Barry42 on Nostr: In most cases, the rich always have greater advantages than the poor, including ...

In most cases, the rich always have greater advantages than the poor, including learning. After all, the rich have money and leisure. In a sense, it is fair to invest more and gain more. The rich can invest more time and money in education and learning, so it is easier to succeed. However, for such a long history of mankind, the gap between the rich and the poor rarely becomes an absolute barrier. The class still flows. What does it rely on? Nothing more than two points: nature and technology.

The natural aspect refers to the innate talents of human beings, which are generally average. The offspring of the rich will also be mentally retarded, and the children of the poor will also be geniuses. Even if the rich and the poor have been reproductively isolated for hundreds of years, the genetic gap can be ignored in the long history of evolution. Therefore, as long as the poor get the opportunity to develop their talents, they may break through the class. Of course, this requires that the social environment needs to have a relatively fair upward channel, so that talented people have the opportunity to display.

And the aspect of technology is even more important. Because even if it is said that the rich have more advantages in learning, what should they learn? The rich are often path-dependent. The high priest always wants his children to learn theology, and the big businessman always wants his children to learn business. They have successful knowledge and experience and rich network resources. If technology stagnates, then this is a characteristic that promotes class solidification, but if technology keeps changing, then this is an opportunity for class mobility.

Every major technological revolution will also cause a revolution in the class structure. For example, Marx said that gunpowder blew up the knight class, and printing and compass promoted the rise of the bourgeoisie. Why? The knight class originally had more resources, but they were more inclined to hone martial arts, tame horses, reserve armor, and strengthen castles, and it was difficult to give up all this and turn to producing gunpowder, but in the face of gunpowder, martial arts, armor, and castles gradually depreciated. But their depreciation is slow. When they wake up and "My Lord, the times have changed", they will break the old and reform, and they will not be able to keep up with the people who have devoted themselves to new technologies from the beginning.

Now we are in an era of great technological change. The best way for the poor to make class leaps is to keep up with new technologies and learn new technologies without prejudices and burdens. What you need to all in is attention, not assets.

Especially now AI, it is really an opportunity to level the class gap. The tutors that the rich pay thousands of dollars an hour for may not be better than those taught by AI. Not to mention that all kinds of courses by famous teachers from famous schools are already everywhere on the Internet.

Being conservative is not necessarily a bad thing. The rich should be more conservative in their studies. It is best to learn more about literature, art, history and philosophy. They don’t make money or even burn money to play with literature and art. In this way, they can live comfortably and contribute to human civilization. The poor learn more about cutting-edge technology. It is a little more tiring, the competition is a little more intense, and the uncertainty is high, but they have more opportunities to change their destiny. Even if it is bad, they can find a good job to support their families.

Of course, it is also necessary to learn history and philosophy in your spare time, otherwise you may not be able to achieve the above understanding🤣