The Dichotomy Between Equality and Abundance

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts

The goal of ensuring that everyone has access to equal resources presents itself as something that should be unanimously agreed upon. Why would we allow our brothers and sisters to suffer as billionaires amass more wealth than they could ever even use themselves?

Well, equality is a tricky thing. Its goal of helping the resource poor is deceptive. When our primary aim is to make access to resources equal, we inevitably end up hurting the people we are trying to help.

The only goals that will be effective in helping the resource-poor are ones derived from the question: How can we raise the quality of everyone's life?

Everyone means everyone. It includes the people living paycheck to paycheck, the criminals, the working class, and even the billionaires of our society. Answering "how do we improve the quality of life for all?" is the only way we can increase equality in opportunity.

When we design goals around the question, "how can we increase equality?" we are setting ourselves up to fail. The question, by nature, requires us to set up a zero-sum game. After all, would equality be so crucial if we lived in a world with abundant resources? When we focus on increasing equality, our only option is to redistribute resources at the cost of others. As a result, goals set in response to this question will nearly always lead to less equality- or as some call it, "positive discrimination."

In contrast, if we ask, "How do we increase the quality of everyone's life?" We effectively set up a positive-sum game because we are forced to think of everyone and the entire system. This is a critical distinction because, as complexity theory states, "the whole is different from the sum of its parts and their interactions… the whole is considered a new entity or unit."

Recognizing these paradigms is vital because they lead to drastically different outcomes.