<img  class="ui huge center floated image transition visible" data-src="heirloom-tomatoes.jpg" src="heirloom-tomatoes.jpg" />


> *"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."* 
>
> *\- Mark Twain*

We have grown accustomed to stating, without much thinking, that we believe in human equality. In America, if not in most democratic nations, the idea of human equality is deeply entrenched, to the point that the phrase evokes ideas about justice and fairness, more than the comparison that is being made in the mathematical sense.

The problem with the phrase, at the root, is the failure to appreciate the mathematical sense of the expression. It is meaningless if you do not clarify what you are comparing when you say two things are equal.

"All men are equal." This phrase makes me cringe, because it lacks even the most basic information required to make the statement meaningful. When we say two things are equal, we must say how they are equal and what we are actually comparing. If objects are simple, sometimes we can get away with saying, "These apples are equal" at the grocery store, for example. But for complex things, we simply cannot do this, if there is no context making it really obvious what we are comparing. This is the cause of frequent miscommunications related to considering whether things are the same or different, because we have not identitified what we are comparing in particular. If we agree on the specifics of what we are comparing, then it is as easy as taking measurements to resolve a dispute. When comparing people, the most complex entities we are aware of, it hardly makes sense to just state "they're equal" without talking about how. We know this in our day to day lives, but we forget it when we are talking politics, religion, or morality. Look at any two people, taken at random, and simply stating "they are equal," because we are committed to an ideology, is really stupid. That commitment makes people completely blind to what is in front of their face: two highly complex objects, so complex that there are probably millions of differences between any two individuals, and instead of noticing those differences, and appreciating the uniqueness of the two people, we just state "they are equal." We don't say how, or why, or what measurements establish it. We look at these two people with complete prejudice and learn nothing from our observation. 

Instead of finding areas where justice could be established, we instead see what has been established, and proclaim our work is complete. This is what the bigot does, who wishes to preserve the status quo. You are already equal" -- they state this without saying how or why. So this failure to appreciate the mathematical sense, does not mean that you are more likely to support equality, you are just as likely to capitalize on this ambiguity, to remain a bigot and to perpetuate injustice.

Contrast this with the more meticulous and inquisitive type of mind that looks at the two objects for patterns. Unless two things are truly the same in all ways, there will be matches and mismatches. When someone is observing metulously, they rarely fail to find differences, and confuse things for being identical copies of each other. The mistake that people clearly do make, is to fail to make meticulous comparisons in all situations. This is why we find the scientist, who is exception in a laboratory setting, will speak about human equality without any awareness they haven't actually observed anything.

<img  class="ui huge center floated image transition visible" data-src="balance-metal-spheres.jpg" src="balance-metal-spheres.jpg">

A meticulous observer would not fool themselves into thinking that the two things are perfectly the same. fools themselves into thinking that there is an exact match. That is what is required for global equality. If we say that two things are equal, without specifying how, we are implying that in every way they are identical. This is why we call identical twins identical, and of all types of people, we should want to say that they are equal, but then we remember people are unique and special, and so in the case of identical twins, we refrain from callign them the same, and failing to call out their differences. That would not be respecting their individuality, and in fact, it would be rude. The twins themselves are aware of their similarities, but could still point out many differences, and these differences are extremely numerous, except perhaps for cell division, but even upon cell division, they have different spatial relations to the world, and these relations cause necessary variations, from the start. Two cells are never guaranteed the same nourishment for growth.

If we were able to make computers powerful enough to compare more than just faces, dna, and thumbprints, on the fly, would we find that by comparing whole people, they are equal, when we couldn't find equality in any of the small things. Humans, composed of many complex elements, have many completely unique patterns, and fingerprints and faces, are only two examples, of hundreds of others that could have been chosed, in lieu of having no approach, to scan entire beings to note differences. And within these differences, are those traits, that we use to determine the value of the person.

While we accept implicitly the value of justice and fairness for all people, we are really ambivalent about whether or not the equality we have in mind is actually real, as applied to different people, different groups of people, or within the same person at two different times. We see differences everywhere. But we resist admitting to ourselves that inequality is everywhere, because we wonder what it means for our other cherished believes. The sad part is that our cherished beliefs do not need to be abandoned, and that they are the result of increasing powers of observation. Instead of losing our justice and fairness, we just become more detailed about it. We allow ourselves to be more sophisticated, by casting aside mental blocks, such as the presumption of global and complete equality.

If all people are literally equal in value and worth, then no person can actually improve in the course of their own life. The feelings of improvement and personal growth, then, have no connection with personal worth. But clearly, everyone believes that they can improve themselves. If Matt at 30 is better in many ways than Matt at 15, then certainly, we can admit that *other people* are better or worse than Matt at any given age.

Some few might point out that there is an essense of being human but that is easily proven wrong, by looking at the nature of speciation, the definiteion of a species, and the fact that humans are not entity. We can mate with each other, it is true, but if our major world ethnic groups and cultures were isolated for a million years, before we were able to interact, we would have become completely separate species. Racial differences would have grown to be so much more prominent, that we would not have called the differences races, but actual breeds, like different kinds of dogs, that are so different phsycially, that while they *might* be able to mate, they can't in practice and woudln't want to, so they actually are sure to diverge. Even if there were some essense to be found, it would be subject to the same argument above, that the essense would persist over the life span, and then there is no reason to value ourselves more or less over the lifespan, and we simply would not be willing to grant that in practice.

In the next part, I will cover the ways that the word "equal" is actually used correctly, so that we can identify when it is used incorrectly. I will also discuss more about why we should take inequality to be the norm in almost all situations, since apparent equality is almost always the result of approximations, and not true equality. 

For now, the main point I want to draw out is the prejudice created in this unfortunate commitment to equality that causes us to fail to make observations. The reason why we wish to have justice in the world is because of our compassion concerning the similarity of feelings among all people, the randomness of fortune both in our endowment and our experiences, and our observations about the all pervasiveness of inequality. We see that in our lives some few ingredients are sufficient to make life tolerable, and enjoyable, and so beginning with these things, we try to distribute and make it available to everyone, not only so we can witness the blessings well distributed, and see unfortunate situations slowly disappear from our eyes, making the world a more beautiful place, but we also know that we are more likely to be cared for, and those we bring into the world, and our close friends, who we might care for more than ourselves.


<img  class="ui huge center floated image transition visible" data-src="equality-typewriter.jpg" src="equality-typewriter.jpg">

=========

There are many topics that are difficult to discuss because of this phenomena. People chronically use the word equal meaninglessly without being entirely aware of it. The misuse seems to be specifically within this context, fortunately. This makes it possible to point to other contexts, where it is used correctly, to reveal that we are doing it wrong when we are talking about people and justice. 

For example, I was inclined to begin this article with the provocative statement:

"I don't believe in human equality, and I never did."

However, this statement is actually meaningless, so while it catches attention because it seems to go against our core beliefs, the statement commits some mistakes I intend to fix in the remainder of this article.





That doesn't mean I want to discard all our hard earned rights; no—I wish to extend them, to carry them futher. But everything we ever wanted concerns justice, not equality. "Equality" is an empty slogan. It was marketing that pushed us on the path to a more fair world. We got some of what we wanted, while others didn't. We might say we attained equality, in the conditions of global enslavement.

Then there is this strange phenomona that many overlook. Once equalities are gained, we come to see that equality itself is unjust. We can't just pretend everyone has the same needs, and that everyone deserves the same resources. 

Complete inequality is real and we have to tackle it head on. Justice is what we want, and it can be gotten by focusing on the details of reality, which exhibits many inequalities. Inequality isn't going anywhere, it is here to stay. It is a permanent feature of the world. Justice itself doesn't demand perfect equality, that is delusional. It demands new forms of planned inequalities. It requires some evolving policy of fairness, that changes as the world changes.

I had fears and reservations writing about this, but now I'm convinced others will agree, even if they will have moments of wanting to believe equality is real. I can tell you, it is liberating to give it up. Humans are completely and utterly unequal, and we all feel it deeply, and we are sensitive to it. Our important differences may be the most taboo topic of all. It touches everything, and it is existential. We did not choose this life—who we are, where we are, or what we are. We instinctively want more than we have, and more than what others have.

We need to admit that this is what the afterlife is supposed to correct. There is no equality, no immortality. We don't get to have everything, and we don't have much time.  

For historical reasons, we are obligated to go against our common sense occasionally and pretend everyone is the same. Since we only do this sometimes we are conflicted. We insist on equality but sometimes we are not allowed to state that we are equal, like on the job, or in the household. "This is not a democracy" is what our *masters* tell us. "In this place you must remember that we are not actually equal." 

We don't even believe in equality within ourselves, from one day or year to the next. We strive to improve ourselves, meaning we tell ourselves and others we can become *better*. We strive and we teach, to be something more. We want to surpass our old selves, and becomes something superior. We would become superior beings if we could, x-men or other superheroes. We strive towards an undefined mark, religiously, intellectually, and morally. If we succeed we wish to forget about our earlier selves, and cover up are earlier mistakes and weaknesses. We don't do all this to become better for ourselves, but to become perceived as better by others. Our goals are socially defined. In America we want money, power, respect, looks and moral superiority. We want to be better and then we express our moral *superiority* by pretending to be equal. That's quite a contradiction.

No two people can every be considered truly equal. You can try as hard as you like but you will never find something that makes one person equal with another. To even look for one quality that makes everyone equal is foolish. There is no essense to find—we are all genetically unique, and the only thing that makes us members of the same species is our ability to sexually reproduce, and that is not what we would be looking for. Besides this, people are built up from many traits, and we judge people according to some vague total. We just judge family and strangers based on what we experienced to date. Everyone is completely unique down to their fingerprints, but they are even more unique when we combine all of their millions of characteristics together. There are so many traits to look at, that we find that identical twins aren't even equal to each other, despite being clones of the same DNA.

Yet some say all of humanity is equal? Not just two people, but everyone? I don't think I'm expressing an opinion when I say this is false. It is actually nonsense, as we will see. This is is demonstrable—I will demonstrate it momentarily. 

How do I know? How can I be so sure? I know because I understand what "equal" means, and how to use the word properly. Is it really that simple? Yes, it turns out it really is *that* simple. 

As obvious as I believe it is, I do think it is something worth carefully showing. We are terrible about comparing people. One moment we think we're all the same and the next moment we are struggling to be honest about our differences. We end up lying to ourselves most of the time. It's a touchy topic, but we can't solve it by becoming dumb to details, masking our weaknesses and discounting our strengths. The world is unjust. We do ourselves a real favor in thinking "the world is not fair," because it isn't. 

The details are all important, especially in politics, where policies will be set, impacting millions of people. People use "equality" to mask injustices. That's one why it's *always* an uphill battle to gain even basic rights. If we believe in human equality, how can we counter oppresive claims that changes aren't necessary, because "We're already equal"? A few years after being emancipated from slavery, you're told "You've been emancipated. Now we're equal." Or.. "Yes you're gay, but you can change your mind and marry someone from the opposite sex, as freely as anyone else." Let's get smart and meticulous about the issues, and we will make better decisions. These decisions will result in more justice, but it will never make us equal.

I was afraid to write this article because I imagined receiving many angry responses. But many people are sensible of the all-pervasiveness of inequality, so I don't think I'm saying anything that would shock everyone. Some people need to be shocked anyhow. Stop sleeping! No one is equal! It feels good to give up on denial. I am happy in my knowledge that I'm unequal to others.

Believers in equality cannot remain consistent long. People insist on human equality one moment, and then insist on their own superiority the next. They strive for greatness, and believe they can progress, implying their later selves are somehow improvements on their former selves. Equality just doesn't work, even for the same person over time!

Real world example. I once told a colleague that I didn't think we were equal. He reacted with exaggerated shock and disbelief: 

That our idea of equality is unreal is easy to demonstrate. I intend to do just that—I will show that there is no real human equality, and that there can be none. To be clear, this is not a mere opinion. Inequality is the norm. We might be disappointed to find that that inequality is more common than equality—but we also know this already, if we only admit it to ourselves. There is no difficult proof to follow. Thomas Jefferson himself would agree with me, if he were alive today to consider my argument. Think about it, this is his version of the phrase: 

"All people are *created* equal." 

Notice the difference? By birth only he thinks we are all equivalent. Clearly he is not confident that we are equal, for the rest of our lives—you know, the big part that actually matters to us. 

Yet the idea is not entirely ridiculous. At least there is truth that we have no *control* about our origins. This is where luck truly comes into play. We did not determine our starting point; our endowment. Some are gifted some are not. Some are beautiful some are not. We know this! How else, can we account for the profound jealousy that some feel, and the sadness and disappointment, about the real imbalances in the world? How absurd is it, to deny to these same people, that injustice and inequality is real? How can we force people, to suppress their knowledge of differences, and expect them to overlook their own strengths, when the time comes to select people for different occupations and specialties? Justice depends on paying very close attention to inequalities.

Why was Thomas Jefferson's statement so popular? Well, it was in a document that people would have to look at for a very long time. I'm ready to forget about the phrase, but it will live on regardless. I also admit it was *vital* for many dunheard of improvements that followed. There are too many to mention, but few would deny the importance of the emancipation of slaves, of woman's voting rights, of the bill of rights, or more recently, the results of the LGBT movement. We are still fighting for justice, and interestingly, the opposition uses equality *against* people who face real discrimination. They want to overlook key differences. "Everything is already equal" people are flatly told.

This is the reason I abandon equality on an intellectual level. I can believe in the need for *some forms of* justice, but I cannot stand for nonsense. 

Here I collect all the movements that market "human equality" into a single movement I call the "equality movement." This is for convencience. 

Whatever the benefit, the equality movement is connected with propaganda and cultural bias. Propaganda is necessary to keep people motivated to support revolutionary change. The idea of equality as a reality in everyday life is historically recent, and incredibly rare. It would be considered stupid to many in our past: and for good reason! Yet we should be proud that it has gotten us as far as it has, and we should not forget the ultimate sacrifices that were paid, to expand justice as far as it was expanded. The equality movement is about recognizing the many similarities among people, and about recognizing people's personal interests, regardless of tiny differences (like skin color, or gender!). Unfortunately, taken too far, the psychology swings the other way, and where there are differnces, we only see similarities.

Even our purest, most humane political movements run on dumb marketing. Movements require armies; zealous adherents are needed, and they can't all be intellectuals. They can't all be rich and unaffected. Some should have something to gain, or something important at stake. The idea of basic human rights is not complex or unreasonable. One does not need to feel duped at the discovery that the movement was partly irrational or fueled by nonsensical marketing. One just needs to see that the irrational have to be reqruited along with the rational, else they will go to the other side and counter your efforts.

A slogan centered around a concept that is not quite true on an intellectual level, can be acceptable, as long as an important core point is delivered consistently. Slogans teach as much as they motivate. They point out the way, even if imperfectly. A philosopher is concerned about careful truthful speech, but in the real world actions are produced by impure persuasion and rhetoric. Politics has different requirements and involves a different lifestyle than science or philosophy.

If it means we cannot continue to find ways to improve the condition of humanity across the globe without waving the banner of "human equality," then I'll gladly join in with everyone else; but an honest intellectual looks to find the *correct* and not merely the expedient way. So I will separate my more thoughtful investigations from my practical political behavior. In this article I can confess I'm not a believer, while I might find myself acting seemingly hypocritically, to create a more just world.

This is where I hope we can improve. I hope to progress to a more sophisticated account of human justice, so that I don't have to pretend I believe in equality. I hope to strive for the right form of *inequality*, that is closer to an advanced idea about social justice, which accounts for the permanence of individual differences.


## "Human Equality" is not a thing, and never was.

What is your normal reaction to statements about everyone being equal? It's phrasing assumes it is already a thing, but what do *you* think? What are your thoughts when you are alone, thinking about the unfairness of life, not just in material possessions, but in how people are endowed naturally?

How do politicians use the term? Do they use it solemnly, assuming its truth? Do they ever question it? I hear the opposite, whenever politicians discuss conflicts with people of other nations. 1 American, one politian insisted, was equal to 1,000,000 inhabitants of another nation. That doesn't seem to line up with the idea that all humans are equal.  

Pause for a moment and reflect once more on the phrase... :

"All people are equal"

1. Does this statement make sense to you? Is it meaningful?
2. Do you think it is true?

I'm serious about taking a pause. If you live in a democratic nation, that has made equality a part of its nationalistic messaging and propaganda, you've been indoctrinated into having automatic attitudes and opinions about this slogan. Think critically about it, if you can. Recall the quote at the beginning of this article. When you are on the side of the majority, very often it is time to wonder. Do you use the phrase thoughtlessly, and automatically, like everyone else around you?

Do all citizens of democratic nations believe the statement above? Not consistently. They believe it occasionally, and mistakenly report they believe it perpetually.

## The special meaning of "equal"

I'm no authoritarian about communication; I would not want to limit free expression. However, some terms deserve special attention, and *some* protection, if they are prone to cause serious political confusion.

Let's do some goofy math:

>> Veggie Burritos + Blackened Chili Sauce + Guacamole = Delicious

Of course, ^^that's not a real mathematical equation. Mathematical statements are not supposed to be opinions, but facts. We test the above equation by our tastes. I like this type of burrito, but others might not. If it were mathematical, it would not be a matter of opinion. I really hope the reader can see that real equations are tested with facts and logic, or else we're in serious trouble.

I think the reader remembers elementary school well enough to know that we're not doing math there. The equals symbol is there, but it's not really using the mathematical sense of equality. It's more like saying:

"If I put it in my mouth, it will taste good." 

Not real sophisticated. The joke equations above are *creative*, and we get that. We don't actually think that there is any sort of mathematical seriousness involved. 

In comedy and literature, we can expect to see "equal" in many contexts for a variety of playful and figurative effects. It is completely innocent if everyone understands what is happening. I'm not against using it in the way I did above, about burritos or whatever else creates some humour or effect. So far we aren't doing anything harmful. What would be harmful? Well, global confusion about well-being is often very bad. Here are ways we cause this type of confusion:

1. We use it in a way that causes us to believe we are employing it in the mathematical sense, when we are not. -OR-
1. We are attempting to use the mathematical sense, but incorrectly. This means we are either talking nonsense, or are saying things are equal that aren't.

Let's take another look at this, to be totally clear.

To know if you are abusing "equals" is really easy. You only have to ask yourself the following:

1. Are you trying to use it in the mathematical sense, with any seriousness? 
    * If yes, are you using according to mathematical rules?
    * If no, is that clear to everyone?

Simple right? Well it turns out no one does this when they speak of human equality. Intellectuals routinely fail to get it right. To understand why that is true, we have to see how to *correctly* use "equals" when we rely on the mathematical sense.

On a positive note, we've made the issue really simple. We only need to know how to use the word mathematically and we are done. Once I show how we use it correctly, we will be able to decide when:

1. Two things really are equal, and when
2. Two or more things aren't equal, and when
3. We can't be sure.

I argue that we can only conclude 2 or 3 whenever we are comparing two or more people.

<img  class="ui huge center floated image transition visible" data-src="balance-metal-spheres.jpg" src="balance-metal-spheres.jpg">

## Where can we find real equality?

Here are places we might actually find equality:

1. When we compare basic measurements of everyday things (i.e. weight of objects in pounds or kilograms).
2. When dealing with money. Five dollars in my pocket is basically equal to your Five dollars. We can exchange them when we are focused on their purchasing power in a market, and not, say, crispness of the bills. 
3. When dealing with other objects that are nearly identical, or are close/interchangeable substitutes for one another.
4. In math with numbers, and in the sciences with measures.
5. In chemistry and biology (drugs, chemicals, molecules and atoms).
6. In computer science, engineering, and electronics, where designs and creations are close matches, or have the same mathematical form.

We can see a kind of pattern emerging with this. Equalities are found when we are looking at elemental things, or specific measurements for attributes of complex things, built up from simpler things. Equalities are also found, when we can substitute things as if they were identical.

Equalities can be found in nature if we look hard for them. We won't question the existence of equality here. But what we will say, is that equality is really hard to find. It took a very long time, to establish the existence of elements and molecules. It also took a very long time, to manufacture things to a degree of precision, that one piece could be exchanged for another. If you were challenged to show that two things were equal, without being able to rely on technology, you might *never* find two things that are equal. You depend on the authority of experts and a long history of scientific development to know that there are any two things in nature that are equal to each other, aside from what you learned about math in elementary school.  

That's just for simple things. Finding equality between complex things is really unlikely. It takes hard work to demonstrate *any* equality between complex things, and you have to be really clear what you are comparing. You aren't ever talking about things as a whole, but some aspect of things. Any scientist would tell you that. Even in these areas where we *think* we found equality (again, non-trivial complex things in the real world), it is hard to be certain, and if it involves measurement, it always involves an approximation. This is because we can always use a finer measure than the one we are using, that would eventually reveal inequality.

Equality is hard to find and to confirm. Take the image as an example, and suppose we have two metal spheres that were claimed to be equal to one another. The first thing we have to do is interpret:

"Sphere one and Sphere two are equal to one another."

What is meant by this? Do we mean that they have the same color, weight, rolling properties, magnetic properties, etc..? There is a very massive list of properties to consider. Even in this seemingly trivial case, there is far more involved than we originally notice. We couldn't even create a complete list of properties without worrying that there are properties we may have missed. Do they have the same chemical composition and ratio? What about their spatial relations to other objects. This would be important depending on how these spheres might be used in a machine or scientific device. In the statement we never said what we are talking about in particular. Are they both poisonous to people if licked? What equality precisely? How are we trying to use these spheres? Are we just comparing their size or weight? As a rule, we need to say what properties and values we are comparing, or else we are implicitly claiming they are equal in all ways! And we need to be specific, otherwise *we have no idea what we need to do to confirm the claim*. Worse still, we aren't sure what we are talking about. Sometimes the context can supply this information, but in practice I find usually it does not.

Let's simplify and say we are only talking about weight. In this case can we hope to find an equality? Even with this, we make many many assumptions.

The above image should give an idea of when equality makes sense in application. It makes sense for things carefully and narrowly conceived. 

It is found when looking at single parts and aspects of things, or at very basic, fundamental, simple things. It is not found when comparing complex objects as wholes.

Dictionary entries for "equality" indicate that the social usage exceeds the mathematical, while the meaning of the former depends completely on the meaning of the latter. Two things are not equal unless they *are actually equal*, meaning they have the same values. The values are determined by careful measurements and application of proven mathematical rules for transformation. It may seem that this is not a requirement of equality in a social setting, but it is. Whenever you invoke the word "equal" some basic requirements must be met, and they stem directly from the precise mathematical usage.

"All men are created equal" is literal nonsense, and false. It is among the most imprecise statements ever made, and that is not an opinion. It is demonstrably vague, and even if corrected, it is false. Much explanation is required to make sense of it. I will explain precisely why it is false. It is no axiom, it is not "self-evident". Ever think:  "Why don't I find it self-evident?" It is self-evidently false, and *actual scientific and mathematical axioms assume it is false.* It is the *antithesis* of a self-evident axiom!

Americans will quickly defend the statement without providing any clarity about its meaning. There is truth that the American political form and way of life indicates the realization of some forms of equalization, but it is challenging to specify what those equalities are clearly. Zealous defenders of "equality", I find, are unable to provide any clarity to their use of the term.

While literally mistaken, the purpose and intentions behind behind it are immensely important. As an American I'm obligated to say that, but it is also true. Even if American's in practice think only Americans are equal. Biblically all men were equal before the creator (meaning globally everyone is equal*), and among Christians it makes perfect sense to "hold it to be self evident," because it is straight from scripture thousands of years old. In religion the idea was not new, but its social-political implementation was missing—and today it continues to be a work in progress. Indeed, additional progress depends partly on the need for reformulation.

I like to imagine that Thomas Jefferson scribbled it with little forethought, and spent only a few minutes editing. An intellectual-salesman-politician, mostly salesman-politician in that moment. Whatever the case, people use the word "equality" now as if they have forgotten the meaning completely. Nationalism and intellectualism don't mix.

Even with gravity, which is extremely uniform over the Earth's surface, we find variation from place to place, time to time. We can say they are basically equal when the level of precision is not too great.

It is frightening to me that people use this word to compare complex objects, like people, without ever providing any of the following:

Where does it make sense to start talking about equality. Well, first when actual comparisons of values take place. In mathematics, of course, in the abstract, all is pure and can deal in equalities. In nature, the closest we can get to equality is in elemental things that are roughly substitutable. Things that are mostly identical, as far as we can tell. We can speak of equal energy, or equal atoms, in so far as they are substitutes of one another, have the same properties, and the measurements are precisely the same. We can also focus on specific aspects of more complex things, and say they are equal for certain values and dimensions. For example, we can compare weights of objects and say that they have equal weight (a very different thing from saying they are entirely equal). More complex things that are very close substitutes can also be treated as equal, like certain molecules and cells in biology, although for even seemingly simple substitutes we can find differences if we look closely enough. This is to be expected, since it is the variation in these things that made more complex life possible through competition and evolution. But to a certain degree of exactness, these things are treated as equal. 

Equality is also closer to reality in controlled rule-based systems. People can basically have the same amount of money (not precisely true, even with bank accounts containing the same values).

Equalities do exist everywhere, but definitely not in complex biological objects, or in anything we deal with on the macro scale in everyday life. 

1. What precisely is being compared. One aspect of each thing, or all aspects? If asked, you'll find the speaker doesn't even know the difference! I've been guilty of this! It is an easy, but incredibly absurd mistake to make.
2. The data. So the two things are equal? Can you show me the values, so I can confirm?

Usually people say two objects are equal without saying anything else about it. What does this imply? This means that for any aspect compared, if measurements were taken, at high precision, they would be found to be the same. But no measurements have been taken on any domain. No values are shared, *at all*. When comparing people, not only is such data impossible to collect, it is impossible to organize and compare, and so claims about human equality (or any other object) are done for reasons *other than comparisons of values*. Saying that two things are equal without any explanation amounts to nonsense! Yet this is the normal usage! In a social setting, it is nearly *the only usage.* Mostly it is due to imitation and cultural convention. They reflect the needs and desires of the speaker, and the demands of listeners than actual equality.  

I have many levels of unease when I think about this word:

1. When we turn away from pure mathematics to physics, and real world comparisons, we can see that equality is rare, and even where we think we found it, it turns out to 
approximate. I don't believe I ever witnessed perfect equality in anything, not even factory made items. Quality control reveals to us, that at any level of precision there will still be differences, if only you look closely enough. A process with a precision approaching perfection still produces defective products, even if it is extremely rare.

2. Applying the same name to two things does not imply equality. No two apples are the same, even if we call them both apples. The same is true with humans, as an anthropologist or geneticist could easily explain. Membership to the same species is a matter of ability to reproduce. There is always tremendous variety. Even as species diverge, we might apply the same category. But that's only because we haven't gotten specific enough to apply further subcategories! There is no refuge from variations by applying the same high level categories. We can always find difference justified additional distinctions. Sameness here is merely an illusion produced by our uncritical use of language. We mistake the words for the things (the words are the same, that is true!).

Through the slogan of equality much social improvement was achieved, and similar efforts should continue since the work is not complete; but today, the commitment to equality has created a mental bondage. It was a slogan. It was marketing. We bought into the advertisements, for a very good product, but now we have become stupid and complacent. There is a saying that we should pause and reflect, whenever we fall into the majority. 

For any two objects that are supposedly equal, I am confident I can find inequalities. Even spatial position justifies inequality. I think any child, before corrupted by belief in equality, could easily find important differences between any two objects if challenged to find them.

"Equality" brought people together, but no two people have ever been equal to each other, in almost any way. This is why we are confused. We alternate between knowing perfectly well that people vary greatly, and the social fantasy that is sacrosanct. We must move beyond "Tabula Rasa" psychology, which is lazy about comparing actual information. Let's get smart and actually talk about details. Let's make comparisons. Do people claiming equality actually even make comparisons?.

Often times the use of "equality" is sinister. It is to claim that no differences exist that are worthy of considering, and no further action is required. This is common among Caucasians who do not wish any further social justice for minorities, or those who are demonstrably unequal or treated unequally in many different ways. 

The sinister tactic should reveal further the difficulties mentioned above:

1. No comparisons were made.
2. Differences are concealed and ignored.
3. No data is provided.
4. Data comparisons would confirm that there is no equality anywhere.
5. It shows the desires of the speaker more than the reality of the equality.
6. Goal to mute the opposition, and use of actual information.

"We are equal, so no further action is needed." Even if further action is *desparately needed*.

<img  class="ui huge center floated image transition visible" data-src="equality-typewriter.jpg" src="equality-typewriter.jpg">

Imagine a parent of 8 children, who pretended at all times that the children were perfectly equal, and that no further action was needed. A parent's job is to to have a detailed understanding of each child, and try to find a fair way and equitable way to distribute love, attention and resources. Even favoritism is justified in a family, if a child has extreme talent, or a child has great deficits. A parent must understand the unequal endowments of each child. What is clear is that it can never be completely equal, and that the goal is to provide adequate care and concern for preferences and strengths/weaknesses. 

Now people are far too sensitive about natural differences, about individual strengths and weaknesses. Our culture tries to force everything into the average category. Everyone can be an astronaut. The handicapped can achieve exactly the same as the non-handicapped. Everyone deserves equal respect. Every nation, culture, and language, has the same value. One can say and believe these things in complete ignorance of facts, and pretend to be educated, and ironically superior.

Fairness is called for. Consideration of all human needs and interests is a lofty and valuable goal. But this is achieved by appreciating vast differences between people, and actually trying to understand and measure differences (and not merely pretending we are all the same) is required to make it a reality. A policy cannot be successful without appreciating actual data and variation.

The success of political movements depend on the ardor of advocates. The passion required to make social change successful seems to depend on people *believing that the false* aspects of its usage are true. In other words, they really believe people are *equal*, even if that statement is actually meaningless as it stands. Marketing nonsense wins every time over clearly stated reasons.

There is no doubt in the importance of the movements of civil rights. They *do* have a foundation in compassion and rationality. But I don't think such a foundation, carefully stated, would be *compelling* to the vast majority of people. This explains why we have the botched current usage of the term. People required a simplified version (simplified into nonsense), not one they could not grasp or develop feelings for. 

Now that there has been much success with this slogan, it is time to become more precise with it. It is time to abandon it for a new slogan, founded on rational and humane reasons that relate to current political needs. We need to celebrate and value human differences and admit inequalities, both to provide opportunities to those that need them (not everyone), and to celebrate individual strengths and weaknesses. We need to address the needs of people more precisely, and find a new model of equitability to create more subtle and satisfying policies of fairness.

Try to find a single area of precise equality between any two people and you will fail. This is not even to compare people as wholes. 

Inequality is the norm. It is our real condition. We imagine ourselves creating equality, to break free from this condition, but we shouldn't confuse equality with Justice. We are seeking to make the world more fair, not "equal." 

To create the right image, you must state belief at the required times, but act against this belief other times. Social norms call for supporting inequality. Culturally you are required to contradict yourself between different settings.
Now let's talk about how "equal" can be protected from abuse. This word, and its derivatives, may be the most important to reserve for precise application. Again, word play is permissible to a degree, but when we want to draw from its *mathematical sense* with seriousness, **even just a little**, like we almost always want to do, *we must recall its precise meaning and rules of use*. We already do this well with numbers, but we must remember that *it may be even more important to do it with the word "equal".* 

The problem is that when we make claims about human equality, we routinely draw from the mathematical sense without meeting any of the mathematical conditions. We forget it has anything to do with math at all! But to use it rightly we have to remember what the rules of usage are. What are its truth conditions? If we really want to know if our statements are meaningful and true, we have to pay attention to these details. The best part is that the word "equal" is straightforward, and once we understand it, we can quickly determine when it is used soundly. 
