That's OK? That's quite a controversial statement.
At birth, children will hidden from the eyes of the parents and transferred to the community. The child will be part of the community and the community will provide for all equally. They will be rotated out on a weekly basis amongst couples to be raised and nurtured temporarily, so every child will have the closest possible exact same upbringing.
Those who grow tall too fast will have weights put on them, those who show intellectual aptitude will be given booze to slow their development.
Then one day a child escapes, runs through the corn fields to freedom, and immediately gets run over by a AI controlled John Deere harvester, for the children are fast, but the harvester is faster.
Although my take is I disagree with both points - yes maybe connections and status may allow some people to be successful, and extreme poverty can hinder success. But on average I don't know how much that matters. I think someone like geohot could be successful without any network or without anyone's help. He has an attitude that's geared for curiousity and making a contribution
Agred, we should make the artificial boosting of prospects for some kids and handicapping of others based on their respective's parent's wealth illegal.
>Those who grow tall too fast will have weights put on them, those who show intellectual aptitude will be given booze to slow their development.
And those sliding on slippery slopes would have to wear high-friction fabrics to be made to slide slower.
Or perhaps natural talents and throwing money to boost some children's life prospects while others are left behind (from no quality or action of their own) are not the same thing.
Who would have thought?