Herbert was not a philosopher, but a philosophically astute author that used futuristic fiction to comment on contemporary problems, "impossible to pin you down to neatly packaged ideas" according to some interviewers. In the "Dune Genesis" essay originally published in the July 1980 issue of Omni Magazine* Frank Herbert wrote:

"I now believe that evolution, or deevolution[sic], never ends short of death, that no society has ever achieved an absolute pinnacle, that all humans are not created equal. In fact, I believe attempts to create some abstract equalization create a morass of injustices that rebound on the equalizers. Equal justice and equal opportunity are ideals we should seek, but we should recognize that humans administer the ideals and that humans do not have equal ability."

• Since he issue the topic of trans-humanism (although not rare in Science Fiction), could he trying to say that humans have not the ability to administer successfully these ideals?
• Was he trying to say that humans administering could not have the same exact ideals because of its intrinsic inequality?
• Simply saying that some humans have not the ability to administer the ideals while others have it, as Noocracy notes?
• Or, since his apparently anarchist ideas, that "some humans deserve not-equal outcomes because their lack of ability"?

While he could just stated something like "humans are not equal" at the end of the quote, he wrote instead "humans don't have equal ability". So both things "we should recognize" seems unrelated to me suggesting the anarchist equality option, but I think you could broke down the quote in a better logical way.

PS: Could be possible you need to know Herbert's science fiction work to know his way of thinking, however you can't ask about the writers in Science Fiction SE. I tried it without success in Politics SE too. I think the abstraction ability and skill to understanding different angles of a philosopher could be necessary here, and I come to you because philosophy is probably the best way to get those skills.

(*) Herbert, Frank (July 1980). "Dune Genesis". Omni 2 (2): p. 72. ISSN 0149-8711.

Herbert was not a philosopher, but a philosophically astute author that used futuristic fiction to comment on contemporary problems, "impossible to pin you down to neatly packaged ideas" according to some interviewers. In the "Dune Genesis" essay originally published in the July 1980 issue of Omni Magazine* Frank Herbert wrote:

"I now believe that evolution, or deevolution[sic], never ends short of death, that no society has ever achieved an absolute pinnacle, that all humans are not created equal. In fact, I believe attempts to create some abstract equalization create a morass of injustices that rebound on the equalizers. Equal justice and equal opportunity are ideals we should seek, but we should recognize that humans administer the ideals and that humans do not have equal ability."

• Since he issue the topic of trans-humanism (although not rare in Science Fiction), could he trying to say that humans have not the ability to administer successfully these ideals?
• Was he trying to say that humans administering could not have the same exact ideals because of its intrinsic inequality?
• Simply saying that some humans have not the ability to administer the ideals while others have it, as Noocracy notes?
• Or, since his apparently anarchist ideas, that "some humans deserve not-equal outcomes because their lack of ability"? I think this would be equality compared to justice in the Aristotle sense, that each one should obtain what deserve.

While he could just stated something like "humans are not equal" at the end of the quote, he wrote instead "humans don't have equal ability". So both things "we should recognize" seems unrelated to me suggesting the anarchist equality option, but I think you could broke down the quote in a better logical way.

PS: Could be possible you need to know Herbert's science fiction work to know his way of thinking, however you can't ask about the writers in Science Fiction SE. I tried it without success in Politics SE too. I think the abstraction ability and skill to understanding different angles of a philosopher could be necessary here, and I come to you because philosophy is probably the best way to get those skills.

(*) Herbert, Frank (July 1980). "Dune Genesis". Omni 2 (2): p. 72. ISSN 0149-8711.

In the "Dune Genesis" essay originally published in the July 1980 issue of Omni Magazine* Frank Herbert wrote:

"I now believe that evolution, or deevolution[sic], never ends short of death, that no society has ever achieved an absolute pinnacle, that all humans are not created equal. In fact, I believe attempts to create some abstract equalization create a morass of injustices that rebound on the equalizers. Equal justice and equal opportunity are ideals we should seek, but we should recognize that humans administer the ideals and that humans do not have equal ability."

• Did he try to say that humans have not the ability to administer successfully these ideals?
• Was he trying to say that humans doing it have not equal ideals?
• Simply saying that some humans have not the ability to administer the ideals while others have it?
• Or, the worst meaning to me, "some humans don't deserve equality because their lack of ability"?

I can't understand if the 2 things he say "we should recognize" are independent or related.

PS: I think people need to know Herbert's science fiction work to know his way of thinking, however you can't ask about the writers in Science Fiction SE. I tried it in Politics SE too, but I think the abstraction ability and skill to understanding different angles of a philosopher could be necessary here.

(*) Herbert, Frank (July 1980). "Dune Genesis". Omni 2 (2): p. 72. ISSN 0149-8711.

Herbert was not a philosopher, but a philosophically astute author that used futuristic fiction to comment on contemporary problems, "impossible to pin you down to neatly packaged ideas" according to some interviewers. In the "Dune Genesis" essay originally published in the July 1980 issue of Omni Magazine* Frank Herbert wrote:

"I now believe that evolution, or deevolution[sic], never ends short of death, that no society has ever achieved an absolute pinnacle, that all humans are not created equal. In fact, I believe attempts to create some abstract equalization create a morass of injustices that rebound on the equalizers. Equal justice and equal opportunity are ideals we should seek, but we should recognize that humans administer the ideals and that humans do not have equal ability."

• Since he issue the topic of trans-humanism (although not rare in Science Fiction), could he trying to say that humans have not the ability to administer successfully these ideals?
• Was he trying to say that humans administering could not have the same exact ideals because of its intrinsic inequality?
• Simply saying that some humans have not the ability to administer the ideals while others have it, as Noocracy notes?
• Or, since his apparently anarchist ideas, that "some humans deserve not-equal outcomes because their lack of ability"?

While he could just stated something like "humans are not equal" at the end of the quote, he wrote instead "humans don't have equal ability". So both things "we should recognize" seems unrelated to me suggesting the anarchist equality option, but I think you could broke down the quote in a better logical way.

PS: Could be possible you need to know Herbert's science fiction work to know his way of thinking, however you can't ask about the writers in Science Fiction SE. I tried it without success in Politics SE too. I think the abstraction ability and skill to understanding different angles of a philosopher could be necessary here, and I come to you because philosophy is probably the best way to get those skills.

(*) Herbert, Frank (July 1980). "Dune Genesis". Omni 2 (2): p. 72. ISSN 0149-8711.