Are you talking about equality of opportunity or equality of outcome? They are two very different things. The former is most desirable, as it leads to a meritocracy. The latter less so as it can lead to a totalitarian state.

An equal society can only be archived if we stop pushing for desires.

Look, as humans I think conquest has been in our blood even before civilization.
We must get that jobs in place of another person.We must seek promotions in place of another. We must go to the stores and buy grains before another person finish it for us.

Equality is just but an English word. We can only try to give what we can give to those who need it by those who can afford to.

Human primates are extremely possessive (no progressive!) and hold on to whatever even if they don't use it. Unfortunately only violent means will shift patterns of possession for short periods until an α-human primate has figured out how to get more. However, not all violent conflicts shift the patterns. The Liechtensteins and the Windsors still hold on to their possessions even after 2 world wars.

People like Napoleon and Trump are just exceptions.

We'd have to actually work at it. Logically.

Which we really aren't doing right now.

There might get closer if we can Trump out of office. Getting rid of religion might get it closer, but not equal.

People are not equal and never will be.

Not with religious people in charge. And not with transphobes, homophobes, or any other kind of phobe in charge.

No. There will always be people who exhibit characteristics that make it impossible.

Each person must be treated equally under the law and be provided with equal public services. Outside of that everyone is both unequal and equal. I think we are all equal in a fundamental way because our true identity is collective, pervasive and universal.

In our bodily existence however there is no equality, nor should there be. There are many ways of rating people but no universal standard. For every handicap there is an advantage. Each person is the culmination of a long line of survivors, so we should not be judgmental.

Yes, but at what cost?

Not until Humans have resolved the problem of artificial scarcity.

Can we become a more equal society. The answer is yes Can we achieve a totally equal society? I don't think so, due to human nature.

Achieving a more equal society will require the right policies and programs and constant vigilance.

In a word I would definitely agree. With 7.5 BILLION (we have long lost our sense of numbers) of us and counting the need for resources has and will outweigh any sense of an equal society. Tribalism is raising it's head all over the world and things will get even more ugly than they are now. I like to think the old adage "too many cooks spoil the broth" basically says too much diversity will spoil a unified society.

Sweden. Very equal, no revolutions, no wars, no state failure, no epidemics.

What is the benefit to having material equality in a society? As long as those who don't have a lot are able to survive, society will continue to function normally. Isn't it when the inequality becomes so pronounced that a large portion of those at the bottom can no longer get by that they turn to violence for survival?

Some people are better equipped to manage money and resources, and thus will naturally tend to accumulate with those individuals. They also tend to have high degrees of trust with money that isn't theirs, meanig everyone has a reason to let them handle their wealth. Making a society that distributed everything equally would make it so that the process of lending your money is more difficult, thus making it more difficult for the economy to grow.

I don't think wealth inequality is a problem so much as an inconvenient truth about reality. Some people are naturaly stronger or better looking than others, or have more intelligence or have more sex, and it hapens to follow a similar distribution to wealth inequality. No one talks about redistribution of these things. If all the world's money was redistributed evenly, everyone would have about $9300. If all the material wealth and money was redistributed everyone would have about $34,000. That's it. That is how little everyone would have if they redistributed everything equally. It's not about the amount of inequality, it's about the size of the economy.

I've started reading a book called Saharasia that claims violent cultures grew up for the first time because of the desertification in the Sahara through the Middle East to Central Asia. Theoretically, this harsher life changed a generally more peaceful matriarchal society to a patriarchal one. This is said to have happened about 6,500 years ago.

Sadly I do not think it is possible based on the way humans are wired - it is survival of the fittest and to become the fittest there has to be some "power over" happening. If only more compassion has been put into the mix of humanity it might at least level off a bit more.

We can always hope. Is that hope realistic? Probably not. But is it still worth striving for? Absolutely.

Anything is possible and it would be beneficial to humanity, society and the planet but, in my opinion, it will never happen.
See dahermit's response below.

The most aggressive (powerful) male monkey takes his pick of the females and the best food for himself without working for it and forces his will on all the others. That is why human monkeys have spread out over the earth's entire land mass (save for Antarctica)...to get away from the dominating monkey. If one kills the dominant monkey, another one will rise to fill that position. That is the abbreviated story of the human status quo.