>>535740 Colonization would be a lot faster, as they wouldn't have to waste time slowly taking the Indian land and could just claim whatever the fuck they wanted, possibly making the treaty that have all land in the Americas (except some parts of Brazil) to Spain more valid than it historically was. Also, the people would have to go somewhere. My guess would be a new type of people settled somewhere in China or the Steppes, which could fuck all kinds of shit up depending on what they do there
>>535758 >My guess would be a new type of people settled somewhere in China or the Steppes, which could fuck all kinds of shit up depending on what they do there No new people in this scenario, just a gap in the bering strait, and polynesians don't get there either.
>>535740 Are you saying that this is a scenario in which America is a continent never inhabited by man? The thought of anywhere not touched by humans in a world where everywhere else has humans is kinda fascinating, and I can only assume that there would be extreme changes in fauna life and land structure.
>>535806 Technically. It's not like the natives drove them away, they just respected that it was their land.
>>535758 Are you simple? Without the Natives to teach the Puritans how to farm they would've all croaked. Then again, the puritans may never show up because some other discoverer, such as Columbo or whoever, would decide to take this New Land for their homeland. And it would be easier, since every other country to discover the Americas landed in Tropical climes.
First of all, all of world history would be different. By changing human migrations like that, and then the profound affect on the global environment having two empty continents, will mean there will be no Columbus because he will never be born. There is no Spain, and no Roman Empire or possibly even Celtiberians.
Long term, the planet will be significantly cooler since there's no longer two continents packed with people cutting down forests, hunting, and farming. Some older megafauna might survive in the Americas, but not all of them. Many were already suffering from climate change and had fragile populations as it was.
The planet will also miss out on a massive amount of economic growth without any Indians to spend the thousands and thousands of years meticulously domesticating their crop packages. There is never any maize corn, and potatoes, tomatoes, squashes, peanuts, and tobacco are never domesticated. This also means the Old World never gets the huge boom in population that the introduction of these crops provided.
>tl;dr: planet would have smaller population, generally be poorer and colder, and all of human history changes.
>>535962 Alright, since quite a few of the details of recorded history are up in the air thanks to the large scale climate changes brought on by the lack of agriculturalisation of the americas, I guess this turns the discussion to how inevitable aspects of the history of the old world were.
Is this change in climate sufficient to affect the habitable zones of the old world e.g. desert areas, extent of ice caps, tundra regions (rivers?) etc to a substantial degree? If so what is the most that we can we say about how they would be affected, and how this would impact the development of civilizations in the old world? Attempting to predict which particular branches of known historical ethnic groups settle where is out of the question I guess; the most we can know about their initial properties will probably stem entirely from where they can settle and their surroundings (and by extention the location and initial properties that their neighbours might have).
For example, as far as I can tell it would be safe to say that the nile, mesopotamia, the indus valley and the yellow river would all still be viable starting points for civilization. What can we say about how the climate changes affect what happens next?
And lastly: how do the complex changes to old world civilization factor in to the inevitable human colonisation of the americas?
>>535962 >megafauna exists for millions of years experiencing ice ages and drastic climate change far greater than that which could be accomplished with the methane released by a bunch of goat farmers in Anatolia >humans arrive >they pretty much all go extinct yeah, there is a 99% chance it was humans, not sure how anyone can believe otherwise unless they are caught up in the "native americans were na'avi and lived in harmony with nature" meme
>>535832 >>535962 It's very likely that humans directly or indirectly lead to the extinction of megafauna in the americas due to their presence http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/spring-2009/humans-and-the-extinction-of-megafauna-in-the-americas#.VpJM2VLKPQM
Pic related is north american megafauna For south america: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene_megafauna#South_America
>Long term, the planet will be significantly cooler since there's no longer two continents packed with people cutting down forests, hunting, and farming. Some older megafauna might survive in the Americas, but not all of them. Many were already suffering from climate change and had fragile populations as it was. I'm not convinced that megafauna would go extinct due to LACK of human activity in the americas, as the climate would probably be less erratic in this case.
>>537030 >before the Latins arrived >Latins >Implying lack of agriculture in the americas wouldn't drastically alter the global climate as discussed here >>535962 resulting in complete unpredictability of which ethnic groups which come out on top in the old world as discussed here >>536250 Read the thread
>>537089 Iberians would still be the most pressured to go explore the new continent, given their naval tradition combined with the difficulties of going to India. It is not guaranteed in the new timeline, but I would say it has a high chance of occurring.
>>537215 It's often overlooked that the paleo-Eskimo only came to North America ~5k years ago, significantly after the main settlement of the Americas. Na-Dene people also came significantly after the original settlement of the Americas.
Point: there was continual migration into the Americas from the Old World since it was first settled. It would require some major barrier between Siberia and Alaska to prevent that until more recent times.
>>537215 In this particular scenario there is no bering land bridge to america, and the polynesians also do not make it there.
So there are no indigenous humans in the americas.
As for old world ethnicities, due to the complex effects of no agriculture on the americas, the whole globe would have a different climate, and this affects the development of the old world civilizations, making it impossible to predict which ethnicities would colonise the americas. see >>536250.
Am I the only person on /his/ who reads entire threads before posting in them?
North America probably wouldn't be too different. But "Latin America" obviously couldn't exist in anything like its current form, and it's likely Central and South America would be almost entirely black Africa (brought in as slaves).
If you held a gun to my head I think I'd take the new world, especially if I could eat venison (all those Old World farm animals have New World wild equivalents: e.g. buffalo instead of cow, mountain goat instead of sheep...)
Potatoes and corn are tastier / more versatile starches than rice or wheat imo. Life without peppers would be suffering. Pineapples are the only fruit I really like anyway (if I never ate another pear, peach, orange, or grape I really wouldn't care). Pumpkins, squash, and tomatoes are all top-tier. And muh nicotine.
...actually pretty surprised how bleh the Old World pantry was, unless that pic is missing some stuff.
>>538017 L'anse Aux Medeaux is way at the northern tip of Newfoundland. I doubt there would have been much native population there.
"Vinland" was down in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick or New England. Much more hospitable, and much more populated. Why would the Norse leave there and go back to frozen-ass Greenland and Labrador, except that they were chased out.
>>535740 European countries would have easily taken it over and there would probably have never been a USA. Early colonists were paranoid as fuck due to constant fear of the unknown and injun raids, this fear put into them turned into passion and anger that created the revolution.
>>538052 I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure there are accounts of the norse fighting with the natives in the greenland sagas. There are also accounts of 'Vinland' that are obviously somewhere further south than Newfoundland, most obviously since it refers to grapes.
>>538079 They fought North American natives in Greenland, you're then using that and saying "well it definitely happened over here since it happened over there". Again, your assertion is entirely baseless and there is no evidence of fighting in L'anse Aux Medeaux.
>>536264 >>536442 I might not have been clear in my post, but many of the species that went extinct had fragile populations already, and humans were the final push that drove them over the edge. It's possible some would still go extinct without humans, but not nearly as many. Species still regularly go extinct in the wild without human intervention.
>>536250 Climate is a fickle bitch to try and make predictions with, and it's not really something I'm an expert on. My vague guess would be that deserts, forests, rivers etc would roughly be the same, but maybe rivers might not be as large and powerful as they could be because the slightly cooler climate will mean there's less melting ice to feed them.
>And lastly: how do the complex changes to old world civilization factor in to the inevitable human colonisation of the americas? Colonization would take longer, I think. The Indians had already done all the hard work of cultivating many different plants and a few species of animal and won't have endless miles of easily farmable land left behind. Also all the riches of gold and silver that drew the Spanish and others here will still be left in the ground and for the most part hidden away. They'll eventually be discovered, but it will take longer.
>>538086 I said "settlement" to emphasize LaM may have been the only place they built a permanent settlement on the North American mainland, but they probably stayed in other spots for some time (I think it may be in the sagas that they over-wintered on some voyages at random spots).
>>537415 A lot of the burning in the New World was related to their agriculture, so they're not separate problems. No Indians, and no burning or deforestation at all, which on a mass scale WILL affect the climate. Agriculture was widely practiced over a massive area from Central America to the Mississippi basin to New England, and that's just North America alone.
>>538259 They couldn't, they were too brave for that. I feel the pride of my courageous ancestors flowing through me, I almost hear the mighty Viking swords clanking in the battle as much larger armies of natives run away. Truly they were the best warrior civilisation on Earth.
>>538442 >So the possibility that the battle/battles took place outside the actual settlement never crossed your mind? So the women and children that would have been slaughtered all conveniently went to the outskirts of the settlement to get their throats slit, meekly, and then the natives rather than burn the homes decided to leave them where they stood completely untouched but DID burn the bodies because otherwise we'd have found a mass grave or bone pile by now instead of the FUCKING NOTHING we do have.
>What is your competing theory here?
You don't have a theory you have a hypothesis you know nothing.
>>535962 > > First of all, all of world history would be different. > two continents packed with people cutting down forests, hunting, and farming.
Nonsense, Native Americans were very thin on the ground and their loss would have virtually no impact on the climate and none at all on the development of the Old World (prior to discovery of the Americas).
>>540545 You don't think widespread agriculture being practiced from northern Patagonia to New England, massive deforestation in the American mid-west, endless millions of fires burned for light and warmth and to hunt, and the extinction of dozens of megafauna across both continents would have no affect on the climate at all?
>>537956 >Almost none of those New World crops would have been domesticated if there was no pre-Columbian population. Certainly corn would never exist.
I’d say other then tobacco and corn, (no pressing reason to look for an alternate to wheat, barley, rye, etc.) the wild genetic ancestors of all the other food crops would eventually be developed by Europeans, though it would happen much later in history.
Humans aren’t adverse to trying new things, in fact the drive for exploration was driven by the European market for pepper and other Asian spices and as Europeans colonize the Empty Americas, they’ll come across various plants which they will look to use to augment their existing diets and with their technological and agricultural advantages, the rate at which these food crops will be developed will be faster then when the Indians did it.
>>538038 >Why would the Norse leave there and go back to frozen-ass Greenland and Labrador, except that they were chased out.
The threat from the Indians contributed to abandonment of the Norse colony in N.America but it was a minor element.
But the simple reason is that Vinland was on the ass end of the known world and trying to make a life there was hard as fuck and no better then back in Europe (not to mention the beginning of the Little Ice Age).
>>540639 >Native American agriculture in southern New England had developed, by the time of the first contacts with Europeans, into a well-ordered system. Corn (maize) was the single most important food crop, accounting for some 65% of the diet (Merchant 1989, 75-76). Corn was planted in hills in clearings the Native Americans cut in the woods. Beans, squash, and pumpkins were planted with the corn. The bean vines climbed the corn stalks. The squash and pumpkin trailed along the ground, where their broad leaves blocked weed growth and their sharp spines may have deterred animals to some extent.
>Farm work was almost exclusively women’s work. Men might help with the work of clearing a new field, and children performed various jobs, such as young boys assigned to scare away the crows.
>Tobacco was the other main crop grown. It was generally cultivated by men, who were also the ones who smoked it. Additional crops were Jerusalem artichoke, strawberries and melons.
>>540658 >I.e. gardening Clearing land, protecting it from pests, seeing and cultivating various different crops through the seasons, alternating crops through the years, and having those crops make up the vast majority of your caloric intake does not constitute "lol smalltime gardening"
Outside of the Aztec, Maya and Incas, what the American Indians were practicing was by definition gardening, not farming You’re deluded if you think the majority of their calories came from this small scale gardening and not hunting and gathering.
They didn’t even have the plow (or a critter to pull it).
A Bronze Age peasant was 100x more productive then an American Indian.
>>540709 >You’re deluded if you think the majority of their calories came from this small scale gardening and not hunting and gathering.
>>540646 >Corn (maize) was the single most important food crop, accounting for some 65% of the diet (Merchant 1989, 75-76). 65% of their diet was maize alone, not counting squash, beans, cultivated berries, etc.
So far I've been able to source every single claim I've made while you pulled shit out of your ass.
>>540760 >This is based on evidence well after European colonization and influence Can you really not read?
>>540646 >Native American agriculture in southern New England had developed, by the time of the first contacts with Europeans, into a well-ordered system. >by the time of the first contacts with Europeans
It's literally the first fucking sentence.
>Other then the mentioned advanced Indian civilizations, Which are probably the only three you can name.
>>540771 > Corn and other American crops were domesticated over multiple millennia
Sure, and in this Empty Americas alternate timeline, the European colonists will have to start from scratch but they will eventually develop indigenous American crops and that development won’t take the Europeans multiple millennia.
Though I’d say some of the New World crops like corn, would today only be a minor artisanal food source, (something hipsters try at fancy restaurants) as the development would happen too late to displace Old World grains like wheat and rye.
And tobacco would more than likely never be developed.
>>540772 Nice to see you didn't address the fact that this was taking place by the time of European contact.
>Does not equal "widespread agriculture", Regions including New England, the Mississippi basin, Mesoamerica, portions of the great plains, the Andes, Amazonia, and northern Patagonia that all get a majority of their calories from farming/cultivation, and together representing the vast, VAST majority of the population of the Americas, fits any definition of "widespread".
> farming practices advanced enough to cause climate change. Tens of millions of people all cutting down and burning forests to hunt and to farm, clearing land in general to farm, wiping megafauna out, and regularly clearing forests to get firewood and building material is going to have an impact on the climate.
The fact that they were all wiped out and no longer farming and cutting down forests also affected the climate as well. http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2008/pr-manvleaf-010709.html
Once again, do you pull shit out of your ass as just a hobby or a full time job?
>>540821 >Baylor Study Shows Native Americans Significantly Modified American Landscape Years Prior to the Arrival of Europeans https://www.baylor.edu/mediacommunications/news.php?action=story&story=90379
>The myth persists that in 1492 the Americas were a sparsely populated wilderness, -a world of barely perceptible human disturbance.- There is substantial evidence, however, that the Native American landscape of the early sixteenth century was a humanized landscape almost everywhere. Populations were large. Forest composition had been modified, grasslands had been created, wildlife disrupted, and erosion was severe in places. Earthworks, roads, fields, and settlements were ubiquitous. With Indian depopulation in the wake of Old World disease, the environment recovered in many areas. A good argument can be made that the human presence was less visible in 1750 than it was in 1492. http://www2.nau.edu/~alcoze/for398/class/pristinemyth.html
>Research team suggests European Little Ice Age came about due to reforestation in New World http://phys.org/news/2011-10-team-european-ice-age-due.html
>>540832 >Based on humans developing wheat, rye, barley, onions, apples and all the other food crops developed in the Old World. Over the course of thousands of years. So why would they domesticate potatoes or tomatoes any faster.
>>540838 >So why would they domesticate potatoes or tomatoes any faster.
Because Europeans are far more technology advanced in 1492 A.D. then they were in 1492 B.C. and will be actively looking to develop native American crops, instead of the hit-or-miss methods back in ancient times.
>>540867 >and will be actively looking to develop native American crops Why would they if they already have alternatives? Importing potatoes is attractive when all the hard work of domesticating them is already done and you can just switch crops, but not so much when you already got something that works more than well enough and it'll take hundreds of years to domesticate a random wild plant.
>>540903 They are on widespread scales when it's uneconomical. Notice how every single global staple crop is thousands of years in the making. There haven't been any new domesticated plants in the last couple hundred years that have had even a fraction of the impact wheat, rice, maize, or the potato has had, because there aren't widespread efforts to develop them, because there is no need or demand for said alternatives.
You've already been proven wrong on every single claim you've made in this thread so far, just stop trying.
>>540903 >Hmm, let's waste all of our time and resources trying to domesticate these plants we know nothing about instead of just clearing everything and planting what we've been planting for centuries.
>>540918 Humans don't behave that way, there are men who think and men who follow.
I'm not suggesting that but I would assume that they were not, it's easier to do what you always do than something different, most things were learned by chance until we started seeking knowledge.
Men are good at imitating, they observe and recreate what they've seen to see if it happens again and that's pretty much it. If you don't have someone to teach him what you've learned, your knowledge will die with you.
>>536250 >>538093 >My vague guess would be that deserts, forests, rivers etc would roughly be the same, but maybe rivers might not be as large and powerful as they could be because the slightly cooler climate will mean there's less melting ice to feed them. I'd say exactly the opposite. I don't think lower sea levels effect the level of water in rivers or the water cycle at any given time, but it seems obvious to me that deserts would be much smaller, and forests / savannah areas would probably be expanded to the south, although tundra would take a fair chunk of good land from the north.
The extent depends on how much the climate is changed though. What I want to know is whether a preserved ecosystem in the americas would make the global climate more or less erratic.
On one hand, there's less human activity so that's a case for more. On the other hand methane release from agriculture is now restricted to one side of the world, which could have interesting effects.
>>540614 >I’d say other then tobacco and corn, (no pressing reason to look for an alternate to wheat, barley, rye, etc.) the wild genetic ancestors of all the other food crops would eventually be developed by Europeans, though it would happen much later in history. Domestication takes hundreds, if not thousands of years. Natives domesticated them because they had nothing else. European farmers wouldn't bother with them if they already have their own domesticated crops, which are more efficient than any wild plant. Things like wild tomatoes would be treated like explorer's food and put in survival manuals, but that is about it.
>Humans aren’t adverse to trying new things, You do realize Europeans refused to eat potatoes until the 18th century on the basis of "they look gross", and used them exclusively as pig feed if at all? Imagine if the potatoes Europeans take are the wild variants, which are about 3-4 cm in diameter?
>>537977 This is a good drawing. Much representation of Native/Scandinavian relationship show the Natives with tomahawks, which first were not in that area, and second the natives developed it thanks to French sharing metallurgy to the natives.
>>543283 I don't know exactly what you two are arguing about on account of all the multilinking and greentext, but it seems like the other anon is saying that a group of people with already domesticated crops are less inclined to domesticate new wild plants. So Europeans coming to the Americas would opt to grow wheat for centuries instead of domesticating maize.
>>535757 Local crops would be nearly unknown. We wouldn't have tobbaco, corn, potatoes, tomatoes, etc. It would look really unappealing to many european states. Combine that with other complications like there being no infrastructure to build on, and I bet you would see colonization go much slower. At least at first.
>>543327 > other anon is saying that a group of people with already domesticated crops are less inclined to domesticate new wild plants.
The more crops humans develop, the more they look to find new ones and improve existing ones.
Our entire history until recently has been of farmers farming.
Now admittedly back in the Neolithic, this was a slow, hit-or-miss process but with each generation, we got batter and better at it.
> So Europeans coming to the Americas would opt to grow wheat for centuries instead of domesticating maize.
I’d agree when it comes to already developed Old World wheat, rye, etc. vs New World ancestral corn, (as I suggested up-thread >>540796) which would be nothing more then another weed grass without the Indians but other potential crops like potatoes, peanuts and such would be developed from their wild forms by Europeans.
>>543302 Even with modern knowledge of genetics it seems like it would take you several decades to turn even the fastest growing crops into their modern form.
Farmers don't really have 80 years to experiment with these things when they are struggling to survive with their turnips. I don't see any experiments to turn wild Berries into usable fruit even today.
>>540658 >muh technicalities >I'm not wrong!! >I'M NEVER WRONG >YOU'RE WRONG!
Jackass, we both know you didn't mean that one specific kind of agriculture, you meant growing whit and eating it and building communities around the shit you're growing.
Could you just fuck off?
It doesn't matter, srsly dude, you and all the other childish assholes that get proven wrong and then just grab onto any technicality and definition you can find in a deperate attempt to not be wrong baout some stupid bullshit no one other than you and the faggot you're talking to care about.
You people are so fucking annoying.
You're on the internet, posting anonymously, about fucking native american corn and god damn farms.
>>544482 It was my understanding that it was a willful decision made by the US government to allow or perhaps simply continue to allow drugs and gambling in order to help the reservations with poverty.
All it ended up doing was leaving them disillusioned on account of their first jobs being stealing from people with mental illness, so many of them end turning to drugs as an escape.
>>544494 They weren't feudal at that point. It was the end of feudalism that caused what I am talking about. In feudal Europe there was land worked by serfs for lords and such and then there was the commons, technically owned by the church on which anyone could work the land. It was the British policy of enclosure that divided up the commons and put it to good use. The land was no longer something everyone shared but something that could be owned. It led to the the British Agricultural Revolution.
Unlike the rest of Europe most of the land in England was owned and in use as either as farms or for hunting for the rich. In order to make something of themselves Egnlishman had to go abroad and find cheap land. That's why the English put colonies everywhere while France didn't settle in as large of numbers. France had plenty of land left to develop.
>>544581 Making money does not in and of itself produce anything of value. There are a lot of people out there making money without positively impacting the world and many more who do beneficial work but get paid obscenely disproportionately high pay.
Wouldn't you know the people who do nothing and the people who get paid for nothing both do drugs more than the average person.
>>544625 I don't really see how actors or people in the music industry improve the quality of life of people around the world at all.
And bankers and brokers seem more like necessary parasites in the system, since their income comes from the money they make by "betting" on other people making money. It seems like they would ideally be replaced by computers, if technology allowed it.
>>544639 No, bankers are in general useful. But there are plenty of crooked people within the system who do more harm than good and others who do very little and still get paid. Banking as a whole though is very important to society. They are the one's deciding where society should allocate it's resources, from building offshore drilling platforms to building roads to investing in medical technology.
>>544645 >You can make money without producing anything of value No you fucking can't >like robbing a bank or buying another business just to steal their pensions. That's stealing, it isn't "making money", it's "stealing money", it's illegal and there's a reason it's illegal.
>>544674 >I'm saying there are jobs that pay out a lot of money but produce little of value to humanity as a whole Now you're backtracking a few minutes ago you were saying: >bankers, brokers, actors and the entire music industry Contributed nothing to society.
Now you've recanted.
>you are just taking what I am saying so far that it doesn't make sense anymore.
You never made sense to being with, you post that started this didn't make any sense.
>>544653 I can see that. But at the end of the day, they will still be doing it through procedures that seem largely guesswork and form filling.
How do they know a business could make enough money to repay the investments? Similar businesses have made money in the past, and some trends indicate that competition in the sector might be lowering, and the businessman seems responsible, etc. How does the bank owner check that the employees are lending money to the right people? Because he is making the money back. That is it. Most of the real world random factors are hard to take into account, and if they end up making enough mistakes, their collapse is so large they come to need bailouts to salvage the entire economy.
The job certainly produces more material benefits than pains, and at this point in time no computer program could fill in for an administrator.It still seems like something that could probably be reduced to a series of formulas eventually and have similar success.
>>544721 Economic theory has improved over the years. Humans are getting pretty good at it. We understand the theory behind every major crash. The problem is usually of oversight. It's hard to stop people from throwing money at a bubble and it's hard to find people doing unethical shit like giving out bad loans.
You're making an opinionated statement and acting like it's a fact when it's just your opinion. Bankers and anyone that makes money hand over fist are objectively being productive and in your words do not "in and of itself produce anything of value", when they objectively are by every definition. I mean, you're entitled to your opinion but you'r objectively wrong is what I'm saying.
>>544736 As I've said before, it's possible to make a lot of money without doing a net good for the world. Just take all the bankers giving out bad loans before the 2008 housing bubble. They understood the market was going to crash and that the people would be in debt for most of their lives but did it anyway and made lots of money off of it.
And I'm not talking about all bankers. I never was.
>>544744 This is your opinion. Your opinion of what's good and what's valuable. We've already established that you're objectively wrong, you cannot make money without making something of value because money itself is valuable.
Furthermore you're projecting your moral standards onto the world, these standards you must understand aren't objective, they're subjective and as such can change whenever you want them to. That makes them a crappy unit of measurement which is why no one cares about it.
As to some bankers being assholes? Yeah, some people are assholes and bankers tend to be people, so go figure, fucking magic I guess.
>>544732 >It's hard to stop people from throwing money at a bubble and it's hard to find people doing unethical shit like giving out bad loans Which is why it seems to me that we should just try to create computer programs with the top notch modern understanding of economy, give the money to the developers, programmers and white hat hackers behind the program and improve said system until modern banks are obsolete, or at least drastically reduced in relevance.
>>544775 Making decisions about what technologies are promising and what natural resources will make the most money over given time spans given limited survey information isn't something you can easily program for. If it was then humans would be out of the job in every field. I'm sure there are systems that could be automated though and I'm sure plenty already are.
>>544773 >You are defining "good" I'm not, like, at all. >as what makes money for an individual. No I'm not. I'm saying it's valuable.
You're also equating "making" with "stealing" which are too very different things as is "earning".
> But I have better criteria than that, like what benefits humanity as a whole. What benefits humanity and what is "better criteria" are both sobjective, so of course in your opinion your criteria would be better.
>>544791 >You're also equating "making" with "stealing" That's an absurd generalization unless you are simply failing to make the distinction between making money and making SOMETHING. Selling heroin makes money. It doesn't make anything though or serve a net good to humanity. Heroine hurting people is not subjective.
>>544799 There is no distinction, making money is making something. Stealing money isn't making money it's stealing it, someone else made it. And now you've gone to a ridiculous extreme, what does it matter if a drug dealer does or does not help the entirety of the human race with his job? We're talking about whether or not you can work at a high income job and not be leech but instead be a productive member of society to which the answer is unequivocally yes.
>>544813 It's a proof of concept. You can "make money" without doing good for the world as a whole. You know it's true.
Now you are going to make some generalization about how I've been saying all bankers are evil when I never said that. I'm simply stating the fact that it's possible to make a lot of money without doing any really net good for the world.
>>544833 You're moving the goalposts, it was about making something of value now you want every businessman to be a holy saint and philanthropist, you've essentially moved the goalpost all the way back to place you can't possibly be wrong. As to what you've said? You've said that: >>544594 >Making money does not in and of itself produce anything of value.
>>544569 >bankers, brokers, actors and the entire music industry >contributing to society
Implied that bankers, brokers, actors and the entire music industry don't contribute to society. You're shifting the goalposts anon, stop it.
>>544850 >You're moving the goalposts No, you were just making some absurd generalizaiton about what I was saying from the beginning. I said that making money doesn't necessarily produce anything of value for humanity as a whole. You or someone else has been trying to play off what I said as no one who makes money does good. Me simply repeating what I was originally saying isn't moving goalposts.
>>Making money does not in and of itself produce anything of value. And I stick by that. Maybe you are confused about what "in and of itself" means in this context.
>>544857 Anon, you literally made a generalization in both posts you quoted. YOU failed to communicate your point of view adequately because: >I said that making money doesn't necessarily produce anything of value for humanity as a whole Is objectively NOT what you wrote.
You wrote that later, you recanted, you shifted the goalpost.
>And I stick by that. >Maybe you are confused about what "in and of itself" means in this context. Then you need to repeat introductory English anon.
>>544885 If you're trying to say money has no intrinsic value you're right, if you're saying making something that has value in your society has not intrinsic value, you're wrong. Is there any reality in your head in which you're wrong?
>>544891 I've already given you several examples of how someone can earn money but not benefit humanity as a whole. At least we can agree on the meaning of "in and of itself". Maybe next time you won't jump to being condescension.
>>544895 >I've already given you several examples of how someone can earn money but not benefit humanity as a whole. We're not talking about that, that doesn't matter, it's utterly irrelevant. Nothing is beneficial to an entire species all the time to hold anything to that standard is pointless and makes you an idiot.
>At least we can agree on the meaning of "in and of itself". You didn't even clarify what you meant.
>Maybe next time you won't jump to being condescension. Maybe you'll learn how to write and express yourself properly and stop shifting goalposts when you get called out on saying stupid shit.
>>544902 >Nothing is beneficial to an entire species all the time to hold anything to that standard is pointless and makes you an idiot. A ridiculous generalization of what I was saying. Making a lamp benefits humanity as a whole. Making heroine or giving out lots of subprime loans does not.
>You didn't even clarify what you meant. I gave you synonyms.
>>544932 Christ, man. You don't need to samefag. I'm right here. I've given you multiple examples of how you can earn money without providing a net benefit to humanity by being as a whole more destructive than constructive.
>>535806 No there was a little ice age which killed all their crops in the homeland and made them too poor to waste resources by sending them west to the settlements. First vinland was abandoned, then greenland a number of years after.
>>535740 Colonisation would happen much slower or not at all, because there wouldn't all these gold trinkets lying around that had already been mined out. The lust for gold is what drove the initial wave of colonisation.
>>545291 >bundas ill give you that >cancha no idea what that is >chicha is not so great, or thats what i remember when i visited peru >huakas half of your huakas are destroyed m8, the locals dont give a shit about them >basketbal meh >pyramids egypt? >huayno huayno sucks >surfboarding ill give you that
Thread replies: 306 Thread images: 46
Thread DB ID: 405195
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.