Leí aquí un artículo interesantísimo, y comenté esto:
Hello, I agree with you regarding the final message, ie. without particularized motivation, all Mensch tend towards sense-less actions.
I just wonder a few things:
· Did the learning from the natives end after 1620?
· What was the natives' economic system that made them a solid economy and a prosperous network of cities long before the Pillgrims?
· Was there any type of common goods production withstanding the family yields?
· Why are you assuming in your story-telling fabula that family equals a home-unit and not a network of neighbored relatives?
· Why are you calling "economic incentives" to a bunch of differenciated phenomenae? I understand it's a theoretical reduction, with didactical purposes, but it's not accurate in terms of the economic system shift you try to describe, and it leaves too many blanks regarding the characteristics the alleged system had.
· Do you really want to be verosimile about successful yields without taking in account any bridging technological gaps among pillgrims? I mean things like knowing how/when to plow, preserve and select seeds, preparing the land, balancing soil conditions for best possible growth, harvesting ways. Besides, how could individual learning be transposed to other individual experiences if not having a public facet? How do you imagine any "economic incentive" occuring without the proper "tooling"?
Hello, I agree with you regarding the final message, ie. without particularized motivation, all Mensch tend towards sense-less actions.
I just wonder a few things:
· Did the learning from the natives end after 1620?
· What was the natives' economic system that made them a solid economy and a prosperous network of cities long before the Pillgrims?
· Was there any type of common goods production withstanding the family yields?
· Why are you assuming in your story-telling fabula that family equals a home-unit and not a network of neighbored relatives?
· Why are you calling "economic incentives" to a bunch of differenciated phenomenae? I understand it's a theoretical reduction, with didactical purposes, but it's not accurate in terms of the economic system shift you try to describe, and it leaves too many blanks regarding the characteristics the alleged system had.
· Do you really want to be verosimile about successful yields without taking in account any bridging technological gaps among pillgrims? I mean things like knowing how/when to plow, preserve and select seeds, preparing the land, balancing soil conditions for best possible growth, harvesting ways. Besides, how could individual learning be transposed to other individual experiences if not having a public facet? How do you imagine any "economic incentive" occuring without the proper "tooling"?
