The essence of competition should not be a struggle for rank or a binary of good and bad; rather, it should be viewed as a process of unearthing the specific areas where each individual excels. We must reflect: has the mechanism of ranking truly enabled human progress? In reality, when people strive out of blind pursuit, those in the latter half of the rankings often choose to give up or stagnate once they realize they cannot surpass others in a specific field. In such an environment, talent is rigidly categorized into hierarchical classes, becoming synonymous with "valuable" or "worthless." Talent is no longer a manifestation of human fairness but has instead become a benchmark for the lopsided distribution of resources. The distribution of talent in this world is, in fact, balanced. If we assume a total of one hundred points, every person is allocated an average amount; it is merely a question of whether that talent has been manifested or if it is useful to the current era. These gifts, including luck, are fundamentally not the result of individual effort. This is precisely why our society levies higher taxes on the wealthy. It is not based on the simplistic notion that "with great power comes great responsibility," but is rather a systemic correction for the inequality of luck and innate talent.
Of course, we cannot say that a person’s everything relies solely on luck and talent; individual effort is certainly a necessary component. However, the deeper reason lies in the fact that if one person’s ability manifests as making money while another’s talent does not, an inequality in extraction standards will inevitably lead to resentment and friction. If the government enters into a "covenant" with you, it does not negate your efforts, but rather spreads the fruits of your luck and talent to a broader population, ensuring that what is extracted is "talent" itself—making it equal for everyone. When your creativity and patents are under a government covenant, the imbalance of "my profits being taken while yours remain a mere blueprint" is eliminated, preventing the predicament where talent cannot provide a livelihood. Some may ask why the government should forcibly contract your ideas. The truth is, if your strength is insufficient to protect your innovation, others will inevitably seize it by force; thus, a government covenant acts as a safeguard. Furthermore, individuals often find it difficult to be certain of the value of their patents or how to effectively map them to market value, especially when a patent is not advantageous in the current environment. Under the assumption that anyone can monopolize trade, individual patents lack bargaining power. With a government covenant, even if a patent cannot be converted into immediate profit, you still receive financial support. This not only protects the value of talent but also prevents the possibility of "weak talents" being stifled in the present. As long as there is substantive innovation, a government covenant provides you with income, allowing things that previously had no bargaining power to receive their due reward.
This logic of serving the majority and ensuring systemic fairness applies equally to the transformation of social classes. The wealthy class, characterized by their grip on power, can be set aside for the moment; the real focus should be on the middle class. You likely have stable jobs and salaries that satisfy basic needs, but can you afford restaurant-grade meals every day? Can you enjoy high-end medical services? Can you travel frequently or afford a home and a car without anxiety? Most importantly, do you truly love the work you do? Why can our work not be our passion? The tasks we perform today will eventually be replaced by machines; we may find temporary comfort in the fact that it hasn't reached us yet, but what will happen when the wave finally arrives? Rather than spending decades in pursuits you do not enjoy, it is better to embark on a grand, vigorous reform. Whether it takes five years or twenty, those who participate in this reform will live far better than they do now. You will not only be your own liberator but will also become a hero in the eyes of others. You have always possessed the power and ability to change. Action does not guarantee an instant transformation, but without action, nothing will ever change.
The oppressive nature of reality is also reflected in the modern phenomenon of excessive smartphone addiction. Why are people attracted to their phones? This inversely proves that reality has become too dull and exhausting. People do not consume their excess energy during work; instead, they accumulate repression, leading to the problem of "revenge-style" smartphone usage. When life lacks structure, a person’s state is often worse than when they have tasks to perform. Therefore, we require people to apply for government-sponsored roles for their survival—work that involves thinking and is directly related to their interests. This not only gives people a reason to act but also allows them to consume their energy in fields they love. Objects of interest are far more attractive than a screen; we do not truly love our phones, we simply have no other choice. When life becomes far more interesting than a smartphone, we will naturally ignore the device. Phone addiction is a symptom of a failing social system; when life is tedious and bleak, we instinctively escape into a virtual world. What we lack is a reason to move and an opportunity to commit ourselves to something meaningful.
Regarding global harmony, some have suggested the extreme measure of unifying the world by forcibly retaining only a few languages, but I believe this would only trigger resistance and riots. On what basis should my language be erased while yours is granted an advantage? If it is difficult to ask modern people to be frugal just for the sake of future generations, the conflict of interest caused by cultural erasure would make any system unsustainable. Rather than forced elimination, we should focus on developing real-time translation to make communication fast and convenient, drastically lowering the cost of learning. Less common languages will naturally gravitate toward the majority in the long river of time. This change is both inevitable and gentle; there is no need for alarm. The current dissatisfaction with closed systems and the awakening awareness regarding low wages all prove what I have previously stated: for many seemingly unsolvable problems, the error often does not lie within the problem itself, but in our lack of a system that can truly release talent and guarantee fairness.
