Fundamentally, and I've said it before, your parents are about 90% of your chances of success in life.
Modern psychology would disagree as what a person becomes, psychologically speaking, is drawn from about 50% genetics and 50% environmental influences
First, there is the matter of genetics. I doubt that anyone can deny that parents with favorable genes (intellect, physical attraction and ability and so on) bequeath these to their offspring with complete disregard for equality.
As I mentioned, genetics only influences about 50% of who a person is,
psychologically speaking - however, in theory, two individuals of equal psychological value, would fair differently were they to be born with different levels of tangible assets - I think everyone can agree that this would be true (remember we are talking theoretically ... and remember, theories are often used to find solutions)
Second, more responsible parents tend to limit the number of offspring to that which they can give financial and the social upbringing needed for success.
Actually ... this statement is a little misguided. There is evidence that (unconsciously) under situations of poverty, women have more children in order to increase odds of successful future propagation of genes. Thus, the worse off the conditions are, usually, the more children are born to one mother. The idea is that there is a better chance of producing an offspring that will be genetically superior if more offspring are birthed ... think if a parent looking to have a genius child
On the other hand, those in wealth can invest much time and money into parenting their children and thus do not see the genetic advantage of the "quantity strategy" and thus stick to the "quality strategy".
Still, regardless of why this happens, the fact remains that those any child born into poverty will have a disadvantage, monetarily speaking, when compared to their wealthy counterparts.
Third, the personal conduct of the parents sets a tremendous example and has a profound effect in the formation of offspring.
No doubt that this is true ... still, the fact remains that those any child born into poverty will have a disadvantage, monetarily speaking, when compared to their wealthy counterparts.
Let us also keep in mind that humans are adaptable. Thus, whatever environment we are born in, we adapt to it in order to achieve maximum genetic propagation. In situations where the chance of rising out of poverty is low, many strategies resort to other ways of attracting mates. This is just the way things work. We forget that humans who supposedly are not behaving "properly" (specifically those in doing so who are born into poverty) are simply trying to find a way to adapt to the poor conditions they are born into. The most important factor here is whether or not that strategy passes on their genetics.
Fourth, the parents' expectation of their children usually propels them to achieve accordingly.
Not necessarily - but there is some truth to this statement
Trying to superficially even the playing field is a non-starter because from the very get-go children are not born equal.
Remember starting them out on the same financial footing from the "get-go" is just one way equal opportunity can be realized financially speaking - remember, we are not looking for equal outcome ... only equal opportunity
The fact that children are not born equal is the exact reason why this would be a good idea ... because it would allow the "natural" talent to shine brighter
As long as parents are the primary care givers, the family units' influence will always be unequal. Most of those who sink to the bottom rungs of society are more than likely raised in unstable and often inappropriate environments. Parents who cannot or don't want to instill work ethics or otherwise lay foundations for their children's success will, in most cases, raise children who are very unlikely to become prosperous.
This is true and this is why we should focus on education and providing counseling for children that are struggling ... still, this does not negate the fact that allowing all to start form the same starting line financially speaking, would slowly begin to help the situation
The determent to equality lies in in the four points above.
Except you missed the financial determinant - remember, finances affects many of the points you mentioned, for example, if parents had more money, they may be more inclined to spend more quality time with their children - they may get more money if they had a chance to start the race on equal footing
They are usually inseparable. The station of one's birth usually dictates the station of one's life which is invariably good for some and bad for others. Thus, poverty and wealth perpetuate themselves through generations and in truth, there is jack-**** anyone can do about it. It is truly a fool's errand.
And this is where pessimists make their mistakes. Social policies can and have enhanced peoples lives. If we understand the problem, we can work out a solution
