I've seen this argument before in other scenarios (open education, etc.). It is technically correct but pointless. Just about anything we do to raise living s

I've seen this argument before in other scenarios (open education, etc.). It is technically correct but pointless. Just about anything we do to raise living standards in society increases the gap between rich and poor. Does that mean we need to stop trying to raise the living standards of the majority of people and stop trying to offer things like free food, free healthcare, and free education? No. It's like if someone argued against the use of penicillin because it increased the lifespan disparity between rich and poor. I'm sure it did and still does (for those with no access to pencillin), but what is the point? Are we supposed to stop using penicillin then to keep lifespans closer together? Or should we instead focus on getting more people access to penicillin, similar in a (very rough) sense to how the "learning to code" movement is focusing on making computational literacy more accessible to everyone.