Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
🗿
@bias
What’s better for humanity by and large? One person with all the wealth and a grand vision for how to use it? Or using all that wealth to nurture the rise of many talented individuals in the world primed with wild imaginations and resources to tackle humanities largest problems?
11 replies
0 recast
6 reactions
notdevin
@notdevin.eth
Why aren’t there both?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
🗿
@bias
Are there?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
notdevin
@notdevin.eth
The latter is worded so that it’s better, so if this is a hypothetical about which maxim applied absolutely would work out better longer I’ll go with that
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
🗿
@bias
It is worded better, but I challenge you to word the first option in an honest fashion that meets the level of the latter
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
notdevin
@notdevin.eth
If the person on point has the skills and needs the resources then it’s like giving MJ the ball, no? I mean I’m not bought into a world where there’s a king and absolute ownership, but it’s also clear that there are domains where one person dominates and that’s a good outcome Maybe im failing the exercise
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
🗿
@bias
To me it speaks to true diversity of thought and outcomes, there is a massive deficit of diverse thought inherent in the former
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
notdevin
@notdevin.eth
Single cellular life is massively diverse in skills, potential, and capabilities, but it’s that diversity that causes it to never get to a level that multi cellular life can accomplish. Reduction in diversity and coordination leading to concentration are critical mechanisms of advancing biology
2 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
