The moral dilemma

Manna describes path to a society where AI-controlled systems can produce everything material that people need and plenty of what they want. In one chapter, it describes the scenario where a rich minority gets the benefits of the system and the majority is excluded. The excluded ones are housed in huge Mikontalo-style blocks and they are given acceptable standard of living but not much freedom. In that case, it is a pure political choice to split people into two layers; no mechanism prevents more even distribution of affluence.

"I know what you are saying. I try not to think about it. But it's not that unusual. Over the course of history, billions of people have lived this way. Think back to when you were living in suburbia. Your parents had a 3,000 square foot house and the pool at the turn of the century. You were living it up. Unfortunately, at that moment in history, there were billions of people around the world living in poverty -- they were living off a dollar or two per day. Meanwhile, your family had 300 dollars a day. Did you do anything about it? Billions and Billions of people living in third-world countries, squatting together in the dirt, crapping in ditches. They would walk down by the river just like we are doing right now and say to each other, 'There must be a way out.' They could see that they were lost -- totally wasted human potential trapped in a terrible situation. Their kids and their kids' kids forever would live like this because there was absolutely no way out. Did anyone stop to help them? Did you stop to help them? No. You were too busy splashing in the pool. Those billions of people lived and died in incredible poverty."

What justifies me to enjoy Western stadards of freedom, safety and affluence, when so many people are exluded? This is the moral dilemma that is present in Andhra Pradesh, a dirt poor agricultural state with 60% literacy. It may be less visible in the Hyderabad, though.