4 ms·

> Suppose a aboriginal guy from the Amazon wakes up naked on a snowy Manhattan street... He could be the best Tapir hunter in the five valleys, but that doesn't

by nfg 10y ago

> Suppose a aboriginal guy from the Amazon wakes up naked on a snowy Manhattan street... He could be the best Tapir hunter in the five valleys, but that doesn't count for much if he inevitably either freezes or gets locked in a cell for indecent exposure You seem to be making OP's point for them.

ikurei 10y ago
I don't think they are. I think "Aboriginal helpless in Manhattan" means that any skill you may have is dependant on environment, is an specialization, and you shouldn't judge a fish by its cycle-riding skills.
btilly 10y ago
Definitely not. The OP's point is that wealth is created and bestowed by society. The rebuttal is that it is an interaction between skills and environment, which may or may not involve other humans. The Amazonian hunter has a form of wealth with no dependence on other humans. And yet it is as fragile as the rich person's wealth once you change the environment. To that rebuttal I would add that merely bestowing riches on people does not generally result in wealth. The classic case in point being that lottery winners generally wind up no better off than they were previously, and this reversion is surprisingly quick. What human society and industry has done is create the possibility of great wealth. Untold wealth. Wealth undreamt of in the past. Aristocracy in Elizabethan times would envy the average US citizen today. And not for the technological marvels that we would normally list - topping the list of things they would wish that they had is that our medical care lets us expect to see our children grow up, and our dental care means that we do not regularly go through a level of pain that they took for granted. But wealth remains an interaction of skills and environment. It is not merely granted by society.
- didibus 10y ago
  It is when society defines the environment though, to a certain extent. When wealth can be used to change the environment to tailor it to your skills, then you do get an advantage. I'd like you to elaborate more your idea in terms of the relation between skill, society and environment. Assuming all three influence each other.
- kartan 10y ago
  > The rebuttal is that it is an interaction between skills and environment That's the main point. It is not. You need society: > Suppose any rich man wakes up in the Amazon jungle with nothing to his name, no clothes and no money. He may in fact be the richest man on earth, but in the jungle it doesn't matter. He has his skills, and a rich environment full of resources. But he lacks what society provides: law and order, education, skilled workers, media that spread ideas, etc...

by nfg 10y ago

ikurei 10y ago

I don't think they are. I think "Aboriginal helpless in Manhattan" means that any skill you may have is dependant on environment, is an specialization, and you shouldn't judge a fish by its cycle-riding skills.

btilly 10y ago

Definitely not. The OP's point is that wealth is created and bestowed by society. The rebuttal is that it is an interaction between skills and environment, which may or may not involve other humans. The Amazonian hunter has a form of wealth with no dependence on other humans. And yet it is as fragile as the rich person's wealth once you change the environment. To that rebuttal I would add that merely bestowing riches on people does not generally result in wealth. The classic case in point being that lottery winners generally wind up no better off than they were previously, and this reversion is surprisingly quick. What human society and industry has done is create the possibility of great wealth. Untold wealth. Wealth undreamt of in the past. Aristocracy in Elizabethan times would envy the average US citizen today. And not for the technological marvels that we would normally list - topping the list of things they would wish that they had is that our medical care lets us expect to see our children grow up, and our dental care means that we do not regularly go through a level of pain that they took for granted. But wealth remains an interaction of skills and environment. It is not merely granted by society.

didibus 10y ago
It is when society defines the environment though, to a certain extent. When wealth can be used to change the environment to tailor it to your skills, then you do get an advantage. I'd like you to elaborate more your idea in terms of the relation between skill, society and environment. Assuming all three influence each other.
kartan 10y ago
> The rebuttal is that it is an interaction between skills and environment That's the main point. It is not. You need society: > Suppose any rich man wakes up in the Amazon jungle with nothing to his name, no clothes and no money. He may in fact be the richest man on earth, but in the jungle it doesn't matter. He has his skills, and a rich environment full of resources. But he lacks what society provides: law and order, education, skilled workers, media that spread ideas, etc...