[My gut reaction to the title, without much context, was "poor places are diverse because poor people can't afford to move somewhere where their own type of people dominate." Which is kinda related to the conclusion they actually reach...]
A book I've heard about, but not read: The Art of Not Being Governed, about a region of Asia populated by people who've fled governments. There's tremendous diversity of cultures.
I wonder whether governments (and especially large governments) are the equivalent of the big trees soaking up resources.
I also wonder whether anarchists are trying to get the advantages of large scale civilization without the costs, and whether that might be unworkable.
Yes... but slightly wrong conclusion from good datapamelinaSeptember 8 2015, 04:55:17 UTC
I... think the conclusion has a slight flaw. It's not the poorness of the soil/poorness of the people that matters for diversity to thrive--it's the equal access to the resources/low economic inequality that matters--for both plants and people.
For proof I highly recommend The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger by Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson
From Publishers Weekly: Wilkinson and Pickett make an eloquent case that the income gap between a nation's richest and poorest is the most powerful indicator of a functioning and healthy society. Amid the statistics that support their argument (increasing income disparity sees corresponding spikes in homicide, obesity, drug use, mental illness, anxiety, teenage pregnancies, high school dropouts-even incidents of playground bullying), the authors take an empathetic view of our ability to see beyond self-interest. While there are shades of Darwinism in the human hunt for status, there is evidence that the human brain-with its distinctively large neocortex-evolved
( ... )
I disagree that the video's conclusion is wrong; it doesn't contradict what you're saying. It is affirming the idea that differential access to the resources is thing that is toxic, but it is pointing out that that situation emergently arises rapidly in situations of abundant resources.
Saying "if you could stop the fast growers in rich soil from taking over most of the sun and rain, then you could have just as diverse and flourishing an economy in rich soil areas" sort of misses the point: something has to constrain fast growers' investment of resources in getting more resources, or they will out-compete competitors to the point of destruction. That can be the gardener's hand, or it can be resource poverty of the environment. But it has to be something.
Screwed-up incentives, bad systems. Economics, Quality matters.pamelinaSeptember 8 2015, 18:38:00 UTC
I agree with what you're saying. It's a matter of what one's focusing on. The thing that bothers me is that the piece could be misinterpreted to imply causation from the correlation. It would be an easy and wrong conclusion to say poverty is a cause of diversity and small business, just as it's wrong to conclude that poor soil and nutrient scarcity is a cause of diversity in plants. It would be counterproductive to look to poor countries for economic models without looking at richer countries with more economic equity, (like Scandinavia
( ... )
Click to view
Comments 5
[My gut reaction to the title, without much context, was "poor places are diverse because poor people can't afford to move somewhere where their own type of people dominate." Which is kinda related to the conclusion they actually reach...]
Reply
I wonder whether governments (and especially large governments) are the equivalent of the big trees soaking up resources.
I also wonder whether anarchists are trying to get the advantages of large scale civilization without the costs, and whether that might be unworkable.
Reply
For proof I highly recommend The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger by Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson
From Publishers Weekly: Wilkinson and Pickett make an eloquent case that the income gap between a nation's richest and poorest is the most powerful indicator of a functioning and healthy society. Amid the statistics that support their argument (increasing income disparity sees corresponding spikes in homicide, obesity, drug use, mental illness, anxiety, teenage pregnancies, high school dropouts-even incidents of playground bullying), the authors take an empathetic view of our ability to see beyond self-interest. While there are shades of Darwinism in the human hunt for status, there is evidence that the human brain-with its distinctively large neocortex-evolved ( ... )
Reply
Saying "if you could stop the fast growers in rich soil from taking over most of the sun and rain, then you could have just as diverse and flourishing an economy in rich soil areas" sort of misses the point: something has to constrain fast growers' investment of resources in getting more resources, or they will out-compete competitors to the point of destruction. That can be the gardener's hand, or it can be resource poverty of the environment. But it has to be something.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment