I am not sure why would I want to do that.
As a leftist (being pro-equality), I don't really want there to be anybody who got a bad deal in society. But why should it matter which group are they part of? It seems chauvinistic to me.
If you don't know if they got a bad deal, you don't even know if there's anything to fix, much less how.
But you can't just ask people that, because people make a whole lot of choices based on what is seen as achievable for them not just by themselves but by society around them irrespective of their personal traits.
And in my opinion, society doesn't ask people enough what they want. I am a big fan of direct democracy, which is pretty much that - asking people what their preferences (about how the society should operate) are.
Unfortunately this belief is not very scientific. The very manner in which you frame the question, even if it is asking the same thing, can get a differing response from the same person.
Also, people are terrible at self assessment. Unsupervised vs supervised dieters are one of the best examples. Even worse are what people think they want. Most people have a very small pool they can think of at any given time on what they want. Most of the time it is being manipulated by outside benefactors, such as advertisers.
> I am not sure why would I want to do that.
> As a leftist (being pro-equality), I don't really want there to be anybody who got a bad deal in society.
I think the issue is that there are very large numbers of people who have gotten a bad deal in society. Investigating every individual, individually, is probably time and cost prohibitive. So investigating by common features across groups of individuals helps to try to maximise that return.
While I think we'd all like to live in that utopia where nobody gets a bad deal in society, it's not the world we inhabit today, not even close.
"I think we'd all like to live in that utopia where nobody gets a bad deal in society"
This is objectively not true. Many people don't care about other people getting bad deal.
Well this is simply not true.
I'm no fan of ballooning populations myself because I'm kind of a misanthrope but resource quanity is not the problem. There is more than enough to feed, clothe and house up to 15 billion people, just not at the same standard as the resource-guzzling United States.
The problem is logistics and political will. That's what we don't have to provide for 10+ billion people.
So be it. It seems more fair to me than some ad hoc chauvinism.
In any case, I don't think the suffering is really required. What is, in your opinion, the lifestyle that is possible to be supported by resources we have for 7 billion people?