undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjp55510y ago0 comments

> assuming everything else has zero value

Ah, so if you ignore almost everything, you have a point. Like, for example 99% of the people on the planet. Because there is no way a hunter-gatherer system could support our population.

Not to mention I for one think not dying of the common cold has quite a lot of value.

0 comments

Retric10y ago

No, I am dramatically understating the value of the average person from 10,000 years ago not the other way around.

Child care for example has actual value which is part of current US GDP. A bow, tent, or clothing constructed using methods from 10,000 years ago has real world value today. But, I am calling all that 0 and just looking at food.

Also, this is per capita GDP, having more people does not mean peoples standards of living automatically increases.

PS: The common cold was not an issue back then as the population was to low to spread it around. In fact a large chunk of diseases only showed up as population density increased.

adamc10y ago

True of communicable diseases to a great extent, but not, for example, diseases of aging or birth defects.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse