|
"I've picked up Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations again. In the early chapters he explains the division the labor as an obvious development from individuals being better at producing certain things (like arrows) in hunter/gatherer societies."-KE
"It doesn't seem as though it is as easily explained as saying people have different skills."-KE
"What was the catalyst that changed hunter/gatherer societies with social theories of property into producing societies with theories of individual property rights"-KE
"It’s obvious."-Cr
"Conditions have to be ripe for things to happen"-Ku
"The Comanches ranged from Wyoming to South Texas, starving and freezing as they went along, so they were more open to adopting innovations from a foriegn society like metal tools, horse culture,etc"-KV
"Outside contact, a changing ecosystem, a shortage of resources -- something must act as a catalyst toward progress."-GS
"only some form of pressure will cause the transformation"-KE
"Once one society comes in contact with another, it discovers things that other society innovated, and offers what it has innovated in trade. So innovation and product become prized."-KV
"This leads me to wonder if Smith is overstating his case. Is he blinded by his own society and only sees the advantages of dividing labor and does not have a hunter/gatherer society in the immediate vicinity with which he could make a realistic comparison."-KE
"This explanation is obviously flawed."-KE
"Necessity is the mother of invention -- or adaptation. As long as living conditions are harmonious and comfortable there is no need for fundamental change."-GS
All that plus "the Man" keepin me down
Last edited by A264172; 11-12-2004 at 12:01 AM.
|