ones exploring the day to day life of ozzie osbourne so that people had the motivations so many people have to go on fame academy would send them in a better direction.

As for co operation i think it has its place alongside competition. As has been pointed out scientists are competitive but they also work together as and when joining with others achieves a common goal. Its widely acknowledged that collectivism has some advantages over individualism and vice versa so it seems sensible to simply be flexible and see the best way towards a goal knowing society will celebrate that which is beneficial to society.

[Byrks]

(Original post by Meteorshower)
Competition is an absolutely crucial part of the academic environment. It's just not always financial. Almost all scientists compete for recognition and the better positions.

Yes, but they don't do it as an end itself, but because they need it in order to be listened. To good scientists, the recognition and better position are just a by-product of their research that allows them to be listened more easily.

(Original post by Meteorshower)
You'd see a far worse quality of scientific community if there was no competition and everyone was considered equally.

That's a different kind of equality. We are talking about economic equality here, not about intellectual equality. Scientists gain recognition (ideally, though this is often not the case in reality) by doing good research and using the correct research methods. It would be absurd to say all scientists are equally great.

And, when they do good research and use the correct research methods, I don't think competition has anything to do with it, but because they actually want to do good research.

[Iron Lady]

Winner/loser, 100%

[Meteorshower]

(Original post by Byrks)
Yes, but they don't do it as an end itself, but because they need it in order to be listened. To good scientists, the recognition and better position are just a by-product of their research that allows them to be listened more easily.



That's a different kind of equality. We are talking about economic equality here, not about intellectual equality. Scientists gain recognition (ideally, though this is often not the case in reality) by doing good research and using the correct research methods. It would be absurd to say all scientists are equally great.

And, when they do good research and use the correct research methods, I don't think competition has anything to do with it, but because they actually want to do good research.

I can tell you that getting one up on everyone else and "being better than other people" is probably more often a primary motivating factor than doing good for society. Better posts and more prestige are part of that. If they earned the same as post grad students, there wouldn't be a similar level of prestige.

It's a similar deal in medicine, a highly trained neurosurgeon is often going to feel superior to a nurse even though in reality they are both employed to help people.

[isusovaca]

I think it would be fair that everyone is given a chance to prove themselves, other then that anyone who wants equal society is a loser.

[green.tea]

(Original post by Meteorshower)
I can tell you that getting one up on everyone else and "being better than other people" is probably more often a primary motivating factor than doing good for society. Better posts and more prestige are part of that. If they earned the same as post grad students, there wouldn't be a similar level of prestige.

It's a similar deal in medicine, a highly trained neurosurgeon is often going to feel superior to a nurse even though in reality they are both employed to help people.

I dunno if its being better than everyone else or being as good as you can be and getting credit in the majority of cases. Im sure a nurse who had a really good bedside manner would be respected by a neurosurgeon who noticed that when she was in the ward his patients always seemed calmer and more optimistic. Although some doctors are extremely arrogant i know. I imagine the same happens in reverse when nurses notice that patients of a certain doctor seem generally more pissed off than others.

An interesting question to ask a doctor would be whether they'd rather live in a world of smart people or dull ones. I imagine most would say the former and sacrifice their superiority in favour of better company and competent staff.

[Meteorshower]

(Original post by green.tea)
I dunno if its being better than everyone else or being as good as you can be and getting credit in the majority of cases. Im sure a nurse who had a really good bedside manner would be respected by a neurosurgeon who noticed that when she was in the ward his patients always seemed calmer and more optimistic. Although some doctors are extremely arrogant i know. I imagine the same happens in reverse when nurses notice that patients of a certain doctor seem generally more pissed off than others.

An interesting question to ask a doctor would be whether they'd rather live in a world of smart people or dull ones. I imagine most would say the former and sacrifice their superiority in favour of better company and competent staff.

The two are fairly intertwined. I like to think of myself as a relatively nice person but I can't feel that great about my achievements because a lot of my friends have achieved better, even though more objectively my achievements are somewhat decent.

Don't get me wrong, I definitely think fairness has a place in the world, I just think it's fair to recognise differing levels of achievement. In theory it sounds nice if there are no losers in society but I think everyone is better off in general if you have a nice healthy level of competition.

[TheHistoryStudent]

Winner-loser for me, but one which does put safety nets in place for those who reach rock bottom (note however, this isn't the same as just allowing people to live off the state a la benefit cheats...) Making everything equal I think, would be bad for 3 main reasons:-

. I think it would be unachievable for one

. If it were achievable I think it would hand too much power to the government (if they could determine your quality of life)

. If all resources were shared equally I think for too many people the quality of life would actually be dragged down rather than up, sure everything is equal, but that doesn't make it better.

Lastly I think it's much better to live in a society where the opportunity exists to better your place, rather than one where equality is created by, to some extent, curtailing that freedom/inhibiting it - such curtailment of freedom I feel, would be the only way to achieve equality, and that I feel, would be unacceptable...

[That Bearded Man]

Thereotically I would vote equal society, because there are vast inequalities in the world we live in. That said, an equal society would not function.

1. This is already happening.
2. This will never work, why would someone be a doctor or policeman if they could earn the same wage in a less stressful job?
3. This wouldn't work because they would find some way to hide it, otherwise they would blow it all befofe they die.
4. This would ensure the setup of monopolies, no competition, giving these manufacterurs and companies too much power.

[green.tea]

(Original post by Meteorshower)
The two are fairly intertwined. I like to think of myself as a relatively nice person but I can't feel that great about my achievements because a lot of my friends have achieved better, even though more objectively my achievements are somewhat decent.

Don't get me wrong, I definitely think fairness has a place in the world, I just think it's fair to recognise differing levels of achievement. In theory it sounds nice if there are no losers in society but I think everyone is better off in general if you have a nice healthy level of competition.

I guess theres a difference between competing for something because you want that thing and competing because you want to be better than those with whom your competing. I doubt someone who loved f1 and did well enough in an engineering degree to work in it would care much that someone had done better and got a job at nasa. Personally id consider not needing to do so much work to do something to be an advantage, compete with my peers on mario kart instead and hope they got what they needed for what they wanted to do. The "im not happy because so and so did better" can motivate but when its "im not happy because so and so is better" it can cause real bad feelings even between friends and family. My societies merit based class system would largely solve this.

[Xotol]

I'd prefer a winner/loser society as long as there is some sort of welfare system to protect the lives of the poor. And I mean the absolute poorest. The thought that children are born into poor families and neighbourhoods with virtually little chance of success given the nature of their upbringing is morally abhorrent in my eyes, especially given that this is can lead to a vicious perpetual cycle. Some people can break out of that for whatever reason, but many more suffer.

[onda]

(Original post by Xotol)
I'd prefer a winner/loser society as long as there is some sort of welfare system to protect the lives of the poor. And I mean the absolute poorest. The thought that children are born into poor families and neighbourhoods with virtually little chance of success given the nature of their upbringing is morally abhorrent in my eyes, especially given that this is can lead to a vicious perpetual cycle. Some people can break out of that for whatever reason, but many more suffer.

This.

[green.tea]

(Original post by Xotol)
I'd prefer a winner/loser society as long as there is some sort of welfare system to protect the lives of the poor. And I mean the absolute poorest. The thought that children are born into poor families and neighbourhoods with virtually little chance of success given the nature of their upbringing is morally abhorrent in my eyes, especially given that this is can lead to a vicious perpetual cycle. Some people can break out of that for whatever reason, but many more suffer.

In my system with all the specialist schools they'd all have to to be boarding since there wouldn't be enough of each type to be in travelling distance so it'd largely solve both the poverty issue and the moron parent influence as well the unequal opportunities. Free healthcare would come with a place at any school along with free uniforms and books for all to remove difference based on existing socioeconomic status and give everyone a chance on a properly level playing field.

This would solve a lot because it'd mean parents werent as strong an influence so couldnt pass on not only criminal and delinquent behavior but also religion. Kids would be taught proper philosophy and get their ways of coping with reality from that rather than complete garbage.

[Byrks]

(Original post by Meteorshower)
I can tell you that getting one up on everyone else and "being better than other people" is probably more often a primary motivating factor than doing good for society. Better posts and more prestige are part of that. If they earned the same as post grad students, there wouldn't be a similar level of prestige.

It's a similar deal in medicine, a highly trained neurosurgeon is often going to feel superior to a nurse even though in reality they are both employed to help people.

For finance, administration and business careers, sure, it's a primary motivating factor. For other careers, though, that's not often why people do what they do. In the science case, though, it's more often because they want to be good scientists and produce knowledge, both for themselves and for society. If they earned the same (even though there is also the possibility of a wageless society), and they did not have as much prestige, I doubt they'd do bad research instead.

In the neurosurgeon case, I don't think that's the reward medicine students are after, either money or prestige. Neither my parents (both are doctors, one of them a neurosurgeon actually) nor one of my friends currently studying medicine (she often tells me about how difficult it is) do what they do because they want money or prestige, but because they want to feel people. Well, that, and my friend seeing the medical "puzzles" as challenges that she wants to solve to help people haha. On a less personal note, look at doctors in Ancient Greece. They did what they did, not because of money or prestige, but because of a sense of duty towards others.

If we lived in an equal society, I'm pretty sure doctors would still have prestige, though a different kind of prestige. Instead of economic prestige, they would still have social prestige, with people recognising the hard work they do in order to heal others.

[im so academic]

(Original post by Xotol)
I'd prefer a winner/loser society as long as there is some sort of welfare system to protect the lives of the poor. And I mean the absolute poorest. The thought that children are born into poor families and neighbourhoods with virtually little chance of success given the nature of their upbringing is morally abhorrent in my eyes, especially given that this is can lead to a vicious perpetual cycle. Some people can break out of that for whatever reason, but many more suffer.

That makes sense, doesn't it? (Even if you do find it morally abhorrent).

If everyone from the absolute poorest succeeded, well, that just can't happen can it?

[Xotol]

(Original post by im so academic)
That makes sense, doesn't it? (Even if you do find it morally abhorrent).

If everyone from the absolute poorest succeeded, well, that just can't happen can it?

'Suffer' is the key word. Everybody should be given the opportunity to succeed, but everyone should also be guaranteed an upbringing that can direct ambition. If that requires rich people to pay into society to improve standards of living, then so be it. The welfare of actual humans is more important than extra money some rich people may have.

[im so academic]

(Original post by Xotol)
'Suffer' is the key word. Everybody should be given the opportunity to succeed, but everyone should also be guaranteed an upbringing that can direct ambition. If that requires rich people to pay into society to improve standards of living, then so be it. The welfare of actual humans is more important than extra money some rich people may have.

How can you guarantee an upbringing that can direct ambition when that is heavily influenced by your family/home environment/peers? Unless you're willing for the government to intrude on what are private matters, I don't think that can happen. The welfare of actual humans extends beyond what money itself can pay for.