3 ms·
Is there much difference between an individual living and accumulating wealth over 200 years vs 3 generations of a family living and accumulating wealth over th
by theoreticalmal 2y ago
Is there much difference between an individual living and accumulating wealth over 200 years vs 3 generations of a family living and accumulating wealth over that time? External factors that change fortunes would mostly still stay the same. Biggest difference I can think of would be less change of an incompetent younger generation throwing the wealth away
- vouaobrasil 2y agoWell the "throwing wealth away" is a big difference. And it's not just a matter of wealth. It's what people do with that wealth, such as influence the world negatively. The top 1% of those hell-bent on doing strange things usually don't have children that are similarly obsessed. And finally, it would increase the TOTAL number of people, which would exacerbate the situation because an absolute total number of people means even more exploitation by the rich.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> it would increase the TOTAL number of people, which would exacerbate the situation because an absolute total number of people means even more exploitation by the rich The hypothesis is exploitation scales with population?
- vouaobrasil 2y agoYes, it does, if you include exploitation of natural resources in the calculation.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> if you include exploitation of natural resources in the calculation Well yes, if you change definitions I am a pink elephant. There is no evidence “exploitation by the rich” of everyone else scales with population. (There is some evidence for the opposite.) Even if we talk environmentalism, economies of scale mean larger populations tend to be more efficient ceteris paribus. And the whole premise is foundational wrong: longer adult lifespans predict lower childbirth and population declines. Not increases.