Main Page Contact Register Log In

Having people live lives in different wealth levels allows for more forms of life and more chances of evolving and adapting.

Poor people are usually efficent in resource use and are more motivated to be ingenious, which once invented can also be utilised by the rich people or for the rich people. This is even without any effect on potential of gaining a big reward. Jamie Oliver also believs that the best foods are invented by the poorest.

Wealth inequality can be used to breed the species in a certain direction. A species that conciously chooses to evolve in a certain way is in some senses more autonomous.

Rich people usually have their visions implemented to a greater extent.

Climbing social ladders can be a fun game in the right circumstances. There is a reason "game of thrones" is worth a watch and it would not exactly pan out if there were no thrones to fight over. Soap operas have their viewers and the yellow pages need some source for their headlines.

Peaks of civilization embody in single persons which makes them more relatable. World politics is done more personally and less distributed. There is more located seat of control

Well darn these following two were already covered and asked not to repeat (yet there they are).

In a way ancient Greece philospohers were possible because they didn't have manual labour to do. Hint: somebody still did manual labour.

"It is good to be the king." Poor people are more reliant on wealthy people and are more suggestible resource. Even if one allows to identify with the whole human race,if everything else stays fixed isn't the addition of a whole bunch of poor people a better thing than not having them? (the repugnant conclusion is relevant).