Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Should We Strive for Equal Access to Opportunities in the World?

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on February 23, 2021, 6:05 am

It's certainly uneven, but it's only unfair as long as you think that it's unfair for countries who have given more (money / research / tech), to take less back (vaccine).

It's also nonsense from a medical perspective, since if the world as a whole moves quicker with the vaccine, the virus has less time to mutate, which is good for everyone.
And if richer countries can re-open quicker than poorer ones, that's also better for everyone because richer countries have more "pull-up" effects on the whole global economy.
So it's not a case of win-lose but, in spite of different speeds of vaccinations, everyone gains if we go quicker -even if at different speeds-.

Lucio's post on equality when it comes to vaccinations sparked me to think about equality.

Is it good for society to incentivise the whole population to shift towards equality?
I think this is a debate that will go on forever.
Libertarian vs Conservatism.

I personally think equality for the sake of equality is a silly concept.
As Lucio says, it goes against human nature to reward people regardless of collaborative value.
We all want people who give more value to us to be more powerful than those who give us less value or even take value.

This includes Egalitarianism, all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.
To an extent, I support equal rights and opportunities, and it's a great ideal in some sense.
But it's more important to let people who intend to give value back to society have more opportunities and influence.

For the vaccination case, how are developing countries going to give back to the world on the vaccination programme?
Probably, the world is interconnected, so helping them cut down on cases and alleviating their economic conditions would boost the world in terms of easing the pandemic and the global economy.
But it would be more challenging to see the direct benefits like monetary compensation for the vaccines.

Equal access seems to go against the fundamental truth of collaboration

Collaboration evolved because it's good for the individual first.

Lucio Buffalmano and Matthew Whitewood have reacted to this post.
Lucio BuffalmanoMatthew Whitewood

Equal access seems to go against the fundamental truth of collaboration.


To generalize it beyond vaccines, we could maybe amend to "equal rewards / outcomes" go against the fundamental progress-machine that is collaboration.

Equal access to opportunities is great, trying to force equal outcomes is not good (see "affirmative policies"), and trying to force equal rewards is also not good (see "communism").

I think this topic might deserve its own article.

Have you read the forum guidelines for effective communication already?