4 ms·

> I have a hypothesis, that the most life-capable beings are those, who are able to cope with risk and fear, cross the line of comfort zone, and explore new unk

> I have a hypothesis, that the most life-capable beings are those, who are able to cope with risk and fear, cross the line of comfort zone, and explore new unknown areas. In this manner, America inherited the best ones in the world, and I think this is one of the reasons why America is the wealthiest country, according to several measurements. Uh, this is the first time I have heard that Americans are somehow genetically or racially superior thanks to their national founding myth. Certainly sounds like a similar theory to a certain other, now hugely discredited political outlook I won't mention. It seems to lack explanatory power - why are there so many other countries composed of the descendents of migrants that are not as wealthy? Why are there countries composed mostly of lumpen aboriginals and left-behinds that are even wealthier per-capita?

gaius 13y ago
It's nothing to do with genetics. It's that people who would board a wooden ship to head to head off into the unknown were predisposed towards taking calculated risks. Some of that will have been passed down to their kids, not genetically but how they were raised and educated. It was simply a much bigger gamble to head across the Atlantic than it was to cross the English Channel. You still see this today, altho' to a less extent because the risks are much less. Anyone who is working or has moved overseas is likely to be among the most ambitious of their peer group from back home.
- ronaldx 13y ago
  > Anyone who is working or has moved overseas is likely to be among the most ambitious of their peer group from back home. Also likely to be from a wealthy or otherwise privileged background: wealth offers opportunity and permits risk-taking.
  - joelrunyon 13y ago
    > Also likely to be from a wealthy or otherwise privileged background: wealth offers opportunity and permits risk-taking. Maybe likely - but not required. It sounds nice, but until you have a source for this, I'm not likely to believe it. If anything, especially with these types of endeavors, where there's not just money, but life to be lost - I'd presume that the wealthy would have more to lose than someone with nothing. In other words, with a wealthy person taking risks has a much higher opportunity cost than someone with nothing to lose. As an aside, you can move abroad to asia & live for a fraction of the cost that you'd require in the states. International travel & work isn't just the domain of the wealthy anymore.
    - ronaldx 13y ago
      You correctly note that I said likely, not required. So, we're not in disagreement. I agree with you about the risk to life having some effect, but this obviously doesn't apply to people alive today. Anyone can move to Asia and have a better quality of life, perhaps, but it sure as hell helps if: * you can afford regular plane tickets home to family/possibly at short notice, * you have support back in your home country until you get settled, * you are wealthy or privileged enough to have access to whatever visa in whichever country you prefer. (e.g. sufficient education and experience to meet the requirements of a skilled work visa) With respect, if you think intercontinental travel & work isn't primarily the domain of the wealthy, we may have different definitions of wealthy.
      - gaius 13y ago
        What about within the EU? This is a problem for some and an opportunity for others. Many of the people capable of kickstarting the economies of Greece and Spain have left for England or Germany...
- SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
  > It's nothing to do with genetics. It's that people who would board a wooden ship to head to head off into the unknown were predisposed towards taking calculated risk As JetSetWilly pointed out, this lack explanatory power. For instance, it does not explain why the USA is a global power whereas Agentina, Brazil and Mexico are far from it. So while this may be necessary, it cannot be sufficient.
  - mjn 13y ago
    It also doesn't explain why countries such as Germany, Switzerland, and Sweden are so successful. I'm sure you could pick something common to the history of all three and make a completely speculative story about why certain Europeans are the most successful people in the world...
    - gaius 13y ago
      ... And people have, check out Jared Diamond.
  - gaius 13y ago
    Sure. I was merely discounting the genetic explanation.
  - jsmcgd 13y ago
    The differences between the successes of north and south America has been explored by economists. One significant factor was the lack of property rights of south Americans. Basically traditional serfdom was exported to south America, whereas the people in the north were able to buy and own their land allowing them to become independently wealthy. Those in the south had to pass nearly all their wealth to the landlords. There are also other factors like the dominant protestant work ethic in the north (i.e. that working hard is the best way to get close to God, as opposed to focusing on observing dogmatic traditions). There was also a more established rule of law in the north and there are other differences. So although the potential for similar outcomes was there at the start when the Americas was being founded, they set off on wildly different trajectories. Edit: I'd recommend reading Civilization by Niall Ferguson.
joelrunyon 13y ago
I don't think he was trying to get at race or genetics, but rather attitude. I wouldn't say it 'inherited', but the 'culture' was one of people willing to get rid of their old stable lives for one of 'unlimited' opportunity, freedom, risk and adventure. Whether or not that attitude is actually still pervasive or whether it's a nice story we tell ourselves is debatable, but it was true of the europeans that founded the country.
- mjn 13y ago
  I wouldn't say it 'inherited', but the 'culture' was one of people willing to get rid of their old stable lives for one of 'unlimited' opportunity, freedom, risk and adventure. I actually see much of the early immigration as the reverse: people who wanted to maintain their old stable lives, but for various reasons were finding it difficult to do so in Europe, due to religious or political differences. So, they left to found a new society elsewhere, where they could keep and enforce their traditional community norms. The Puritans were not looking for frontier living or risky fortune, but rather for the opportunity to maintain a very communalist, strict, religious community in keeping with their faith. Early Puritan communities were not some kind of individualist libertarian society, but more like religious communes, with strict rules on what you could do on which days of the week and in what manner. The Hasidim might be the closest modern-day analog: they moved to places like Brooklyn not out of a desire for adventure, but because it was somewhere they could maintain their traditional way of life, which was becoming impossible to do in Eastern Europe. Within the U.S., the "Mormon exodus" westwards from Illinois to Utah had a similar motivation.
higherpurpose 13y ago
I think you misunderstood him. He was referring to the fact that America used to be the "promise land", because of the freedom it used to have, and why so many people wanted to flee there, and create their own opportunities thanks to that freedom. It has nothing to do with genetics.
zupa-hu 13y ago
I'm from Europe and have absolutely no problem with this statement. I myself think that argument is valid. Although later immigrants had to take far less risk, and would argue they are the majority now. Please do not start a race-war, this was a solid reasoning, anyone could have moved to America back then.
- RamiK 13y ago
  Not really. You had to have been of the wealthy third estate (free gentry or an ex-service man). Even an established guild member - above a journeyman and by consequence a free-citizen with voting and mobility rights - would have been disqualified since leaving the city for new residents would have meant leaving the guild and losing the (limited) freedom of mobility they need to board a ship. So they had to leave on good legal terms, still owning some land, which meant a large surplus of money. Now, can you think of a reason beyond religious persecution for someone of such a privileged class and circumstances to just decide to risk sea-travel for himself and his entire family and just pack up and leave?

gaius 13y ago

It's nothing to do with genetics. It's that people who would board a wooden ship to head to head off into the unknown were predisposed towards taking calculated risks. Some of that will have been passed down to their kids, not genetically but how they were raised and educated. It was simply a much bigger gamble to head across the Atlantic than it was to cross the English Channel. You still see this today, altho' to a less extent because the risks are much less. Anyone who is working or has moved overseas is likely to be among the most ambitious of their peer group from back home.

ronaldx 13y ago
> Anyone who is working or has moved overseas is likely to be among the most ambitious of their peer group from back home. Also likely to be from a wealthy or otherwise privileged background: wealth offers opportunity and permits risk-taking.
- joelrunyon 13y ago
  > Also likely to be from a wealthy or otherwise privileged background: wealth offers opportunity and permits risk-taking. Maybe likely - but not required. It sounds nice, but until you have a source for this, I'm not likely to believe it. If anything, especially with these types of endeavors, where there's not just money, but life to be lost - I'd presume that the wealthy would have more to lose than someone with nothing. In other words, with a wealthy person taking risks has a much higher opportunity cost than someone with nothing to lose. As an aside, you can move abroad to asia & live for a fraction of the cost that you'd require in the states. International travel & work isn't just the domain of the wealthy anymore.
  - ronaldx 13y ago
    You correctly note that I said likely, not required. So, we're not in disagreement. I agree with you about the risk to life having some effect, but this obviously doesn't apply to people alive today. Anyone can move to Asia and have a better quality of life, perhaps, but it sure as hell helps if: * you can afford regular plane tickets home to family/possibly at short notice, * you have support back in your home country until you get settled, * you are wealthy or privileged enough to have access to whatever visa in whichever country you prefer. (e.g. sufficient education and experience to meet the requirements of a skilled work visa) With respect, if you think intercontinental travel & work isn't primarily the domain of the wealthy, we may have different definitions of wealthy.
    - gaius 13y ago
      What about within the EU? This is a problem for some and an opportunity for others. Many of the people capable of kickstarting the economies of Greece and Spain have left for England or Germany...
SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
> It's nothing to do with genetics. It's that people who would board a wooden ship to head to head off into the unknown were predisposed towards taking calculated risk As JetSetWilly pointed out, this lack explanatory power. For instance, it does not explain why the USA is a global power whereas Agentina, Brazil and Mexico are far from it. So while this may be necessary, it cannot be sufficient.
- mjn 13y ago
  It also doesn't explain why countries such as Germany, Switzerland, and Sweden are so successful. I'm sure you could pick something common to the history of all three and make a completely speculative story about why certain Europeans are the most successful people in the world...
  - gaius 13y ago
    ... And people have, check out Jared Diamond.
- gaius 13y ago
  Sure. I was merely discounting the genetic explanation.
- jsmcgd 13y ago
  The differences between the successes of north and south America has been explored by economists. One significant factor was the lack of property rights of south Americans. Basically traditional serfdom was exported to south America, whereas the people in the north were able to buy and own their land allowing them to become independently wealthy. Those in the south had to pass nearly all their wealth to the landlords. There are also other factors like the dominant protestant work ethic in the north (i.e. that working hard is the best way to get close to God, as opposed to focusing on observing dogmatic traditions). There was also a more established rule of law in the north and there are other differences. So although the potential for similar outcomes was there at the start when the Americas was being founded, they set off on wildly different trajectories. Edit: I'd recommend reading Civilization by Niall Ferguson.

joelrunyon 13y ago

I don't think he was trying to get at race or genetics, but rather attitude. I wouldn't say it 'inherited', but the 'culture' was one of people willing to get rid of their old stable lives for one of 'unlimited' opportunity, freedom, risk and adventure. Whether or not that attitude is actually still pervasive or whether it's a nice story we tell ourselves is debatable, but it was true of the europeans that founded the country.

mjn 13y ago
I wouldn't say it 'inherited', but the 'culture' was one of people willing to get rid of their old stable lives for one of 'unlimited' opportunity, freedom, risk and adventure. I actually see much of the early immigration as the reverse: people who wanted to maintain their old stable lives, but for various reasons were finding it difficult to do so in Europe, due to religious or political differences. So, they left to found a new society elsewhere, where they could keep and enforce their traditional community norms. The Puritans were not looking for frontier living or risky fortune, but rather for the opportunity to maintain a very communalist, strict, religious community in keeping with their faith. Early Puritan communities were not some kind of individualist libertarian society, but more like religious communes, with strict rules on what you could do on which days of the week and in what manner. The Hasidim might be the closest modern-day analog: they moved to places like Brooklyn not out of a desire for adventure, but because it was somewhere they could maintain their traditional way of life, which was becoming impossible to do in Eastern Europe. Within the U.S., the "Mormon exodus" westwards from Illinois to Utah had a similar motivation.

higherpurpose 13y ago

I think you misunderstood him. He was referring to the fact that America used to be the "promise land", because of the freedom it used to have, and why so many people wanted to flee there, and create their own opportunities thanks to that freedom. It has nothing to do with genetics.

zupa-hu 13y ago

I'm from Europe and have absolutely no problem with this statement. I myself think that argument is valid. Although later immigrants had to take far less risk, and would argue they are the majority now. Please do not start a race-war, this was a solid reasoning, anyone could have moved to America back then.

RamiK 13y ago
Not really. You had to have been of the wealthy third estate (free gentry or an ex-service man). Even an established guild member - above a journeyman and by consequence a free-citizen with voting and mobility rights - would have been disqualified since leaving the city for new residents would have meant leaving the guild and losing the (limited) freedom of mobility they need to board a ship. So they had to leave on good legal terms, still owning some land, which meant a large surplus of money. Now, can you think of a reason beyond religious persecution for someone of such a privileged class and circumstances to just decide to risk sea-travel for himself and his entire family and just pack up and leave?