As society makes a concerted effort to eradicate inequality, some of our best and brightest minds are exploring the intricacies of every avenue of civilization to level the proverbial playing field. From deep discussions about wealth distribution to restructuring education, there isn't an area that isn't exempt from society's magnifying glass. However, as we delve deeper into uprooting inequality, there are still variables that make the process seem insurmountable.
No amount of wealth redistribution can protect a child from various forms of abuse that could potentially hamper their development. No public works program can prevent a child from being born a congenital amputee. There will always be aspects of life that depend entirely on a fortunate birth. Genetics is one of the aforementioned aspects, and discovering how to gauge and mitigate the inherent advantages or setbacks tied to genes is a complex problem.
In the video linked above, Kathryn Paige Harden sits down with the Big Think's YouTube channel to explain how hereditability and portability make it extremely difficult to test how much success we can attribute to genetics, environment, or both. As it turns out, the appropriate sample size of humans necessary to conduct an experiment accounting for both intensely specific metrics is immense and consequently tricky to duplicate.