I’m not sure what you are saying here. Were you using some notion of equality across all of time without saying so? If so, that seems a rather unexpected and definitely non-central notion of equality.
Following this through, it seems to me that you are saying that if there ever existed any absolute ruler in the past, that necessarily makes every possible future society unequal. After all, every future society will have people who have not reached the heights of being an absolute ruler. Is this a correct reading?
If so, I respectfully decline to use your meaning of the word “equality”.
There will be a limit on the maximal future importance of any given human individual, and the limit would necessarily be lower than what has already been reached, which is clearly demotivating. This seems undesirable from my perspective.
The rest of the comment seems confused. For example,
Were you using some notion of equality across all of time without saying so?
All comparisons between multiple individuals must necessarily span across some period of time to have any practical meaning.
Often it’s implicitly assumed in discussions that the time basis is averaged over a calendar year or less depending on context, such as over a day or a minute.
Since comparing multiple individuals over an averaged calendar year is near universally accepted, then comparisons over a longer period such as a decade, century, or millennium, should also be accepted to varying degrees. Personally I find millennia long durations highly credible, but billion year long durations less credible.
It’s not possible to compare ‘equality’ or anything else ‘across all of time’ since it’s not understood whether time has an end.
I’m not sure what you are saying here. Were you using some notion of equality across all of time without saying so? If so, that seems a rather unexpected and definitely non-central notion of equality.
Following this through, it seems to me that you are saying that if there ever existed any absolute ruler in the past, that necessarily makes every possible future society unequal. After all, every future society will have people who have not reached the heights of being an absolute ruler. Is this a correct reading?
If so, I respectfully decline to use your meaning of the word “equality”.
There will be a limit on the maximal future importance of any given human individual, and the limit would necessarily be lower than what has already been reached, which is clearly demotivating. This seems undesirable from my perspective.
The rest of the comment seems confused. For example,
All comparisons between multiple individuals must necessarily span across some period of time to have any practical meaning.
Often it’s implicitly assumed in discussions that the time basis is averaged over a calendar year or less depending on context, such as over a day or a minute.
Since comparing multiple individuals over an averaged calendar year is near universally accepted, then comparisons over a longer period such as a decade, century, or millennium, should also be accepted to varying degrees. Personally I find millennia long durations highly credible, but billion year long durations less credible.
It’s not possible to compare ‘equality’ or anything else ‘across all of time’ since it’s not understood whether time has an end.