What did Frank Herbert mean when he said “humans do not have equal ability”, concerning equality?












18















In the "Dune Genesis" essay originally published in the July 1980 issue of Omni Magazine* Frank Herbert wrote:




"I now believe that evolution, or deevolution[sic], never ends short
of death, that no society has ever achieved an absolute pinnacle, that
all humans are not created equal. In fact, I believe attempts to
create some abstract equalization create a morass of injustices that
rebound on the equalizers. Equal justice and equal opportunity are
ideals we should seek, but we should recognize that humans administer
the ideals and that humans do not have equal ability."





  • Did he try to say that humans have not the ability to administer successfully these ideals?

  • Was he trying to say that humans doing it have not equal ideals?

  • Simply saying that some humans have not the ability to administer the ideals while others have it?

  • Or, the worst meaning to me, "some humans don't deserve equality because their lack of ability"?


PS: I think people need to know Herbert's science fiction work to know his way of thinking, however you can't ask about the writers in Science Fiction SE.



(*) Herbert, Frank (July 1980). "Dune Genesis". Omni 2 (2): p. 72. ISSN 0149-8711.






form-of-government society inequality transhumanism social-justice







share|improve this question


















  • 26





    I would think reading the full sentence where he states that "Equal justice and equal opportunity are ideals that we should seek" rule out the last bullet point. Personally I would guess that it is simple as not everyone can do something at the same level. For example look at sports and how not everyone can make it to a professional/Olympic level regardless of the amount of training that they do.

    – Joe W
    Jan 13 at 18:10






  • 5





    I personally read it as we should strive to treat everyone as equal and give everyone an equal chance even though everyone does not have an equal ability to succeed.

    – Joe W
    Jan 13 at 18:24






  • 7





    @Joe W: Yes. If I were to try to make a living as say a pro football player or rock musician (among many other possibilities), I would almost certainly starve. OTOH, I doubt many football players or rock musicians could write a decent computer program. (Note that I said MANY, and don't bring up that Queen guitarist who moonlights as a astrophysicist :-))

    – jamesqf
    Jan 13 at 19:14






  • 2





    @LeopoldoSanczyk Can only speculate as to what the author of the essay meant by "ability" relevant to humans. That term is not clearly defined at the essay. The "no society has ever achieved an absolute pinnacle" can be objectively refuted with evidence - from the outside of the specific society being evaluated - not from the inside. A contemporary example could be the mantra "Make America Great Again", the first question would necessarily be "When exactly was America ever 'great'?" or "Why is America not 'great' right now?" A definition of "great" is required to make a rational evaluation.

    – guest271314
    Jan 13 at 19:16








  • 4





    I agree with JoeW. The author is referring to the fact that people simply are born with different abilities to do stuff - people are born with different muscle mass, stamina, metabolism, height, vocal cords, not to mention mental matters. It all results in different abilities (some are born to become basketball players, others are certainly not). I believe he is referring to the idea of every individual's "Equal justice and equal opportunity", but not necessarily equal outcomes, as an ideal

    – Steeven
    Jan 13 at 19:48
















18















In the "Dune Genesis" essay originally published in the July 1980 issue of Omni Magazine* Frank Herbert wrote:




"I now believe that evolution, or deevolution[sic], never ends short
of death, that no society has ever achieved an absolute pinnacle, that
all humans are not created equal. In fact, I believe attempts to
create some abstract equalization create a morass of injustices that
rebound on the equalizers. Equal justice and equal opportunity are
ideals we should seek, but we should recognize that humans administer
the ideals and that humans do not have equal ability."





  • Did he try to say that humans have not the ability to administer successfully these ideals?

  • Was he trying to say that humans doing it have not equal ideals?

  • Simply saying that some humans have not the ability to administer the ideals while others have it?

  • Or, the worst meaning to me, "some humans don't deserve equality because their lack of ability"?


PS: I think people need to know Herbert's science fiction work to know his way of thinking, however you can't ask about the writers in Science Fiction SE.



(*) Herbert, Frank (July 1980). "Dune Genesis". Omni 2 (2): p. 72. ISSN 0149-8711.






form-of-government society inequality transhumanism social-justice







share|improve this question


















  • 26





    I would think reading the full sentence where he states that "Equal justice and equal opportunity are ideals that we should seek" rule out the last bullet point. Personally I would guess that it is simple as not everyone can do something at the same level. For example look at sports and how not everyone can make it to a professional/Olympic level regardless of the amount of training that they do.

    – Joe W
    Jan 13 at 18:10






  • 5





    I personally read it as we should strive to treat everyone as equal and give everyone an equal chance even though everyone does not have an equal ability to succeed.

    – Joe W
    Jan 13 at 18:24






  • 7





    @Joe W: Yes. If I were to try to make a living as say a pro football player or rock musician (among many other possibilities), I would almost certainly starve. OTOH, I doubt many football players or rock musicians could write a decent computer program. (Note that I said MANY, and don't bring up that Queen guitarist who moonlights as a astrophysicist :-))

    – jamesqf
    Jan 13 at 19:14






  • 2





    @LeopoldoSanczyk Can only speculate as to what the author of the essay meant by "ability" relevant to humans. That term is not clearly defined at the essay. The "no society has ever achieved an absolute pinnacle" can be objectively refuted with evidence - from the outside of the specific society being evaluated - not from the inside. A contemporary example could be the mantra "Make America Great Again", the first question would necessarily be "When exactly was America ever 'great'?" or "Why is America not 'great' right now?" A definition of "great" is required to make a rational evaluation.

    – guest271314
    Jan 13 at 19:16








  • 4





    I agree with JoeW. The author is referring to the fact that people simply are born with different abilities to do stuff - people are born with different muscle mass, stamina, metabolism, height, vocal cords, not to mention mental matters. It all results in different abilities (some are born to become basketball players, others are certainly not). I believe he is referring to the idea of every individual's "Equal justice and equal opportunity", but not necessarily equal outcomes, as an ideal

    – Steeven
    Jan 13 at 19:48














18












18








18


4






In the "Dune Genesis" essay originally published in the July 1980 issue of Omni Magazine* Frank Herbert wrote:




"I now believe that evolution, or deevolution[sic], never ends short
of death, that no society has ever achieved an absolute pinnacle, that
all humans are not created equal. In fact, I believe attempts to
create some abstract equalization create a morass of injustices that
rebound on the equalizers. Equal justice and equal opportunity are
ideals we should seek, but we should recognize that humans administer
the ideals and that humans do not have equal ability."





  • Did he try to say that humans have not the ability to administer successfully these ideals?

  • Was he trying to say that humans doing it have not equal ideals?

  • Simply saying that some humans have not the ability to administer the ideals while others have it?

  • Or, the worst meaning to me, "some humans don't deserve equality because their lack of ability"?


PS: I think people need to know Herbert's science fiction work to know his way of thinking, however you can't ask about the writers in Science Fiction SE.



(*) Herbert, Frank (July 1980). "Dune Genesis". Omni 2 (2): p. 72. ISSN 0149-8711.






form-of-government society inequality transhumanism social-justice







share|improve this question














In the "Dune Genesis" essay originally published in the July 1980 issue of Omni Magazine* Frank Herbert wrote:




"I now believe that evolution, or deevolution[sic], never ends short
of death, that no society has ever achieved an absolute pinnacle, that
all humans are not created equal. In fact, I believe attempts to
create some abstract equalization create a morass of injustices that
rebound on the equalizers. Equal justice and equal opportunity are
ideals we should seek, but we should recognize that humans administer
the ideals and that humans do not have equal ability."





  • Did he try to say that humans have not the ability to administer successfully these ideals?

  • Was he trying to say that humans doing it have not equal ideals?

  • Simply saying that some humans have not the ability to administer the ideals while others have it?

  • Or, the worst meaning to me, "some humans don't deserve equality because their lack of ability"?


PS: I think people need to know Herbert's science fiction work to know his way of thinking, however you can't ask about the writers in Science Fiction SE.



(*) Herbert, Frank (July 1980). "Dune Genesis". Omni 2 (2): p. 72. ISSN 0149-8711.






form-of-government society inequality transhumanism social-justice




form-of-government society inequality transhumanism social-justice






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Jan 13 at 18:03









Leopoldo SanczykLeopoldo Sanczyk

20428




20428








  • 26





    I would think reading the full sentence where he states that "Equal justice and equal opportunity are ideals that we should seek" rule out the last bullet point. Personally I would guess that it is simple as not everyone can do something at the same level. For example look at sports and how not everyone can make it to a professional/Olympic level regardless of the amount of training that they do.

    – Joe W
    Jan 13 at 18:10






  • 5





    I personally read it as we should strive to treat everyone as equal and give everyone an equal chance even though everyone does not have an equal ability to succeed.

    – Joe W
    Jan 13 at 18:24






  • 7





    @Joe W: Yes. If I were to try to make a living as say a pro football player or rock musician (among many other possibilities), I would almost certainly starve. OTOH, I doubt many football players or rock musicians could write a decent computer program. (Note that I said MANY, and don't bring up that Queen guitarist who moonlights as a astrophysicist :-))

    – jamesqf
    Jan 13 at 19:14






  • 2





    @LeopoldoSanczyk Can only speculate as to what the author of the essay meant by "ability" relevant to humans. That term is not clearly defined at the essay. The "no society has ever achieved an absolute pinnacle" can be objectively refuted with evidence - from the outside of the specific society being evaluated - not from the inside. A contemporary example could be the mantra "Make America Great Again", the first question would necessarily be "When exactly was America ever 'great'?" or "Why is America not 'great' right now?" A definition of "great" is required to make a rational evaluation.

    – guest271314
    Jan 13 at 19:16








  • 4





    I agree with JoeW. The author is referring to the fact that people simply are born with different abilities to do stuff - people are born with different muscle mass, stamina, metabolism, height, vocal cords, not to mention mental matters. It all results in different abilities (some are born to become basketball players, others are certainly not). I believe he is referring to the idea of every individual's "Equal justice and equal opportunity", but not necessarily equal outcomes, as an ideal

    – Steeven
    Jan 13 at 19:48














  • 26





    I would think reading the full sentence where he states that "Equal justice and equal opportunity are ideals that we should seek" rule out the last bullet point. Personally I would guess that it is simple as not everyone can do something at the same level. For example look at sports and how not everyone can make it to a professional/Olympic level regardless of the amount of training that they do.

    – Joe W
    Jan 13 at 18:10






  • 5





    I personally read it as we should strive to treat everyone as equal and give everyone an equal chance even though everyone does not have an equal ability to succeed.

    – Joe W
    Jan 13 at 18:24






  • 7





    @Joe W: Yes. If I were to try to make a living as say a pro football player or rock musician (among many other possibilities), I would almost certainly starve. OTOH, I doubt many football players or rock musicians could write a decent computer program. (Note that I said MANY, and don't bring up that Queen guitarist who moonlights as a astrophysicist :-))

    – jamesqf
    Jan 13 at 19:14






  • 2





    @LeopoldoSanczyk Can only speculate as to what the author of the essay meant by "ability" relevant to humans. That term is not clearly defined at the essay. The "no society has ever achieved an absolute pinnacle" can be objectively refuted with evidence - from the outside of the specific society being evaluated - not from the inside. A contemporary example could be the mantra "Make America Great Again", the first question would necessarily be "When exactly was America ever 'great'?" or "Why is America not 'great' right now?" A definition of "great" is required to make a rational evaluation.

    – guest271314
    Jan 13 at 19:16








  • 4





    I agree with JoeW. The author is referring to the fact that people simply are born with different abilities to do stuff - people are born with different muscle mass, stamina, metabolism, height, vocal cords, not to mention mental matters. It all results in different abilities (some are born to become basketball players, others are certainly not). I believe he is referring to the idea of every individual's "Equal justice and equal opportunity", but not necessarily equal outcomes, as an ideal

    – Steeven
    Jan 13 at 19:48








26




26





I would think reading the full sentence where he states that "Equal justice and equal opportunity are ideals that we should seek" rule out the last bullet point. Personally I would guess that it is simple as not everyone can do something at the same level. For example look at sports and how not everyone can make it to a professional/Olympic level regardless of the amount of training that they do.

– Joe W
Jan 13 at 18:10





I would think reading the full sentence where he states that "Equal justice and equal opportunity are ideals that we should seek" rule out the last bullet point. Personally I would guess that it is simple as not everyone can do something at the same level. For example look at sports and how not everyone can make it to a professional/Olympic level regardless of the amount of training that they do.

– Joe W
Jan 13 at 18:10




5




5





I personally read it as we should strive to treat everyone as equal and give everyone an equal chance even though everyone does not have an equal ability to succeed.

– Joe W
Jan 13 at 18:24





I personally read it as we should strive to treat everyone as equal and give everyone an equal chance even though everyone does not have an equal ability to succeed.

– Joe W
Jan 13 at 18:24




7




7





@Joe W: Yes. If I were to try to make a living as say a pro football player or rock musician (among many other possibilities), I would almost certainly starve. OTOH, I doubt many football players or rock musicians could write a decent computer program. (Note that I said MANY, and don't bring up that Queen guitarist who moonlights as a astrophysicist :-))

– jamesqf
Jan 13 at 19:14





@Joe W: Yes. If I were to try to make a living as say a pro football player or rock musician (among many other possibilities), I would almost certainly starve. OTOH, I doubt many football players or rock musicians could write a decent computer program. (Note that I said MANY, and don't bring up that Queen guitarist who moonlights as a astrophysicist :-))

– jamesqf
Jan 13 at 19:14




2




2





@LeopoldoSanczyk Can only speculate as to what the author of the essay meant by "ability" relevant to humans. That term is not clearly defined at the essay. The "no society has ever achieved an absolute pinnacle" can be objectively refuted with evidence - from the outside of the specific society being evaluated - not from the inside. A contemporary example could be the mantra "Make America Great Again", the first question would necessarily be "When exactly was America ever 'great'?" or "Why is America not 'great' right now?" A definition of "great" is required to make a rational evaluation.

– guest271314
Jan 13 at 19:16







@LeopoldoSanczyk Can only speculate as to what the author of the essay meant by "ability" relevant to humans. That term is not clearly defined at the essay. The "no society has ever achieved an absolute pinnacle" can be objectively refuted with evidence - from the outside of the specific society being evaluated - not from the inside. A contemporary example could be the mantra "Make America Great Again", the first question would necessarily be "When exactly was America ever 'great'?" or "Why is America not 'great' right now?" A definition of "great" is required to make a rational evaluation.

– guest271314
Jan 13 at 19:16






4




4





I agree with JoeW. The author is referring to the fact that people simply are born with different abilities to do stuff - people are born with different muscle mass, stamina, metabolism, height, vocal cords, not to mention mental matters. It all results in different abilities (some are born to become basketball players, others are certainly not). I believe he is referring to the idea of every individual's "Equal justice and equal opportunity", but not necessarily equal outcomes, as an ideal

– Steeven
Jan 13 at 19:48





I agree with JoeW. The author is referring to the fact that people simply are born with different abilities to do stuff - people are born with different muscle mass, stamina, metabolism, height, vocal cords, not to mention mental matters. It all results in different abilities (some are born to become basketball players, others are certainly not). I believe he is referring to the idea of every individual's "Equal justice and equal opportunity", but not necessarily equal outcomes, as an ideal

– Steeven
Jan 13 at 19:48










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















51














I think that Frank Herbert's points were these:




  1. Everyone is different, with different varying abilities. You might
    be good at math, I might not be. I might learn by doing, you might
    learn by reading.


  2. When people try to force people to meet a one size fits all standard
    so that everyone will be equal, it ends up creating
    injustices. Example: I'm not good at math, so I have a lower
    standard to get an accounting job, but you get a penalty applying for
    the same job because you're good at math, to make you equal with me.


  3. People should strive for equal opportunity and equal justice. Let
    us both do the best we can do to be as good at math as we can be,
    and let the whichever one of us who can do math the best get the
    accounting job. If both of us commit the same crime under the same
    circumstances, let us both be punished the same way, without respect
    to social class or other qualities that have nothing to do with the
    crime committed.


  4. Flawed human beings implement efforts toward ideals, so things
    aren't going to be perfect, and we should try the best we can to
    implement the ideals of equal opportunity and equal justice as
    fairly as we can even though we're limited imperfect human beings.


  5. Human beings don't have equal ability, so don't try to force things
    to turn out a certain way. Don't force someone who would rather be
    outside working in the forestry service to work in a so-called
    'better' job because his group is 'underrepresented'. If I'm not
    good at math, don't pressure me to be a physicist which I may find
    to be a frustrating job that I'm not very good at. Let me do what I
    want to do and what I'm good at.







share|improve this answer



















  • 8





    Being miserable and treating other people like dirt is every New Yorker's God-given right.

    – Mazura
    Jan 14 at 1:29






  • 22





    Yes. That was a political issue of his time, and it's still somewhat of an issue now. He's advocating for equality of opportunity, allowing people to be free to do their best and get the results they achieve, instead of forcing people into a system that tries to guarantee equal results for everyone. He's saying that imperfect people can't make a system like that without hurting people and inflicting brutal injustices, and even then it won't work.

    – TheLeopard
    Jan 14 at 2:45






  • 6





    I think your analysis is likely correct (based on my familiarity with the works), but the answer should ideally be backed up by quotes by Herbert himself or his books?

    – user4012
    Jan 14 at 16:41






  • 5





    Much better real-world example for #2: Some people are great with the mental motivation and focus necessary to do things like fill out paperwork and make an keep Dr. Appointments, and some people have brains that are so bad at this they need neurochemical help to function in a world that demands those things. Expecting people in that second group to deal with lots of paperwork and bureaucracy that an average person can just barely deal with when something happens and they fall off their meds is a really great way to fill your society's streets with homeless people.

    – T.E.D.
    Jan 14 at 17:24








  • 7





    @LeopoldoSanczyk - No, I just think that is a better example for the poster's point. Personally I think Herbert was just making a subtle "who watches the watchmen?" type of point about totally relying on governments to maintain justice and fairness (and most of the answers here are reading far too much into it), but I have nothing to back that up with. Just my own opinion. Remember, this is a guy who lived through WWII and the start of the Cold War, where two governments in particular were downright abusive to their own people, and caused a great deal of misery worldwide.

    – T.E.D.
    Jan 14 at 18:41





















10















In fact, I believe attempts to create some abstract equalization create a morass of injustices that rebound on the equalizers. Equal justice and equal opportunity are ideals we should seek, but we should recognize that humans administer the ideals and that humans do not have equal ability."




Caveat: my answer's main point is pretty similar to @TheLeopard's excellent previous answer, just paraphrased to be more concise.



What Herbert refers to is the contrast of two political philosophical ideas: "Equality of outcome" and "Equality of opportunity"



Herbert then posits two reasons for his support of the latter over the former:





  • Theoretical reason: this is a standard classical liberal/libertarian/conservative argument that, even with the best government efforts, outcomes will never be actually equal. There are many reasons for that, Herbert quotes one of the main ones, namely differences in ability.



    Absent an oppressive totalitarian government, some people will always end up better than others, due to innate ability - grit, willpower, intellect, looks, physical abilities, height, ability to hustle, charisma, even luck. The only way to ensure the equality of outcome is to try to enforce that outcome by brute force, as was done in Socialist states like USSR/China/Venezuela/Mao's China (invariably, wth disastrous results).



    A somewhat simplistic analogy is running - some people will run faster, some people will lose their endurance faster, and the only way to make sure everyone finishes at the same time is forcing faster runners to be delayed by force; or forcing faster runners to start later (again, by force, and denying them equal opportunity).



  • Practical reason: Even if you ignore the theoretical reason and decide "no, no, I or someone else smart can figure out a perfect way to administer society that will ensure equal outcome without it becoming a Gulag state", they are ignoring the fact that this perfect society will be administered by humans. Who will end up screwing up this perfection, to either make themselves more equal, paraphrasing Orwell, or even through sheer human fallibility (stupidity, mistakes, lack of foresight, personal issues, interpersonal issues).







share|improve this answer





















  • 3





    To add to your second paragraph, even in a society which enforces equality, the people with the power to do the enforcing would be more powerful than people who don't, so equality would elude such a society.

    – TheLeopard
    Jan 14 at 18:02






  • 2





    Herbert was also much interested in ecology. Genes control growth rates, and any increase costs an organism energy and resources. In some environs, the cost of being faster or having sharper teeth may not be cost effective -- which is why sloths, snails and cheetahs exist in different places. A world with only cheetahs would die off in one generation, because predators need 10x prey to support them, in which sense predators are among the most fragile and dependent of creatures.

    – agc
    Jan 14 at 18:37





















8














It's not an interesting quote politically or otherwise, because it's obvious.
SF writers of Herbert's generation were prone to issuing frank and chronic updates of their educational misadventures. Herbert meant that his earlier too literal reading of a certain Jeffersonian premise eventually led him to a somewhat less over-literal interpretation.
(Herbert's latter interpretation is still too literal by half**...)




Did he try to say that humans have not the ability to administer successfully these ideals?




Humans in general possess an administrative ability, but not everyone in the general populace has equal nor sufficient ability to administrate well.




Was he trying to say that humans doing it have not equal ideals?




The quote doesn't go into that. But in Herbert's fiction, ability and benign ideals don't always coincide: the villainous Vlad Harkonnen was a man of great ability but base ideals. But Herbert's novels also attempt to show that having a "good guy" running things isn't enough either -- uncritical public hero-worship of ability and benign ideals can also lead to stagnation and misery.




Simply saying that some humans have not the ability to administer the ideals while others have it?




Yes, but also that it wasn't necessary or desirable or even possible to have "perfect" administration... or "perfect" ideals. A bad administrator pretends to be perfect, and failing that, abuses his power to hide any mistakes. A good administrator admits and shares mistakes so that others may themselves profit by avoiding that bad example, and perhaps provide counsel. Beyond the errors of administrators are the flaws in human ideals, which can become destructive when fanatically denied, or enlightening when pondered and studied.




Or, the worst meaning to me, "some humans don't deserve equality because their lack of ability"?




No. Herbert was just saying that not everyone should administrate.




**For a better and earlier exposition of human metrics, see Burn's Is There for Honest Poverty.






share|improve this answer


























  • thanks for the links! So those 2 things "we should recognize" are related. He is saying humans will not administer the ideals perfectly, and even not close to that if the lack enough ability.

    – Leopoldo Sanczyk
    Jan 13 at 20:56






  • 2





    I think your analysis is likely correct (based on my familiarity with the works), but the answer should ideally be backed up by quotes by Herbert himself or his books?

    – user4012
    Jan 14 at 16:40






  • 1





    @user4012, Thanks. Quotes & sources would be better. FWIW, it being decades since I'd read any Herbert novels, my online memory refreshers were the Dune Genesis essay the OP noted, and chapter 4 "The Hero" of Tim O'Reilly's Frank Herbert. These refreshers suggested that FH earnestly didn't wish to stray anywhere near the tax exempt path of fellow SF writer and Korzybski reader Ron Hubbard.

    – agc
    Jan 14 at 18:16






  • 1





    @user4012 is good to know you read that. My fear was that Herbert way of thinking was kind of libertarian anarchism? (not sure with the term) because of the anticomunist feel at that side of the cold war. The idea of thinking humans deserve to be rewarded by his ability, and thus ignoring that the ability could be a product of an unequal system.

    – Leopoldo Sanczyk
    Jan 14 at 18:55



















8














The bit concerning you seems to be




humans do not have equal ability.




That is manifestly true though.



Some people are strong, some are fast, some are smarter, some more intuitive. Everyone has different strengths and weaknesses and some are strong in many areas, others are weak in many.



For example a special forces soldier has to be strong, fast, physically fit, well trained - they also need to be smart with it.



Your average Joe off the street is going to be both less physically fit and less mentally capable than your average special forces soldier.



Your average blacksmith is going to be stronger. Your average accountant better at math.



You could take up smithing and become stronger, or accounting and become better at math than you are now. But some people are just going to be naturally better than others at all of these things.



Trying to force everyone into the same mold as though all humans are interchangeable is just not going to work as well as finding what roles people are suited to.



...



That's a completely different question though from whether people should be compensated differently for their time based on what they do as opposed to paying all jobs the same no matter what skill or experience is needed.



How do you value a blacksmith, vs an accountant, vs a programmer, vs a CEO. Which has more skill and experience? Which works harder? Who should get paid better? That's the hard question.






share|improve this answer































    1














    I found a statement by Steven Pinker to an Argentine newspaper that in my opinion can not be more consistent with the issues expressed by Herbert. In his last TED talk Pinker affirmed that "We will never have a perfect world, and it would be dangerous to seek one", about which he expanded:




    We are not clones. There are biological and cultural variations and that is why there are always going to be mutual concessions between
    freedom and equality. If you treat people equally, they will end up
    being unequal. Some people are smarter than others, work more, take
    more risks or have more luck    . The only way that people end up being
    equal in the result, is if you treat them in an unequal way. Freedom
    and equality have mutual concessions.     You can not have much of both.
    Freedom also has concessions with human development. If you give
    people freedom, they can do stupid things like eating a lot, taking
    drugs, not exercising or dealing with unpleasant ways. If you force
    everyone to do what is best for them and everyone else, you would need
    a totalitarian Big Brother. There are concessions between the good
    things of life and human freedom. The people who would form the
    society that would try to be perfect are also human, with the flaws
    that accompany human nature.     They would be tempted all the time to
    abuse their power and overestimate their knowledge. They might think
    that they know how to create a perfect society and we know that humans
    have a lot of confidence in their knowledge. They would be tempted to
    impose a vision on society that might not benefit everyone.




    Inside that quote there is also sentences besides equality that can be close compared with other hot topics in Herbert books. "They would be tempted all the time to abuse their power" can be compared with:




    “All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts
    pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it
    is magnetic to the corruptible.” -F. Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune




    And "If you give people freedom, they can do stupid things" compared with:




    “Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and
    find your liberty.” -F. Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune




    So, at least in these topics, I think his points of view seems very close.



    Besides, I managed to found a 1981 interview at Mother Earth News, an ecology-oriented magazine, that think could be relevant to navigate his political thinking outside his books. There you could find his opinion about the welfare state:




    I don't like governmental "helping"—or any kind of public charity
    system—because I learned early on that our society's institutions
    often weaken people's self-reliance and damage family bonds as well.




    Or about leaders, in his views on Kennedy and Nixon:




    There is definitely an implicit warning, in a lot of my work, against
    big government and especially against charismatic leaders. After all,
    such people—well-intentioned or not—are human beings who will make
    human mistakes. And what happens when someone is able to make mistakes
    for 200 million people? The errors get pretty damned BIG!



    For that reason, I think that John Kennedy was one of the most
    dangerous presidents this country ever had. People didn't question
    him. And whenever citizens are willing to give unreined power to a
    charismatic leader, such as Kennedy, they tend to end up creating a
    kind of demigod—a leader who covers up mistakes instead of admitting
    them—and makes matters worse instead of better. Now Richard Nixon, on
    the other hand, did us all a favor.



    Nixon taught us one hell of a lesson, and I thank him for it. He made
    us distrust government leaders. We didn't mistrust Kennedy the way we
    did Nixon, although we probably had just as good reason to do so. But
    Nixon's downfall was due to the fact that he wasn't charismatic. He
    had to be sold just like Wheaties, and people were disappointed when
    they opened the box.



    I think it's vital that men and women learn to mistrust all forms of
    powerful, centralized authority. Big government tends to create an
    enormous delay between the signals that come from the people and the
    response of the leaders. [...] The bigger the government, the more
    slowly it reacts. So to me, the best government is one that's very
    responsive to the needs of its people. That is, the least, loosest,
    and most local government.




    His dislike of centralized government and social aid makes me think that the equality he advocates is that of a social anarchism. He seems to be against affirmative action as a way to equalize people's equality of opportunity. But if after all this reading you find it difficult to classify his political ideas, don't feel bad. The interviewer Pat Stone himself stated:




    Throughout this interview it's been all but impossible to pin you down
    to "neatly packaged" ideas. [...] I can imagine that many men and women who
    read your books or hear your ideas would prefer to be given a clear
    and uncomplicated plan they could respond to.




    PS: I apologize to answer my own question, but I really needed to research about this, and used all the precious insights shared in the discussion to do it.






    share|improve this answer
























    • "Yes! Stack Exchange has always explicitly encouraged users to answer their own questions." (from Help center). In other words, no need whatsoever for any apology, what you did was a good and welcome and fully encouraged step. (and a good answer, while at it :)

      – user4012
      Jan 17 at 13:53











    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "475"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f37917%2fwhat-did-frank-herbert-mean-when-he-said-humans-do-not-have-equal-ability-con%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes








    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    51














    I think that Frank Herbert's points were these:




    1. Everyone is different, with different varying abilities. You might
      be good at math, I might not be. I might learn by doing, you might
      learn by reading.


    2. When people try to force people to meet a one size fits all standard
      so that everyone will be equal, it ends up creating
      injustices. Example: I'm not good at math, so I have a lower
      standard to get an accounting job, but you get a penalty applying for
      the same job because you're good at math, to make you equal with me.


    3. People should strive for equal opportunity and equal justice. Let
      us both do the best we can do to be as good at math as we can be,
      and let the whichever one of us who can do math the best get the
      accounting job. If both of us commit the same crime under the same
      circumstances, let us both be punished the same way, without respect
      to social class or other qualities that have nothing to do with the
      crime committed.


    4. Flawed human beings implement efforts toward ideals, so things
      aren't going to be perfect, and we should try the best we can to
      implement the ideals of equal opportunity and equal justice as
      fairly as we can even though we're limited imperfect human beings.


    5. Human beings don't have equal ability, so don't try to force things
      to turn out a certain way. Don't force someone who would rather be
      outside working in the forestry service to work in a so-called
      'better' job because his group is 'underrepresented'. If I'm not
      good at math, don't pressure me to be a physicist which I may find
      to be a frustrating job that I'm not very good at. Let me do what I
      want to do and what I'm good at.







    share|improve this answer



















    • 8





      Being miserable and treating other people like dirt is every New Yorker's God-given right.

      – Mazura
      Jan 14 at 1:29






    • 22





      Yes. That was a political issue of his time, and it's still somewhat of an issue now. He's advocating for equality of opportunity, allowing people to be free to do their best and get the results they achieve, instead of forcing people into a system that tries to guarantee equal results for everyone. He's saying that imperfect people can't make a system like that without hurting people and inflicting brutal injustices, and even then it won't work.

      – TheLeopard
      Jan 14 at 2:45






    • 6





      I think your analysis is likely correct (based on my familiarity with the works), but the answer should ideally be backed up by quotes by Herbert himself or his books?

      – user4012
      Jan 14 at 16:41






    • 5





      Much better real-world example for #2: Some people are great with the mental motivation and focus necessary to do things like fill out paperwork and make an keep Dr. Appointments, and some people have brains that are so bad at this they need neurochemical help to function in a world that demands those things. Expecting people in that second group to deal with lots of paperwork and bureaucracy that an average person can just barely deal with when something happens and they fall off their meds is a really great way to fill your society's streets with homeless people.

      – T.E.D.
      Jan 14 at 17:24








    • 7





      @LeopoldoSanczyk - No, I just think that is a better example for the poster's point. Personally I think Herbert was just making a subtle "who watches the watchmen?" type of point about totally relying on governments to maintain justice and fairness (and most of the answers here are reading far too much into it), but I have nothing to back that up with. Just my own opinion. Remember, this is a guy who lived through WWII and the start of the Cold War, where two governments in particular were downright abusive to their own people, and caused a great deal of misery worldwide.

      – T.E.D.
      Jan 14 at 18:41


















    51














    I think that Frank Herbert's points were these:




    1. Everyone is different, with different varying abilities. You might
      be good at math, I might not be. I might learn by doing, you might
      learn by reading.


    2. When people try to force people to meet a one size fits all standard
      so that everyone will be equal, it ends up creating
      injustices. Example: I'm not good at math, so I have a lower
      standard to get an accounting job, but you get a penalty applying for
      the same job because you're good at math, to make you equal with me.


    3. People should strive for equal opportunity and equal justice. Let
      us both do the best we can do to be as good at math as we can be,
      and let the whichever one of us who can do math the best get the
      accounting job. If both of us commit the same crime under the same
      circumstances, let us both be punished the same way, without respect
      to social class or other qualities that have nothing to do with the
      crime committed.


    4. Flawed human beings implement efforts toward ideals, so things
      aren't going to be perfect, and we should try the best we can to
      implement the ideals of equal opportunity and equal justice as
      fairly as we can even though we're limited imperfect human beings.


    5. Human beings don't have equal ability, so don't try to force things
      to turn out a certain way. Don't force someone who would rather be
      outside working in the forestry service to work in a so-called
      'better' job because his group is 'underrepresented'. If I'm not
      good at math, don't pressure me to be a physicist which I may find
      to be a frustrating job that I'm not very good at. Let me do what I
      want to do and what I'm good at.







    share|improve this answer



















    • 8





      Being miserable and treating other people like dirt is every New Yorker's God-given right.

      – Mazura
      Jan 14 at 1:29






    • 22





      Yes. That was a political issue of his time, and it's still somewhat of an issue now. He's advocating for equality of opportunity, allowing people to be free to do their best and get the results they achieve, instead of forcing people into a system that tries to guarantee equal results for everyone. He's saying that imperfect people can't make a system like that without hurting people and inflicting brutal injustices, and even then it won't work.

      – TheLeopard
      Jan 14 at 2:45






    • 6





      I think your analysis is likely correct (based on my familiarity with the works), but the answer should ideally be backed up by quotes by Herbert himself or his books?

      – user4012
      Jan 14 at 16:41






    • 5





      Much better real-world example for #2: Some people are great with the mental motivation and focus necessary to do things like fill out paperwork and make an keep Dr. Appointments, and some people have brains that are so bad at this they need neurochemical help to function in a world that demands those things. Expecting people in that second group to deal with lots of paperwork and bureaucracy that an average person can just barely deal with when something happens and they fall off their meds is a really great way to fill your society's streets with homeless people.

      – T.E.D.
      Jan 14 at 17:24








    • 7





      @LeopoldoSanczyk - No, I just think that is a better example for the poster's point. Personally I think Herbert was just making a subtle "who watches the watchmen?" type of point about totally relying on governments to maintain justice and fairness (and most of the answers here are reading far too much into it), but I have nothing to back that up with. Just my own opinion. Remember, this is a guy who lived through WWII and the start of the Cold War, where two governments in particular were downright abusive to their own people, and caused a great deal of misery worldwide.

      – T.E.D.
      Jan 14 at 18:41
















    51












    51








    51







    I think that Frank Herbert's points were these:




    1. Everyone is different, with different varying abilities. You might
      be good at math, I might not be. I might learn by doing, you might
      learn by reading.


    2. When people try to force people to meet a one size fits all standard
      so that everyone will be equal, it ends up creating
      injustices. Example: I'm not good at math, so I have a lower
      standard to get an accounting job, but you get a penalty applying for
      the same job because you're good at math, to make you equal with me.


    3. People should strive for equal opportunity and equal justice. Let
      us both do the best we can do to be as good at math as we can be,
      and let the whichever one of us who can do math the best get the
      accounting job. If both of us commit the same crime under the same
      circumstances, let us both be punished the same way, without respect
      to social class or other qualities that have nothing to do with the
      crime committed.


    4. Flawed human beings implement efforts toward ideals, so things
      aren't going to be perfect, and we should try the best we can to
      implement the ideals of equal opportunity and equal justice as
      fairly as we can even though we're limited imperfect human beings.


    5. Human beings don't have equal ability, so don't try to force things
      to turn out a certain way. Don't force someone who would rather be
      outside working in the forestry service to work in a so-called
      'better' job because his group is 'underrepresented'. If I'm not
      good at math, don't pressure me to be a physicist which I may find
      to be a frustrating job that I'm not very good at. Let me do what I
      want to do and what I'm good at.







    share|improve this answer













    I think that Frank Herbert's points were these:




    1. Everyone is different, with different varying abilities. You might
      be good at math, I might not be. I might learn by doing, you might
      learn by reading.


    2. When people try to force people to meet a one size fits all standard
      so that everyone will be equal, it ends up creating
      injustices. Example: I'm not good at math, so I have a lower
      standard to get an accounting job, but you get a penalty applying for
      the same job because you're good at math, to make you equal with me.


    3. People should strive for equal opportunity and equal justice. Let
      us both do the best we can do to be as good at math as we can be,
      and let the whichever one of us who can do math the best get the
      accounting job. If both of us commit the same crime under the same
      circumstances, let us both be punished the same way, without respect
      to social class or other qualities that have nothing to do with the
      crime committed.


    4. Flawed human beings implement efforts toward ideals, so things
      aren't going to be perfect, and we should try the best we can to
      implement the ideals of equal opportunity and equal justice as
      fairly as we can even though we're limited imperfect human beings.


    5. Human beings don't have equal ability, so don't try to force things
      to turn out a certain way. Don't force someone who would rather be
      outside working in the forestry service to work in a so-called
      'better' job because his group is 'underrepresented'. If I'm not
      good at math, don't pressure me to be a physicist which I may find
      to be a frustrating job that I'm not very good at. Let me do what I
      want to do and what I'm good at.








    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered Jan 13 at 20:56









    TheLeopardTheLeopard

    49418




    49418








    • 8





      Being miserable and treating other people like dirt is every New Yorker's God-given right.

      – Mazura
      Jan 14 at 1:29






    • 22





      Yes. That was a political issue of his time, and it's still somewhat of an issue now. He's advocating for equality of opportunity, allowing people to be free to do their best and get the results they achieve, instead of forcing people into a system that tries to guarantee equal results for everyone. He's saying that imperfect people can't make a system like that without hurting people and inflicting brutal injustices, and even then it won't work.

      – TheLeopard
      Jan 14 at 2:45






    • 6





      I think your analysis is likely correct (based on my familiarity with the works), but the answer should ideally be backed up by quotes by Herbert himself or his books?

      – user4012
      Jan 14 at 16:41






    • 5





      Much better real-world example for #2: Some people are great with the mental motivation and focus necessary to do things like fill out paperwork and make an keep Dr. Appointments, and some people have brains that are so bad at this they need neurochemical help to function in a world that demands those things. Expecting people in that second group to deal with lots of paperwork and bureaucracy that an average person can just barely deal with when something happens and they fall off their meds is a really great way to fill your society's streets with homeless people.

      – T.E.D.
      Jan 14 at 17:24








    • 7





      @LeopoldoSanczyk - No, I just think that is a better example for the poster's point. Personally I think Herbert was just making a subtle "who watches the watchmen?" type of point about totally relying on governments to maintain justice and fairness (and most of the answers here are reading far too much into it), but I have nothing to back that up with. Just my own opinion. Remember, this is a guy who lived through WWII and the start of the Cold War, where two governments in particular were downright abusive to their own people, and caused a great deal of misery worldwide.

      – T.E.D.
      Jan 14 at 18:41
















    • 8





      Being miserable and treating other people like dirt is every New Yorker's God-given right.

      – Mazura
      Jan 14 at 1:29






    • 22





      Yes. That was a political issue of his time, and it's still somewhat of an issue now. He's advocating for equality of opportunity, allowing people to be free to do their best and get the results they achieve, instead of forcing people into a system that tries to guarantee equal results for everyone. He's saying that imperfect people can't make a system like that without hurting people and inflicting brutal injustices, and even then it won't work.

      – TheLeopard
      Jan 14 at 2:45






    • 6





      I think your analysis is likely correct (based on my familiarity with the works), but the answer should ideally be backed up by quotes by Herbert himself or his books?

      – user4012
      Jan 14 at 16:41






    • 5





      Much better real-world example for #2: Some people are great with the mental motivation and focus necessary to do things like fill out paperwork and make an keep Dr. Appointments, and some people have brains that are so bad at this they need neurochemical help to function in a world that demands those things. Expecting people in that second group to deal with lots of paperwork and bureaucracy that an average person can just barely deal with when something happens and they fall off their meds is a really great way to fill your society's streets with homeless people.

      – T.E.D.
      Jan 14 at 17:24








    • 7





      @LeopoldoSanczyk - No, I just think that is a better example for the poster's point. Personally I think Herbert was just making a subtle "who watches the watchmen?" type of point about totally relying on governments to maintain justice and fairness (and most of the answers here are reading far too much into it), but I have nothing to back that up with. Just my own opinion. Remember, this is a guy who lived through WWII and the start of the Cold War, where two governments in particular were downright abusive to their own people, and caused a great deal of misery worldwide.

      – T.E.D.
      Jan 14 at 18:41










    8




    8





    Being miserable and treating other people like dirt is every New Yorker's God-given right.

    – Mazura
    Jan 14 at 1:29





    Being miserable and treating other people like dirt is every New Yorker's God-given right.

    – Mazura
    Jan 14 at 1:29




    22




    22





    Yes. That was a political issue of his time, and it's still somewhat of an issue now. He's advocating for equality of opportunity, allowing people to be free to do their best and get the results they achieve, instead of forcing people into a system that tries to guarantee equal results for everyone. He's saying that imperfect people can't make a system like that without hurting people and inflicting brutal injustices, and even then it won't work.

    – TheLeopard
    Jan 14 at 2:45





    Yes. That was a political issue of his time, and it's still somewhat of an issue now. He's advocating for equality of opportunity, allowing people to be free to do their best and get the results they achieve, instead of forcing people into a system that tries to guarantee equal results for everyone. He's saying that imperfect people can't make a system like that without hurting people and inflicting brutal injustices, and even then it won't work.

    – TheLeopard
    Jan 14 at 2:45




    6




    6





    I think your analysis is likely correct (based on my familiarity with the works), but the answer should ideally be backed up by quotes by Herbert himself or his books?

    – user4012
    Jan 14 at 16:41





    I think your analysis is likely correct (based on my familiarity with the works), but the answer should ideally be backed up by quotes by Herbert himself or his books?

    – user4012
    Jan 14 at 16:41




    5




    5





    Much better real-world example for #2: Some people are great with the mental motivation and focus necessary to do things like fill out paperwork and make an keep Dr. Appointments, and some people have brains that are so bad at this they need neurochemical help to function in a world that demands those things. Expecting people in that second group to deal with lots of paperwork and bureaucracy that an average person can just barely deal with when something happens and they fall off their meds is a really great way to fill your society's streets with homeless people.

    – T.E.D.
    Jan 14 at 17:24







    Much better real-world example for #2: Some people are great with the mental motivation and focus necessary to do things like fill out paperwork and make an keep Dr. Appointments, and some people have brains that are so bad at this they need neurochemical help to function in a world that demands those things. Expecting people in that second group to deal with lots of paperwork and bureaucracy that an average person can just barely deal with when something happens and they fall off their meds is a really great way to fill your society's streets with homeless people.

    – T.E.D.
    Jan 14 at 17:24






    7




    7





    @LeopoldoSanczyk - No, I just think that is a better example for the poster's point. Personally I think Herbert was just making a subtle "who watches the watchmen?" type of point about totally relying on governments to maintain justice and fairness (and most of the answers here are reading far too much into it), but I have nothing to back that up with. Just my own opinion. Remember, this is a guy who lived through WWII and the start of the Cold War, where two governments in particular were downright abusive to their own people, and caused a great deal of misery worldwide.

    – T.E.D.
    Jan 14 at 18:41







    @LeopoldoSanczyk - No, I just think that is a better example for the poster's point. Personally I think Herbert was just making a subtle "who watches the watchmen?" type of point about totally relying on governments to maintain justice and fairness (and most of the answers here are reading far too much into it), but I have nothing to back that up with. Just my own opinion. Remember, this is a guy who lived through WWII and the start of the Cold War, where two governments in particular were downright abusive to their own people, and caused a great deal of misery worldwide.

    – T.E.D.
    Jan 14 at 18:41













    10















    In fact, I believe attempts to create some abstract equalization create a morass of injustices that rebound on the equalizers. Equal justice and equal opportunity are ideals we should seek, but we should recognize that humans administer the ideals and that humans do not have equal ability."




    Caveat: my answer's main point is pretty similar to @TheLeopard's excellent previous answer, just paraphrased to be more concise.



    What Herbert refers to is the contrast of two political philosophical ideas: "Equality of outcome" and "Equality of opportunity"



    Herbert then posits two reasons for his support of the latter over the former:





    • Theoretical reason: this is a standard classical liberal/libertarian/conservative argument that, even with the best government efforts, outcomes will never be actually equal. There are many reasons for that, Herbert quotes one of the main ones, namely differences in ability.



      Absent an oppressive totalitarian government, some people will always end up better than others, due to innate ability - grit, willpower, intellect, looks, physical abilities, height, ability to hustle, charisma, even luck. The only way to ensure the equality of outcome is to try to enforce that outcome by brute force, as was done in Socialist states like USSR/China/Venezuela/Mao's China (invariably, wth disastrous results).



      A somewhat simplistic analogy is running - some people will run faster, some people will lose their endurance faster, and the only way to make sure everyone finishes at the same time is forcing faster runners to be delayed by force; or forcing faster runners to start later (again, by force, and denying them equal opportunity).



    • Practical reason: Even if you ignore the theoretical reason and decide "no, no, I or someone else smart can figure out a perfect way to administer society that will ensure equal outcome without it becoming a Gulag state", they are ignoring the fact that this perfect society will be administered by humans. Who will end up screwing up this perfection, to either make themselves more equal, paraphrasing Orwell, or even through sheer human fallibility (stupidity, mistakes, lack of foresight, personal issues, interpersonal issues).







    share|improve this answer





















    • 3





      To add to your second paragraph, even in a society which enforces equality, the people with the power to do the enforcing would be more powerful than people who don't, so equality would elude such a society.

      – TheLeopard
      Jan 14 at 18:02






    • 2





      Herbert was also much interested in ecology. Genes control growth rates, and any increase costs an organism energy and resources. In some environs, the cost of being faster or having sharper teeth may not be cost effective -- which is why sloths, snails and cheetahs exist in different places. A world with only cheetahs would die off in one generation, because predators need 10x prey to support them, in which sense predators are among the most fragile and dependent of creatures.

      – agc
      Jan 14 at 18:37


















    10















    In fact, I believe attempts to create some abstract equalization create a morass of injustices that rebound on the equalizers. Equal justice and equal opportunity are ideals we should seek, but we should recognize that humans administer the ideals and that humans do not have equal ability."




    Caveat: my answer's main point is pretty similar to @TheLeopard's excellent previous answer, just paraphrased to be more concise.



    What Herbert refers to is the contrast of two political philosophical ideas: "Equality of outcome" and "Equality of opportunity"



    Herbert then posits two reasons for his support of the latter over the former:





    • Theoretical reason: this is a standard classical liberal/libertarian/conservative argument that, even with the best government efforts, outcomes will never be actually equal. There are many reasons for that, Herbert quotes one of the main ones, namely differences in ability.



      Absent an oppressive totalitarian government, some people will always end up better than others, due to innate ability - grit, willpower, intellect, looks, physical abilities, height, ability to hustle, charisma, even luck. The only way to ensure the equality of outcome is to try to enforce that outcome by brute force, as was done in Socialist states like USSR/China/Venezuela/Mao's China (invariably, wth disastrous results).



      A somewhat simplistic analogy is running - some people will run faster, some people will lose their endurance faster, and the only way to make sure everyone finishes at the same time is forcing faster runners to be delayed by force; or forcing faster runners to start later (again, by force, and denying them equal opportunity).



    • Practical reason: Even if you ignore the theoretical reason and decide "no, no, I or someone else smart can figure out a perfect way to administer society that will ensure equal outcome without it becoming a Gulag state", they are ignoring the fact that this perfect society will be administered by humans. Who will end up screwing up this perfection, to either make themselves more equal, paraphrasing Orwell, or even through sheer human fallibility (stupidity, mistakes, lack of foresight, personal issues, interpersonal issues).







    share|improve this answer





















    • 3





      To add to your second paragraph, even in a society which enforces equality, the people with the power to do the enforcing would be more powerful than people who don't, so equality would elude such a society.

      – TheLeopard
      Jan 14 at 18:02






    • 2





      Herbert was also much interested in ecology. Genes control growth rates, and any increase costs an organism energy and resources. In some environs, the cost of being faster or having sharper teeth may not be cost effective -- which is why sloths, snails and cheetahs exist in different places. A world with only cheetahs would die off in one generation, because predators need 10x prey to support them, in which sense predators are among the most fragile and dependent of creatures.

      – agc
      Jan 14 at 18:37
















    10












    10








    10








    In fact, I believe attempts to create some abstract equalization create a morass of injustices that rebound on the equalizers. Equal justice and equal opportunity are ideals we should seek, but we should recognize that humans administer the ideals and that humans do not have equal ability."




    Caveat: my answer's main point is pretty similar to @TheLeopard's excellent previous answer, just paraphrased to be more concise.



    What Herbert refers to is the contrast of two political philosophical ideas: "Equality of outcome" and "Equality of opportunity"



    Herbert then posits two reasons for his support of the latter over the former:





    • Theoretical reason: this is a standard classical liberal/libertarian/conservative argument that, even with the best government efforts, outcomes will never be actually equal. There are many reasons for that, Herbert quotes one of the main ones, namely differences in ability.



      Absent an oppressive totalitarian government, some people will always end up better than others, due to innate ability - grit, willpower, intellect, looks, physical abilities, height, ability to hustle, charisma, even luck. The only way to ensure the equality of outcome is to try to enforce that outcome by brute force, as was done in Socialist states like USSR/China/Venezuela/Mao's China (invariably, wth disastrous results).



      A somewhat simplistic analogy is running - some people will run faster, some people will lose their endurance faster, and the only way to make sure everyone finishes at the same time is forcing faster runners to be delayed by force; or forcing faster runners to start later (again, by force, and denying them equal opportunity).



    • Practical reason: Even if you ignore the theoretical reason and decide "no, no, I or someone else smart can figure out a perfect way to administer society that will ensure equal outcome without it becoming a Gulag state", they are ignoring the fact that this perfect society will be administered by humans. Who will end up screwing up this perfection, to either make themselves more equal, paraphrasing Orwell, or even through sheer human fallibility (stupidity, mistakes, lack of foresight, personal issues, interpersonal issues).







    share|improve this answer
















    In fact, I believe attempts to create some abstract equalization create a morass of injustices that rebound on the equalizers. Equal justice and equal opportunity are ideals we should seek, but we should recognize that humans administer the ideals and that humans do not have equal ability."




    Caveat: my answer's main point is pretty similar to @TheLeopard's excellent previous answer, just paraphrased to be more concise.



    What Herbert refers to is the contrast of two political philosophical ideas: "Equality of outcome" and "Equality of opportunity"



    Herbert then posits two reasons for his support of the latter over the former:





    • Theoretical reason: this is a standard classical liberal/libertarian/conservative argument that, even with the best government efforts, outcomes will never be actually equal. There are many reasons for that, Herbert quotes one of the main ones, namely differences in ability.



      Absent an oppressive totalitarian government, some people will always end up better than others, due to innate ability - grit, willpower, intellect, looks, physical abilities, height, ability to hustle, charisma, even luck. The only way to ensure the equality of outcome is to try to enforce that outcome by brute force, as was done in Socialist states like USSR/China/Venezuela/Mao's China (invariably, wth disastrous results).



      A somewhat simplistic analogy is running - some people will run faster, some people will lose their endurance faster, and the only way to make sure everyone finishes at the same time is forcing faster runners to be delayed by force; or forcing faster runners to start later (again, by force, and denying them equal opportunity).



    • Practical reason: Even if you ignore the theoretical reason and decide "no, no, I or someone else smart can figure out a perfect way to administer society that will ensure equal outcome without it becoming a Gulag state", they are ignoring the fact that this perfect society will be administered by humans. Who will end up screwing up this perfection, to either make themselves more equal, paraphrasing Orwell, or even through sheer human fallibility (stupidity, mistakes, lack of foresight, personal issues, interpersonal issues).








    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Jan 17 at 13:36

























    answered Jan 14 at 17:17









    user4012user4012

    71.7k15160310




    71.7k15160310








    • 3





      To add to your second paragraph, even in a society which enforces equality, the people with the power to do the enforcing would be more powerful than people who don't, so equality would elude such a society.

      – TheLeopard
      Jan 14 at 18:02






    • 2





      Herbert was also much interested in ecology. Genes control growth rates, and any increase costs an organism energy and resources. In some environs, the cost of being faster or having sharper teeth may not be cost effective -- which is why sloths, snails and cheetahs exist in different places. A world with only cheetahs would die off in one generation, because predators need 10x prey to support them, in which sense predators are among the most fragile and dependent of creatures.

      – agc
      Jan 14 at 18:37
















    • 3





      To add to your second paragraph, even in a society which enforces equality, the people with the power to do the enforcing would be more powerful than people who don't, so equality would elude such a society.

      – TheLeopard
      Jan 14 at 18:02






    • 2





      Herbert was also much interested in ecology. Genes control growth rates, and any increase costs an organism energy and resources. In some environs, the cost of being faster or having sharper teeth may not be cost effective -- which is why sloths, snails and cheetahs exist in different places. A world with only cheetahs would die off in one generation, because predators need 10x prey to support them, in which sense predators are among the most fragile and dependent of creatures.

      – agc
      Jan 14 at 18:37










    3




    3





    To add to your second paragraph, even in a society which enforces equality, the people with the power to do the enforcing would be more powerful than people who don't, so equality would elude such a society.

    – TheLeopard
    Jan 14 at 18:02





    To add to your second paragraph, even in a society which enforces equality, the people with the power to do the enforcing would be more powerful than people who don't, so equality would elude such a society.

    – TheLeopard
    Jan 14 at 18:02




    2




    2





    Herbert was also much interested in ecology. Genes control growth rates, and any increase costs an organism energy and resources. In some environs, the cost of being faster or having sharper teeth may not be cost effective -- which is why sloths, snails and cheetahs exist in different places. A world with only cheetahs would die off in one generation, because predators need 10x prey to support them, in which sense predators are among the most fragile and dependent of creatures.

    – agc
    Jan 14 at 18:37







    Herbert was also much interested in ecology. Genes control growth rates, and any increase costs an organism energy and resources. In some environs, the cost of being faster or having sharper teeth may not be cost effective -- which is why sloths, snails and cheetahs exist in different places. A world with only cheetahs would die off in one generation, because predators need 10x prey to support them, in which sense predators are among the most fragile and dependent of creatures.

    – agc
    Jan 14 at 18:37













    8














    It's not an interesting quote politically or otherwise, because it's obvious.
    SF writers of Herbert's generation were prone to issuing frank and chronic updates of their educational misadventures. Herbert meant that his earlier too literal reading of a certain Jeffersonian premise eventually led him to a somewhat less over-literal interpretation.
    (Herbert's latter interpretation is still too literal by half**...)




    Did he try to say that humans have not the ability to administer successfully these ideals?




    Humans in general possess an administrative ability, but not everyone in the general populace has equal nor sufficient ability to administrate well.




    Was he trying to say that humans doing it have not equal ideals?




    The quote doesn't go into that. But in Herbert's fiction, ability and benign ideals don't always coincide: the villainous Vlad Harkonnen was a man of great ability but base ideals. But Herbert's novels also attempt to show that having a "good guy" running things isn't enough either -- uncritical public hero-worship of ability and benign ideals can also lead to stagnation and misery.




    Simply saying that some humans have not the ability to administer the ideals while others have it?




    Yes, but also that it wasn't necessary or desirable or even possible to have "perfect" administration... or "perfect" ideals. A bad administrator pretends to be perfect, and failing that, abuses his power to hide any mistakes. A good administrator admits and shares mistakes so that others may themselves profit by avoiding that bad example, and perhaps provide counsel. Beyond the errors of administrators are the flaws in human ideals, which can become destructive when fanatically denied, or enlightening when pondered and studied.




    Or, the worst meaning to me, "some humans don't deserve equality because their lack of ability"?




    No. Herbert was just saying that not everyone should administrate.




    **For a better and earlier exposition of human metrics, see Burn's Is There for Honest Poverty.






    share|improve this answer


























    • thanks for the links! So those 2 things "we should recognize" are related. He is saying humans will not administer the ideals perfectly, and even not close to that if the lack enough ability.

      – Leopoldo Sanczyk
      Jan 13 at 20:56






    • 2





      I think your analysis is likely correct (based on my familiarity with the works), but the answer should ideally be backed up by quotes by Herbert himself or his books?

      – user4012
      Jan 14 at 16:40






    • 1





      @user4012, Thanks. Quotes & sources would be better. FWIW, it being decades since I'd read any Herbert novels, my online memory refreshers were the Dune Genesis essay the OP noted, and chapter 4 "The Hero" of Tim O'Reilly's Frank Herbert. These refreshers suggested that FH earnestly didn't wish to stray anywhere near the tax exempt path of fellow SF writer and Korzybski reader Ron Hubbard.

      – agc
      Jan 14 at 18:16






    • 1





      @user4012 is good to know you read that. My fear was that Herbert way of thinking was kind of libertarian anarchism? (not sure with the term) because of the anticomunist feel at that side of the cold war. The idea of thinking humans deserve to be rewarded by his ability, and thus ignoring that the ability could be a product of an unequal system.

      – Leopoldo Sanczyk
      Jan 14 at 18:55
















    8














    It's not an interesting quote politically or otherwise, because it's obvious.
    SF writers of Herbert's generation were prone to issuing frank and chronic updates of their educational misadventures. Herbert meant that his earlier too literal reading of a certain Jeffersonian premise eventually led him to a somewhat less over-literal interpretation.
    (Herbert's latter interpretation is still too literal by half**...)




    Did he try to say that humans have not the ability to administer successfully these ideals?




    Humans in general possess an administrative ability, but not everyone in the general populace has equal nor sufficient ability to administrate well.




    Was he trying to say that humans doing it have not equal ideals?




    The quote doesn't go into that. But in Herbert's fiction, ability and benign ideals don't always coincide: the villainous Vlad Harkonnen was a man of great ability but base ideals. But Herbert's novels also attempt to show that having a "good guy" running things isn't enough either -- uncritical public hero-worship of ability and benign ideals can also lead to stagnation and misery.




    Simply saying that some humans have not the ability to administer the ideals while others have it?




    Yes, but also that it wasn't necessary or desirable or even possible to have "perfect" administration... or "perfect" ideals. A bad administrator pretends to be perfect, and failing that, abuses his power to hide any mistakes. A good administrator admits and shares mistakes so that others may themselves profit by avoiding that bad example, and perhaps provide counsel. Beyond the errors of administrators are the flaws in human ideals, which can become destructive when fanatically denied, or enlightening when pondered and studied.




    Or, the worst meaning to me, "some humans don't deserve equality because their lack of ability"?




    No. Herbert was just saying that not everyone should administrate.




    **For a better and earlier exposition of human metrics, see Burn's Is There for Honest Poverty.






    share|improve this answer


























    • thanks for the links! So those 2 things "we should recognize" are related. He is saying humans will not administer the ideals perfectly, and even not close to that if the lack enough ability.

      – Leopoldo Sanczyk
      Jan 13 at 20:56






    • 2





      I think your analysis is likely correct (based on my familiarity with the works), but the answer should ideally be backed up by quotes by Herbert himself or his books?

      – user4012
      Jan 14 at 16:40






    • 1





      @user4012, Thanks. Quotes & sources would be better. FWIW, it being decades since I'd read any Herbert novels, my online memory refreshers were the Dune Genesis essay the OP noted, and chapter 4 "The Hero" of Tim O'Reilly's Frank Herbert. These refreshers suggested that FH earnestly didn't wish to stray anywhere near the tax exempt path of fellow SF writer and Korzybski reader Ron Hubbard.

      – agc
      Jan 14 at 18:16






    • 1





      @user4012 is good to know you read that. My fear was that Herbert way of thinking was kind of libertarian anarchism? (not sure with the term) because of the anticomunist feel at that side of the cold war. The idea of thinking humans deserve to be rewarded by his ability, and thus ignoring that the ability could be a product of an unequal system.

      – Leopoldo Sanczyk
      Jan 14 at 18:55














    8












    8








    8







    It's not an interesting quote politically or otherwise, because it's obvious.
    SF writers of Herbert's generation were prone to issuing frank and chronic updates of their educational misadventures. Herbert meant that his earlier too literal reading of a certain Jeffersonian premise eventually led him to a somewhat less over-literal interpretation.
    (Herbert's latter interpretation is still too literal by half**...)




    Did he try to say that humans have not the ability to administer successfully these ideals?




    Humans in general possess an administrative ability, but not everyone in the general populace has equal nor sufficient ability to administrate well.




    Was he trying to say that humans doing it have not equal ideals?




    The quote doesn't go into that. But in Herbert's fiction, ability and benign ideals don't always coincide: the villainous Vlad Harkonnen was a man of great ability but base ideals. But Herbert's novels also attempt to show that having a "good guy" running things isn't enough either -- uncritical public hero-worship of ability and benign ideals can also lead to stagnation and misery.




    Simply saying that some humans have not the ability to administer the ideals while others have it?




    Yes, but also that it wasn't necessary or desirable or even possible to have "perfect" administration... or "perfect" ideals. A bad administrator pretends to be perfect, and failing that, abuses his power to hide any mistakes. A good administrator admits and shares mistakes so that others may themselves profit by avoiding that bad example, and perhaps provide counsel. Beyond the errors of administrators are the flaws in human ideals, which can become destructive when fanatically denied, or enlightening when pondered and studied.




    Or, the worst meaning to me, "some humans don't deserve equality because their lack of ability"?




    No. Herbert was just saying that not everyone should administrate.




    **For a better and earlier exposition of human metrics, see Burn's Is There for Honest Poverty.






    share|improve this answer















    It's not an interesting quote politically or otherwise, because it's obvious.
    SF writers of Herbert's generation were prone to issuing frank and chronic updates of their educational misadventures. Herbert meant that his earlier too literal reading of a certain Jeffersonian premise eventually led him to a somewhat less over-literal interpretation.
    (Herbert's latter interpretation is still too literal by half**...)




    Did he try to say that humans have not the ability to administer successfully these ideals?




    Humans in general possess an administrative ability, but not everyone in the general populace has equal nor sufficient ability to administrate well.




    Was he trying to say that humans doing it have not equal ideals?




    The quote doesn't go into that. But in Herbert's fiction, ability and benign ideals don't always coincide: the villainous Vlad Harkonnen was a man of great ability but base ideals. But Herbert's novels also attempt to show that having a "good guy" running things isn't enough either -- uncritical public hero-worship of ability and benign ideals can also lead to stagnation and misery.




    Simply saying that some humans have not the ability to administer the ideals while others have it?




    Yes, but also that it wasn't necessary or desirable or even possible to have "perfect" administration... or "perfect" ideals. A bad administrator pretends to be perfect, and failing that, abuses his power to hide any mistakes. A good administrator admits and shares mistakes so that others may themselves profit by avoiding that bad example, and perhaps provide counsel. Beyond the errors of administrators are the flaws in human ideals, which can become destructive when fanatically denied, or enlightening when pondered and studied.




    Or, the worst meaning to me, "some humans don't deserve equality because their lack of ability"?




    No. Herbert was just saying that not everyone should administrate.




    **For a better and earlier exposition of human metrics, see Burn's Is There for Honest Poverty.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Jan 14 at 4:59

























    answered Jan 13 at 20:28









    agcagc

    5,4461551




    5,4461551













    • thanks for the links! So those 2 things "we should recognize" are related. He is saying humans will not administer the ideals perfectly, and even not close to that if the lack enough ability.

      – Leopoldo Sanczyk
      Jan 13 at 20:56






    • 2





      I think your analysis is likely correct (based on my familiarity with the works), but the answer should ideally be backed up by quotes by Herbert himself or his books?

      – user4012
      Jan 14 at 16:40






    • 1





      @user4012, Thanks. Quotes & sources would be better. FWIW, it being decades since I'd read any Herbert novels, my online memory refreshers were the Dune Genesis essay the OP noted, and chapter 4 "The Hero" of Tim O'Reilly's Frank Herbert. These refreshers suggested that FH earnestly didn't wish to stray anywhere near the tax exempt path of fellow SF writer and Korzybski reader Ron Hubbard.

      – agc
      Jan 14 at 18:16






    • 1





      @user4012 is good to know you read that. My fear was that Herbert way of thinking was kind of libertarian anarchism? (not sure with the term) because of the anticomunist feel at that side of the cold war. The idea of thinking humans deserve to be rewarded by his ability, and thus ignoring that the ability could be a product of an unequal system.

      – Leopoldo Sanczyk
      Jan 14 at 18:55



















    • thanks for the links! So those 2 things "we should recognize" are related. He is saying humans will not administer the ideals perfectly, and even not close to that if the lack enough ability.

      – Leopoldo Sanczyk
      Jan 13 at 20:56






    • 2





      I think your analysis is likely correct (based on my familiarity with the works), but the answer should ideally be backed up by quotes by Herbert himself or his books?

      – user4012
      Jan 14 at 16:40






    • 1





      @user4012, Thanks. Quotes & sources would be better. FWIW, it being decades since I'd read any Herbert novels, my online memory refreshers were the Dune Genesis essay the OP noted, and chapter 4 "The Hero" of Tim O'Reilly's Frank Herbert. These refreshers suggested that FH earnestly didn't wish to stray anywhere near the tax exempt path of fellow SF writer and Korzybski reader Ron Hubbard.

      – agc
      Jan 14 at 18:16






    • 1





      @user4012 is good to know you read that. My fear was that Herbert way of thinking was kind of libertarian anarchism? (not sure with the term) because of the anticomunist feel at that side of the cold war. The idea of thinking humans deserve to be rewarded by his ability, and thus ignoring that the ability could be a product of an unequal system.

      – Leopoldo Sanczyk
      Jan 14 at 18:55

















    thanks for the links! So those 2 things "we should recognize" are related. He is saying humans will not administer the ideals perfectly, and even not close to that if the lack enough ability.

    – Leopoldo Sanczyk
    Jan 13 at 20:56





    thanks for the links! So those 2 things "we should recognize" are related. He is saying humans will not administer the ideals perfectly, and even not close to that if the lack enough ability.

    – Leopoldo Sanczyk
    Jan 13 at 20:56




    2




    2





    I think your analysis is likely correct (based on my familiarity with the works), but the answer should ideally be backed up by quotes by Herbert himself or his books?

    – user4012
    Jan 14 at 16:40





    I think your analysis is likely correct (based on my familiarity with the works), but the answer should ideally be backed up by quotes by Herbert himself or his books?

    – user4012
    Jan 14 at 16:40




    1




    1





    @user4012, Thanks. Quotes & sources would be better. FWIW, it being decades since I'd read any Herbert novels, my online memory refreshers were the Dune Genesis essay the OP noted, and chapter 4 "The Hero" of Tim O'Reilly's Frank Herbert. These refreshers suggested that FH earnestly didn't wish to stray anywhere near the tax exempt path of fellow SF writer and Korzybski reader Ron Hubbard.

    – agc
    Jan 14 at 18:16





    @user4012, Thanks. Quotes & sources would be better. FWIW, it being decades since I'd read any Herbert novels, my online memory refreshers were the Dune Genesis essay the OP noted, and chapter 4 "The Hero" of Tim O'Reilly's Frank Herbert. These refreshers suggested that FH earnestly didn't wish to stray anywhere near the tax exempt path of fellow SF writer and Korzybski reader Ron Hubbard.

    – agc
    Jan 14 at 18:16




    1




    1





    @user4012 is good to know you read that. My fear was that Herbert way of thinking was kind of libertarian anarchism? (not sure with the term) because of the anticomunist feel at that side of the cold war. The idea of thinking humans deserve to be rewarded by his ability, and thus ignoring that the ability could be a product of an unequal system.

    – Leopoldo Sanczyk
    Jan 14 at 18:55





    @user4012 is good to know you read that. My fear was that Herbert way of thinking was kind of libertarian anarchism? (not sure with the term) because of the anticomunist feel at that side of the cold war. The idea of thinking humans deserve to be rewarded by his ability, and thus ignoring that the ability could be a product of an unequal system.

    – Leopoldo Sanczyk
    Jan 14 at 18:55











    8














    The bit concerning you seems to be




    humans do not have equal ability.




    That is manifestly true though.



    Some people are strong, some are fast, some are smarter, some more intuitive. Everyone has different strengths and weaknesses and some are strong in many areas, others are weak in many.



    For example a special forces soldier has to be strong, fast, physically fit, well trained - they also need to be smart with it.



    Your average Joe off the street is going to be both less physically fit and less mentally capable than your average special forces soldier.



    Your average blacksmith is going to be stronger. Your average accountant better at math.



    You could take up smithing and become stronger, or accounting and become better at math than you are now. But some people are just going to be naturally better than others at all of these things.



    Trying to force everyone into the same mold as though all humans are interchangeable is just not going to work as well as finding what roles people are suited to.



    ...



    That's a completely different question though from whether people should be compensated differently for their time based on what they do as opposed to paying all jobs the same no matter what skill or experience is needed.



    How do you value a blacksmith, vs an accountant, vs a programmer, vs a CEO. Which has more skill and experience? Which works harder? Who should get paid better? That's the hard question.






    share|improve this answer




























      8














      The bit concerning you seems to be




      humans do not have equal ability.




      That is manifestly true though.



      Some people are strong, some are fast, some are smarter, some more intuitive. Everyone has different strengths and weaknesses and some are strong in many areas, others are weak in many.



      For example a special forces soldier has to be strong, fast, physically fit, well trained - they also need to be smart with it.



      Your average Joe off the street is going to be both less physically fit and less mentally capable than your average special forces soldier.



      Your average blacksmith is going to be stronger. Your average accountant better at math.



      You could take up smithing and become stronger, or accounting and become better at math than you are now. But some people are just going to be naturally better than others at all of these things.



      Trying to force everyone into the same mold as though all humans are interchangeable is just not going to work as well as finding what roles people are suited to.



      ...



      That's a completely different question though from whether people should be compensated differently for their time based on what they do as opposed to paying all jobs the same no matter what skill or experience is needed.



      How do you value a blacksmith, vs an accountant, vs a programmer, vs a CEO. Which has more skill and experience? Which works harder? Who should get paid better? That's the hard question.






      share|improve this answer


























        8












        8








        8







        The bit concerning you seems to be




        humans do not have equal ability.




        That is manifestly true though.



        Some people are strong, some are fast, some are smarter, some more intuitive. Everyone has different strengths and weaknesses and some are strong in many areas, others are weak in many.



        For example a special forces soldier has to be strong, fast, physically fit, well trained - they also need to be smart with it.



        Your average Joe off the street is going to be both less physically fit and less mentally capable than your average special forces soldier.



        Your average blacksmith is going to be stronger. Your average accountant better at math.



        You could take up smithing and become stronger, or accounting and become better at math than you are now. But some people are just going to be naturally better than others at all of these things.



        Trying to force everyone into the same mold as though all humans are interchangeable is just not going to work as well as finding what roles people are suited to.



        ...



        That's a completely different question though from whether people should be compensated differently for their time based on what they do as opposed to paying all jobs the same no matter what skill or experience is needed.



        How do you value a blacksmith, vs an accountant, vs a programmer, vs a CEO. Which has more skill and experience? Which works harder? Who should get paid better? That's the hard question.






        share|improve this answer













        The bit concerning you seems to be




        humans do not have equal ability.




        That is manifestly true though.



        Some people are strong, some are fast, some are smarter, some more intuitive. Everyone has different strengths and weaknesses and some are strong in many areas, others are weak in many.



        For example a special forces soldier has to be strong, fast, physically fit, well trained - they also need to be smart with it.



        Your average Joe off the street is going to be both less physically fit and less mentally capable than your average special forces soldier.



        Your average blacksmith is going to be stronger. Your average accountant better at math.



        You could take up smithing and become stronger, or accounting and become better at math than you are now. But some people are just going to be naturally better than others at all of these things.



        Trying to force everyone into the same mold as though all humans are interchangeable is just not going to work as well as finding what roles people are suited to.



        ...



        That's a completely different question though from whether people should be compensated differently for their time based on what they do as opposed to paying all jobs the same no matter what skill or experience is needed.



        How do you value a blacksmith, vs an accountant, vs a programmer, vs a CEO. Which has more skill and experience? Which works harder? Who should get paid better? That's the hard question.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered Jan 14 at 13:59









        Tim BTim B

        1,194711




        1,194711























            1














            I found a statement by Steven Pinker to an Argentine newspaper that in my opinion can not be more consistent with the issues expressed by Herbert. In his last TED talk Pinker affirmed that "We will never have a perfect world, and it would be dangerous to seek one", about which he expanded:




            We are not clones. There are biological and cultural variations and that is why there are always going to be mutual concessions between
            freedom and equality. If you treat people equally, they will end up
            being unequal. Some people are smarter than others, work more, take
            more risks or have more luck            . The only way that people end up being
            equal in the result, is if you treat them in an unequal way. Freedom
            and equality have mutual concessions.             You can not have much of both.
            Freedom also has concessions with human development. If you give
            people freedom, they can do stupid things like eating a lot, taking
            drugs, not exercising or dealing with unpleasant ways. If you force
            everyone to do what is best for them and everyone else, you would need
            a totalitarian Big Brother. There are concessions between the good
            things of life and human freedom. The people who would form the
            society that would try to be perfect are also human, with the flaws
            that accompany human nature.             They would be tempted all the time to
            abuse their power and overestimate their knowledge. They might think
            that they know how to create a perfect society and we know that humans
            have a lot of confidence in their knowledge. They would be tempted to
            impose a vision on society that might not benefit everyone.




            Inside that quote there is also sentences besides equality that can be close compared with other hot topics in Herbert books. "They would be tempted all the time to abuse their power" can be compared with:




            “All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts
            pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it
            is magnetic to the corruptible.” -F. Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune




            And "If you give people freedom, they can do stupid things" compared with:




            “Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and
            find your liberty.” -F. Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune




            So, at least in these topics, I think his points of view seems very close.



            Besides, I managed to found a 1981 interview at Mother Earth News, an ecology-oriented magazine, that think could be relevant to navigate his political thinking outside his books. There you could find his opinion about the welfare state:




            I don't like governmental "helping"—or any kind of public charity
            system—because I learned early on that our society's institutions
            often weaken people's self-reliance and damage family bonds as well.




            Or about leaders, in his views on Kennedy and Nixon:




            There is definitely an implicit warning, in a lot of my work, against
            big government and especially against charismatic leaders. After all,
            such people—well-intentioned or not—are human beings who will make
            human mistakes. And what happens when someone is able to make mistakes
            for 200 million people? The errors get pretty damned BIG!



            For that reason, I think that John Kennedy was one of the most
            dangerous presidents this country ever had. People didn't question
            him. And whenever citizens are willing to give unreined power to a
            charismatic leader, such as Kennedy, they tend to end up creating a
            kind of demigod—a leader who covers up mistakes instead of admitting
            them—and makes matters worse instead of better. Now Richard Nixon, on
            the other hand, did us all a favor.



            Nixon taught us one hell of a lesson, and I thank him for it. He made
            us distrust government leaders. We didn't mistrust Kennedy the way we
            did Nixon, although we probably had just as good reason to do so. But
            Nixon's downfall was due to the fact that he wasn't charismatic. He
            had to be sold just like Wheaties, and people were disappointed when
            they opened the box.



            I think it's vital that men and women learn to mistrust all forms of
            powerful, centralized authority. Big government tends to create an
            enormous delay between the signals that come from the people and the
            response of the leaders. [...] The bigger the government, the more
            slowly it reacts. So to me, the best government is one that's very
            responsive to the needs of its people. That is, the least, loosest,
            and most local government.




            His dislike of centralized government and social aid makes me think that the equality he advocates is that of a social anarchism. He seems to be against affirmative action as a way to equalize people's equality of opportunity. But if after all this reading you find it difficult to classify his political ideas, don't feel bad. The interviewer Pat Stone himself stated:




            Throughout this interview it's been all but impossible to pin you down
            to "neatly packaged" ideas. [...] I can imagine that many men and women who
            read your books or hear your ideas would prefer to be given a clear
            and uncomplicated plan they could respond to.




            PS: I apologize to answer my own question, but I really needed to research about this, and used all the precious insights shared in the discussion to do it.






            share|improve this answer
























            • "Yes! Stack Exchange has always explicitly encouraged users to answer their own questions." (from Help center). In other words, no need whatsoever for any apology, what you did was a good and welcome and fully encouraged step. (and a good answer, while at it :)

              – user4012
              Jan 17 at 13:53
















            1














            I found a statement by Steven Pinker to an Argentine newspaper that in my opinion can not be more consistent with the issues expressed by Herbert. In his last TED talk Pinker affirmed that "We will never have a perfect world, and it would be dangerous to seek one", about which he expanded:




            We are not clones. There are biological and cultural variations and that is why there are always going to be mutual concessions between
            freedom and equality. If you treat people equally, they will end up
            being unequal. Some people are smarter than others, work more, take
            more risks or have more luck            . The only way that people end up being
            equal in the result, is if you treat them in an unequal way. Freedom
            and equality have mutual concessions.             You can not have much of both.
            Freedom also has concessions with human development. If you give
            people freedom, they can do stupid things like eating a lot, taking
            drugs, not exercising or dealing with unpleasant ways. If you force
            everyone to do what is best for them and everyone else, you would need
            a totalitarian Big Brother. There are concessions between the good
            things of life and human freedom. The people who would form the
            society that would try to be perfect are also human, with the flaws
            that accompany human nature.             They would be tempted all the time to
            abuse their power and overestimate their knowledge. They might think
            that they know how to create a perfect society and we know that humans
            have a lot of confidence in their knowledge. They would be tempted to
            impose a vision on society that might not benefit everyone.




            Inside that quote there is also sentences besides equality that can be close compared with other hot topics in Herbert books. "They would be tempted all the time to abuse their power" can be compared with:




            “All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts
            pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it
            is magnetic to the corruptible.” -F. Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune




            And "If you give people freedom, they can do stupid things" compared with:




            “Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and
            find your liberty.” -F. Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune




            So, at least in these topics, I think his points of view seems very close.



            Besides, I managed to found a 1981 interview at Mother Earth News, an ecology-oriented magazine, that think could be relevant to navigate his political thinking outside his books. There you could find his opinion about the welfare state:




            I don't like governmental "helping"—or any kind of public charity
            system—because I learned early on that our society's institutions
            often weaken people's self-reliance and damage family bonds as well.




            Or about leaders, in his views on Kennedy and Nixon:




            There is definitely an implicit warning, in a lot of my work, against
            big government and especially against charismatic leaders. After all,
            such people—well-intentioned or not—are human beings who will make
            human mistakes. And what happens when someone is able to make mistakes
            for 200 million people? The errors get pretty damned BIG!



            For that reason, I think that John Kennedy was one of the most
            dangerous presidents this country ever had. People didn't question
            him. And whenever citizens are willing to give unreined power to a
            charismatic leader, such as Kennedy, they tend to end up creating a
            kind of demigod—a leader who covers up mistakes instead of admitting
            them—and makes matters worse instead of better. Now Richard Nixon, on
            the other hand, did us all a favor.



            Nixon taught us one hell of a lesson, and I thank him for it. He made
            us distrust government leaders. We didn't mistrust Kennedy the way we
            did Nixon, although we probably had just as good reason to do so. But
            Nixon's downfall was due to the fact that he wasn't charismatic. He
            had to be sold just like Wheaties, and people were disappointed when
            they opened the box.



            I think it's vital that men and women learn to mistrust all forms of
            powerful, centralized authority. Big government tends to create an
            enormous delay between the signals that come from the people and the
            response of the leaders. [...] The bigger the government, the more
            slowly it reacts. So to me, the best government is one that's very
            responsive to the needs of its people. That is, the least, loosest,
            and most local government.




            His dislike of centralized government and social aid makes me think that the equality he advocates is that of a social anarchism. He seems to be against affirmative action as a way to equalize people's equality of opportunity. But if after all this reading you find it difficult to classify his political ideas, don't feel bad. The interviewer Pat Stone himself stated:




            Throughout this interview it's been all but impossible to pin you down
            to "neatly packaged" ideas. [...] I can imagine that many men and women who
            read your books or hear your ideas would prefer to be given a clear
            and uncomplicated plan they could respond to.




            PS: I apologize to answer my own question, but I really needed to research about this, and used all the precious insights shared in the discussion to do it.






            share|improve this answer
























            • "Yes! Stack Exchange has always explicitly encouraged users to answer their own questions." (from Help center). In other words, no need whatsoever for any apology, what you did was a good and welcome and fully encouraged step. (and a good answer, while at it :)

              – user4012
              Jan 17 at 13:53














            1












            1








            1







            I found a statement by Steven Pinker to an Argentine newspaper that in my opinion can not be more consistent with the issues expressed by Herbert. In his last TED talk Pinker affirmed that "We will never have a perfect world, and it would be dangerous to seek one", about which he expanded:




            We are not clones. There are biological and cultural variations and that is why there are always going to be mutual concessions between
            freedom and equality. If you treat people equally, they will end up
            being unequal. Some people are smarter than others, work more, take
            more risks or have more luck            . The only way that people end up being
            equal in the result, is if you treat them in an unequal way. Freedom
            and equality have mutual concessions.             You can not have much of both.
            Freedom also has concessions with human development. If you give
            people freedom, they can do stupid things like eating a lot, taking
            drugs, not exercising or dealing with unpleasant ways. If you force
            everyone to do what is best for them and everyone else, you would need
            a totalitarian Big Brother. There are concessions between the good
            things of life and human freedom. The people who would form the
            society that would try to be perfect are also human, with the flaws
            that accompany human nature.             They would be tempted all the time to
            abuse their power and overestimate their knowledge. They might think
            that they know how to create a perfect society and we know that humans
            have a lot of confidence in their knowledge. They would be tempted to
            impose a vision on society that might not benefit everyone.




            Inside that quote there is also sentences besides equality that can be close compared with other hot topics in Herbert books. "They would be tempted all the time to abuse their power" can be compared with:




            “All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts
            pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it
            is magnetic to the corruptible.” -F. Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune




            And "If you give people freedom, they can do stupid things" compared with:




            “Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and
            find your liberty.” -F. Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune




            So, at least in these topics, I think his points of view seems very close.



            Besides, I managed to found a 1981 interview at Mother Earth News, an ecology-oriented magazine, that think could be relevant to navigate his political thinking outside his books. There you could find his opinion about the welfare state:




            I don't like governmental "helping"—or any kind of public charity
            system—because I learned early on that our society's institutions
            often weaken people's self-reliance and damage family bonds as well.




            Or about leaders, in his views on Kennedy and Nixon:




            There is definitely an implicit warning, in a lot of my work, against
            big government and especially against charismatic leaders. After all,
            such people—well-intentioned or not—are human beings who will make
            human mistakes. And what happens when someone is able to make mistakes
            for 200 million people? The errors get pretty damned BIG!



            For that reason, I think that John Kennedy was one of the most
            dangerous presidents this country ever had. People didn't question
            him. And whenever citizens are willing to give unreined power to a
            charismatic leader, such as Kennedy, they tend to end up creating a
            kind of demigod—a leader who covers up mistakes instead of admitting
            them—and makes matters worse instead of better. Now Richard Nixon, on
            the other hand, did us all a favor.



            Nixon taught us one hell of a lesson, and I thank him for it. He made
            us distrust government leaders. We didn't mistrust Kennedy the way we
            did Nixon, although we probably had just as good reason to do so. But
            Nixon's downfall was due to the fact that he wasn't charismatic. He
            had to be sold just like Wheaties, and people were disappointed when
            they opened the box.



            I think it's vital that men and women learn to mistrust all forms of
            powerful, centralized authority. Big government tends to create an
            enormous delay between the signals that come from the people and the
            response of the leaders. [...] The bigger the government, the more
            slowly it reacts. So to me, the best government is one that's very
            responsive to the needs of its people. That is, the least, loosest,
            and most local government.




            His dislike of centralized government and social aid makes me think that the equality he advocates is that of a social anarchism. He seems to be against affirmative action as a way to equalize people's equality of opportunity. But if after all this reading you find it difficult to classify his political ideas, don't feel bad. The interviewer Pat Stone himself stated:




            Throughout this interview it's been all but impossible to pin you down
            to "neatly packaged" ideas. [...] I can imagine that many men and women who
            read your books or hear your ideas would prefer to be given a clear
            and uncomplicated plan they could respond to.




            PS: I apologize to answer my own question, but I really needed to research about this, and used all the precious insights shared in the discussion to do it.






            share|improve this answer













            I found a statement by Steven Pinker to an Argentine newspaper that in my opinion can not be more consistent with the issues expressed by Herbert. In his last TED talk Pinker affirmed that "We will never have a perfect world, and it would be dangerous to seek one", about which he expanded:




            We are not clones. There are biological and cultural variations and that is why there are always going to be mutual concessions between
            freedom and equality. If you treat people equally, they will end up
            being unequal. Some people are smarter than others, work more, take
            more risks or have more luck            . The only way that people end up being
            equal in the result, is if you treat them in an unequal way. Freedom
            and equality have mutual concessions.             You can not have much of both.
            Freedom also has concessions with human development. If you give
            people freedom, they can do stupid things like eating a lot, taking
            drugs, not exercising or dealing with unpleasant ways. If you force
            everyone to do what is best for them and everyone else, you would need
            a totalitarian Big Brother. There are concessions between the good
            things of life and human freedom. The people who would form the
            society that would try to be perfect are also human, with the flaws
            that accompany human nature.             They would be tempted all the time to
            abuse their power and overestimate their knowledge. They might think
            that they know how to create a perfect society and we know that humans
            have a lot of confidence in their knowledge. They would be tempted to
            impose a vision on society that might not benefit everyone.




            Inside that quote there is also sentences besides equality that can be close compared with other hot topics in Herbert books. "They would be tempted all the time to abuse their power" can be compared with:




            “All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts
            pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it
            is magnetic to the corruptible.” -F. Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune




            And "If you give people freedom, they can do stupid things" compared with:




            “Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and
            find your liberty.” -F. Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune




            So, at least in these topics, I think his points of view seems very close.



            Besides, I managed to found a 1981 interview at Mother Earth News, an ecology-oriented magazine, that think could be relevant to navigate his political thinking outside his books. There you could find his opinion about the welfare state:




            I don't like governmental "helping"—or any kind of public charity
            system—because I learned early on that our society's institutions
            often weaken people's self-reliance and damage family bonds as well.




            Or about leaders, in his views on Kennedy and Nixon:




            There is definitely an implicit warning, in a lot of my work, against
            big government and especially against charismatic leaders. After all,
            such people—well-intentioned or not—are human beings who will make
            human mistakes. And what happens when someone is able to make mistakes
            for 200 million people? The errors get pretty damned BIG!



            For that reason, I think that John Kennedy was one of the most
            dangerous presidents this country ever had. People didn't question
            him. And whenever citizens are willing to give unreined power to a
            charismatic leader, such as Kennedy, they tend to end up creating a
            kind of demigod—a leader who covers up mistakes instead of admitting
            them—and makes matters worse instead of better. Now Richard Nixon, on
            the other hand, did us all a favor.



            Nixon taught us one hell of a lesson, and I thank him for it. He made
            us distrust government leaders. We didn't mistrust Kennedy the way we
            did Nixon, although we probably had just as good reason to do so. But
            Nixon's downfall was due to the fact that he wasn't charismatic. He
            had to be sold just like Wheaties, and people were disappointed when
            they opened the box.



            I think it's vital that men and women learn to mistrust all forms of
            powerful, centralized authority. Big government tends to create an
            enormous delay between the signals that come from the people and the
            response of the leaders. [...] The bigger the government, the more
            slowly it reacts. So to me, the best government is one that's very
            responsive to the needs of its people. That is, the least, loosest,
            and most local government.




            His dislike of centralized government and social aid makes me think that the equality he advocates is that of a social anarchism. He seems to be against affirmative action as a way to equalize people's equality of opportunity. But if after all this reading you find it difficult to classify his political ideas, don't feel bad. The interviewer Pat Stone himself stated:




            Throughout this interview it's been all but impossible to pin you down
            to "neatly packaged" ideas. [...] I can imagine that many men and women who
            read your books or hear your ideas would prefer to be given a clear
            and uncomplicated plan they could respond to.




            PS: I apologize to answer my own question, but I really needed to research about this, and used all the precious insights shared in the discussion to do it.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Jan 16 at 22:12









            Leopoldo SanczykLeopoldo Sanczyk

            20428




            20428













            • "Yes! Stack Exchange has always explicitly encouraged users to answer their own questions." (from Help center). In other words, no need whatsoever for any apology, what you did was a good and welcome and fully encouraged step. (and a good answer, while at it :)

              – user4012
              Jan 17 at 13:53



















            • "Yes! Stack Exchange has always explicitly encouraged users to answer their own questions." (from Help center). In other words, no need whatsoever for any apology, what you did was a good and welcome and fully encouraged step. (and a good answer, while at it :)

              – user4012
              Jan 17 at 13:53

















            "Yes! Stack Exchange has always explicitly encouraged users to answer their own questions." (from Help center). In other words, no need whatsoever for any apology, what you did was a good and welcome and fully encouraged step. (and a good answer, while at it :)

            – user4012
            Jan 17 at 13:53





            "Yes! Stack Exchange has always explicitly encouraged users to answer their own questions." (from Help center). In other words, no need whatsoever for any apology, what you did was a good and welcome and fully encouraged step. (and a good answer, while at it :)

            – user4012
            Jan 17 at 13:53


















            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f37917%2fwhat-did-frank-herbert-mean-when-he-said-humans-do-not-have-equal-ability-con%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            MongoDB - Not Authorized To Execute Command

            Image
            .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box; } 0 I have successfully enabled authorization on MongoDB and I have created an account on the admin database and then I created an account for my database called test. The following connection string to connect to my test database works successfully: mongo --host 192.168.17.52 --port 27017 -u user1 -p password --authenticationDatabase test Only problem I have now is, I cannot execute commands such as: show dbs. I get the following error when I try to do so: "errmsg" : "not authorized on admin to execute command { listDatabases: 1.0, lsid: { id: UUID("a1d5bc0d-bc58-485e-b232-270758a89455") }, $db: "admin...
            Read more

            in spring boot 2.1 many test slices are not allowed anymore due to multiple @BootstrapWith

            Image
            1 I tried to upgrade a yummy sandwich made of two test slices (@JsonTest and @JdbcTest in my case, crunchy test code in between) adding spring boot 2.1 flavour to it. But it seems it was not much of a success. I cannot annotate my tests with many @...Test since they are now each bringing their own XxxTestContextBootstrapper. It used to work when they all used same SpringBootTestContextBootstrapper. @RunWith(SpringRunner.class) @JdbcTest @JsonTest public class Test { @Test public void test() { System.out.printn("Hello, World !"); } } The error I get from BootstrapUtils is illegalStateException : Configuration error: found multiple declarations of @BootstrapWith for test class I understand I might be doing something wrong here but is there an easy way I could load both Json and Jdbc contex...
            Read more

            How to fix TextFormField cause rebuild widget in Flutter

            Image
            .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box; } 0 I've got the same issue at #9280. I tried all solutions from that topic with/without GlobalKey for Scaffold and Form but the problem wasn't fixed. I tried to build a authentication form with login and signup. But the keyboard doesn't show when I tap the TextFormField at the first time. Then I try to input some letter from physical keyboard, the widget is rebuilt. Like this: login screen Nothing to be log when I run flutter run --verbose, so I logged manually. Every tapping on field, the widget called dispose -> init -> build. [√] Flutter (Channel beta, v1.0.0, on Microsoft Windows [Version 10.0.17763.195], ...
            Read more