Thinking very much about ways the world is unfair can be depressing, because no single person is ever likely to correct any global unfairness.

For example, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and we know this, it isn't an illusion, and social scientists even have a good handle on how it works. (Hint: greed is a red herring. While greed is undeniably one factor, the vicious circle is mostly a network phenomenon called "the Matthew effect" or "preferential attachment." We've been accusing rich people of greed for millennia, and the reason it hasn't worked is that greed is not the biggest factor in the effect.) Yet despite how much may be known, and the possibility of a solution from accurate and precise understanding, thinking about it is still pretty depressing, isn't it? People are suffering and dying right now.

It's similar with so many kinds of unfairness.

And it's hardly made better by the refrain "Life isn't fair! Didn't you learn that in grade school?" Fairness is not some pie in the sky. It matters. Whatever is unfair should be considered as a topic of interest, not brushed aside as if only fools concern themselves with fairness.

I do happen to think it's possible to fix most unfair conditions - especially when we work together. Whatever really can't be changed can be worked around.

-

Another big hint, which I'll spend the rest of this post on...

Fairness may be related to entropy, which at most scales tends to increase over time. (To recap what we learn in chemistry class too fast, and I'm sorry but hopefully this is enough of a refresher for the purpose: The sun is a huge "organized" not-so-entropic pile of stuff that fell together - in some ways that falling together under gravity is apparently a decrease of entropy, where "entropy" could mean approximately "disorganized" or better yet "freely scattered" or "independent." But because of all that stuff falling inward in a way that looks "organized," the sun will burn and eventually burn out, having shed energy in all directions for billions of years. Throwing light everywhere evenly - and at the highest possible speed, right? lightspeed - is "disorganized" or "freely scattered" or "independent" compared to having everything in a heap or ball. So anyway, with the sun, matter fell together - less spatial entropy, less freedom to be in many places - but in doing so managed to radiate/splatter pure energy in all directions - producing much more entropy, specifically a net increase of entropy, kind of like profits for the work and after the costs of doing business. So entropy is served. And the idea I'm working from here is that light gradually, efficiently flowing all over space is not only more entropic but also "fairer" than fuel stuck in one place.) If that link holds, there may be some reason to believe that the universe - specifically the 2nd law of thermodynamics that says entropy tends to increase - "wants" systems to develop greater fairness wherever possible, and reason to believe that our experiences and activity make up part of that gradual movement. An inner wish for fairness may be part of the universe's tendency toward entropy. But fairness can get complicated, so the kind we're talking about doesn't happen by itself; it takes conscious, intelligent application. We are part of the universe, and some things that happen in the universe happen - or don't - because of us.

Yes matter falling together drives the sun and the entropic scattering of light. But if there isn't enough matter falling together, that doesn't happen.

Yes humans can think about how we interact and create fairer systems, but if we don't put in the effort, that won't happen.

Like the sun, we have an informational-energetic purpose.

Part of our purpose, I would argue, is creating the kind of fairness we sense the absence of - which sensing and fixing takes the kind of mental ability humans have.

A key to fairness is that it's actually a game concept. Something is only fair with reference to certain categories, rules, and expectations. Without those categories, rules, and expectations, "fair" doesn't really compute. (By this way of thinking, law is a game - which may seem objectionable until you realize that every jurisdiction and every state has its own set of rules, and these are - or should be - balanced and adjusted for fairness like the ruleset of a game made for entertainment or art. The level of seriousness and life-and-death is very different, but we're talking about the same larger category of thing: a ruleset for human/sentient interaction.)

Many people think fairness doesn't exist, is imaginary, is an ideal. I'd say that actually it is a ludic concept - a concept rooted in games, participants, virtuality, categories, and information itself.

In other words, it's real when you get to information theory and considerations of entropy.

From a game design standpoint, a desirably well-balanced game is fair - or at least fairer - and more fun - and will consequently encourage the most participation. (Nobody except exploiters - and maybe sometimes game designers and playtesters, for the R&D - likes to play an unfair or broken game. Players tend to quit when they realize a game is unfair or broken. Citizens facing an unfair society can behave similarly for similar reasons, as we know.) And curiously enough, a game with full participation from more participants also happens to be more entropic - the players are freer individually to choose their roles and approaches, and also freer to trade places. Those extra degrees of freedom bring measurable entropy. And this is much like how a scuba tank with O2 molecules evenly mixed and distributed throughout via their "exploration" of the space is more entropic (and "fairer") than a scuba tank with O2 molecules clumped up somewhere, barely moving because they're frozen or trapped. Nature "wants" participation. The drive toward entropy is also a drive toward fairness and inclusion.

The desire for freedom itself is, if you ask me, part of nature's drive toward entropy, fairness, and inclusion, and this is the basis for human rights.

Games that are fair and participatory please us. I'd say this is because they help entropy along, and on some level we have evolved to sense this. A fair group is a sustainable group is a group that'll go through energy in the way that produces the most entropy efficiently over the longest time. (Eating enough - but not too much - also helps entropy along. It's the same with other healthy instincts when they're working - in each case, it's easy to see how they help entropy along.)

So. Want to solve big social problems? Get more people to work on that. Want more people working on that? For one thing, get more people voting. Want more people to vote? Make voting and government fairer. It seems to be "what nature wants." But we are part of nature, and sometimes it's on us.