A Brief Discussion on the Issue of Fairness?

I have found that there is a very perverse way of thinking in today's society, where many people talk about fairness, but if you take a closer look at these points of unfairness, they often concentrate on wealth. People come in various heights, weights, and appearances, but often people do not consider the beauty or ugliness of individuals as unfair; they think it's a genetic issue and believe that 90% of what is unfair is concentrated on wealth.

This issue is quite complex, and it could even be the subject of a paper. I can only briefly elaborate. Fairness is something that needs to be traced back. You feel it's unfair compared to your classmates because they were born into wealthy, educated families, while you were born into poverty. You think the world is too unfair, which is an extremely twisted way of thinking. Let me give you a simple analogy: my grandfather's father was a sugarcane farmer on Chongming Island in Shanghai. My grandfather didn't want to be a farmer for his whole life, so he went to Shanghai to learn cooking. He eventually became a chef, opened a restaurant, made money, and raised my father. My father also worked hard; in the 1980s, he gave up his government job to start a business, made money, and raised me. As for me, I continued to study hard and find a job, or start a business to make money. Therefore, my children's starting point is completely different from many others. Can you really say that's unfair?

We take a step back; you say fairness must start from now, from you and me. If we both have nothing, then that is fair. Well, let me tell you, if you and I are equally impoverished, then it's fair, right? I will also work hard to study or earn money, and through my efforts in this generation, my children will also work hard, and their children will start at a high point too. What about you? Maybe you will still be comfortable farming at home, and after three generations, your grandson will also say, "Why is the world so unfair?" According to this reasoning, every 50 years there should be a revolution to redistribute wealth, clearing all wealth to zero and starting over. After 50 years, it will be unfair again, and we start the revolution all over?"

Many people's privileged births are the result of generations, even hundreds of years of effort from their families. This is called inheritance. Do you want to deny the hard work of others' families for hundreds of years and claim that being a grassroots with nothing is fair?

I often use a metaphor: I am 1.8M tall, and you are 1.6M tall. When we play basketball, your hoop should be lower because you're shorter, to be fair, right? Isn't that ridiculous? When our kids participate in a 100M race, starting from the same line, my child wears running shoes while yours runs barefoot. You say it’s unfair. In this kind of competition, I tell you, my child’s running shoes are the result of two generations of hard work, while your child wants to change their fate by running barefoot just to win once. If they win once, your child's descendants could change because you succeeded, and your descendants will benefit. In the future, they will have shoes to wear when they run. There are many such examples. Many children attend extracurricular classes and tutoring from a young age, while your child doesn't or can’t afford it. You say it’s unfair. If we all forgo tutoring and take an exam, let’s see who scores better; isn’t that nonsense? How do you define fairness? Your arguments just don’t hold up.

Let me give you an extreme example. Your appearance and looks are the result of your ancestors' hard work, not something innate. Your ancestors succeeded and chose beautiful and intelligent women to marry, and then had children who are also smart and beautiful. If your children work hard and combine excellent genes, then your descendants will become increasingly beautiful and intelligent. This is genetics; genetics is also the result of human struggle, not something that is simply innate. Do you understand this logic? You, a poor person, with an unattractive appearance, what kind of excellent women can you find to have children with? Your descendants will be ugly and stupid, and then you will complain that the world is unfair. Genetics is not innate; it is the result of striving to find excellent genetic combinations, which in turn creates better genetics. Do you understand?

Let me give you another example. My child applied to a top school, for instance, with a score of 95, while another child scored 85. However, the school admitted the other child. Why? Because that child's family has had three generations attending this school, and they are all successful people, contributors to society, and have made many donations to the school. What does your score of 95 matter? Does it make you better than that child? The school's original intention is to cultivate individuals who contribute to society and donate to their alma mater. How can I determine that you will definitely contribute to society or donate to the school just because you scored 95? You might say, 'As long as I graduate, I will definitely donate to the school,' but that is just your wishful thinking. How can the school know if it's true? On the other hand, the other child will 100% do it, so there is no need to worry because his ancestors have already set a precedent. It goes without saying that children from such families will definitely give back to their alma mater in the future because their parents and grandparents have done so for decades, and they did not wait to see results before contributing. Chinese people generally say, 'As long as you admit my child, I will immediately donate 500,000.' That is a ridiculous thing to say; donations with such conditions are so targeted. Will the school accept that? Perhaps your child is indeed cultivated to be an elite, and maybe they will contribute significantly to their alma mater, but there is a risk because it is uncertain. By admitting this child with a score of 85, I know this child's future, and there is no risk for me. Admitting you is like gambling; admitting that child is reasonable, even with a score of 85. So someone might say, 'My child will indeed give back to the school in the future, that's true.' Well, if that's the case, then talk directly to the school. I don’t care whether you admit my child or not; I will donate 1 million first. Whether my child is admitted or not is irrelevant; he has a younger brother, and I will donate every year to show my sincerity. I believe his younger brother will definitely be admitted.

Pan Shiyi's son got into Harvard, and Pan Shiyi donated no less than 4 million each year for 5 years in advance, so that his child was admitted to Harvard after 5 years. When you apply, even if you donate 10 million at once, it won’t work; they won’t care about you at all. What are you? Is Harvard just selling diplomas? How can my school survive in the future if that’s the case? Then my school would just be collecting garbage as long as someone has money? Everything I said is of course based on the premise that the child can meet Harvard's admission standards, and there are hundreds of thousands of people worldwide who meet the admission standards every year. Who do you choose to admit? If you were the school, how would you choose? Of course, if Pan Shiyi's grandson meets Harvard's admission standards in the future, he wouldn’t have to spend money at all. The first step is always the hardest, which is why many families have generations that graduate from Ivy League schools; that’s the reason.

Fairness is a starting point of fairness, not an endpoint fairness. Endpoint fairness is averaging. We run 100 meters, and because you run fast, you start behind, while those who run slowly start ahead. In the end, we all arrive at the finish line at the same time. That's too fair. Can you accept such fairness? Reaching the finish line at the same time, common prosperity!