129
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
129 points (89.1% liked)
Asklemmy
43465 readers
1385 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Not even gold is "real wealth". The value ascribed to gold is in essence the same as the value we ascribe to anything else.
It holds objective value whether humans decide it has value to them or not. It's useful for certain things and would be useful for other intelligent, technological creatures besides humans because those uses are objective -- its malleability, resistance to rusting and conductivity make it valuable outside of the perceived human experience.
Land is probably a better measure of objective, external value though. Let's go with land -- the real rich people are the landowners, as they're the ones who can call the shots by deciding whether you can even exist in certain areas or not.