In other words, the fact that thing A would “destroy of the economy if everyone did it” is an emergent property of everyone doing it, which doesn’t apply to any single entity doing thing A.
That guy said what I was pointing out. Also, it’s not a hyperbole, it would absolutely destroy the economy if everyone did the same thing regardless of what that thing is. Even if everyone decided eating chicken would be the only protein that we eat would destroy the economy. Which is why I added my edit. It’s not just about a profession, but anything, literally anything done in unison by every other human would wreck an economy.
Are you’re saying that if an economy has an increse the concentration of farming activity then economic ouput will deteriorate as fast as if it were to have instead had the same increase the concentration of parasitic activity? Very interesting idea.
Maybe I’m dense but the only way I can see that working is if the parasites become super-effective livestock and can be turned into food that is either more nutrious or has a longer shelflife than the feedstock.
Huh? I’m saying if everyone dropped whatever it is they normally do and instead all do the same exact thing, it would ruin an economy. We need diversity regardless of whatever else is happening. We couldn’t survive if everyone became farmers and no one become engineers. So ultimately, it’s a pointless statement to say if everyone did anything, such as landlording, the economy would be ruined.
What do you find hyperbolic about this? In fact, it’s not even the first time it would happen. Why aren’t there Dodo birds, or California red legged frogs? Why are we concerned about Blue fin tuna or sustainable seafood at all? We have a long history of humans deciding something is good and too many of us eat it, build on it, over fish it etc… How would land lording be any different or hyperbolic?
*Edit: And that’s without everyone doing it as the OP originally suggested.
it’s a pointless statement to say if everyone did anything
I was agreeing with this part, except that I think OP statement was ‘hyperbolic’ not ‘pointless’; an exageration for rhetorical effect.
What I think is pointless is taking hyperbole (and most rhetoric) at face value and arguing about it. It is better to try to determine the underlying point being made (there probably is one if you look hard enough or enquire about it) and think about some more realistic scenarios.
I don’t think the original point was about <hyperbole> the vulnerability of the economy of mauritius due to overconcentration of the dodo industry </hyperbole>; or, the sustainability of a street entirely owned by landlords. Maybe someone wants to <hyperbole> make some Ronald Coase type speculation about how property rights could have saved the dodo </hyperbole>.
The fact that landlording is bad and not a profession isn’t the point.
The point is that @MithranArkanere@lemmy.world’s argument failed to convincingly argue that because it was logically fallacious:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division
In other words, the fact that thing A would “destroy of the economy if everyone did it” is an emergent property of everyone doing it, which doesn’t apply to any single entity doing thing A.
Yes yes. Many people fail to accept hyperbole. You don’t need to explain that you don’t either.
That guy said what I was pointing out. Also, it’s not a hyperbole, it would absolutely destroy the economy if everyone did the same thing regardless of what that thing is. Even if everyone decided eating chicken would be the only protein that we eat would destroy the economy. Which is why I added my edit. It’s not just about a profession, but anything, literally anything done in unison by every other human would wreck an economy.
Are you’re saying that if an economy has an increse the concentration of farming activity then economic ouput will deteriorate as fast as if it were to have instead had the same increase the concentration of parasitic activity? Very interesting idea.
Maybe I’m dense but the only way I can see that working is if the parasites become super-effective livestock and can be turned into food that is either more nutrious or has a longer shelflife than the feedstock.
Huh? I’m saying if everyone dropped whatever it is they normally do and instead all do the same exact thing, it would ruin an economy. We need diversity regardless of whatever else is happening. We couldn’t survive if everyone became farmers and no one become engineers. So ultimately, it’s a pointless statement to say if everyone did anything, such as landlording, the economy would be ruined.
ok, nice and realistic. No hyperbole here.
What do you find hyperbolic about this? In fact, it’s not even the first time it would happen. Why aren’t there Dodo birds, or California red legged frogs? Why are we concerned about Blue fin tuna or sustainable seafood at all? We have a long history of humans deciding something is good and too many of us eat it, build on it, over fish it etc… How would land lording be any different or hyperbolic?
*Edit: And that’s without everyone doing it as the OP originally suggested.
I was agreeing with this part, except that I think OP statement was ‘hyperbolic’ not ‘pointless’; an exageration for rhetorical effect.
What I think is pointless is taking hyperbole (and most rhetoric) at face value and arguing about it. It is better to try to determine the underlying point being made (there probably is one if you look hard enough or enquire about it) and think about some more realistic scenarios.
I don’t think the original point was about <hyperbole> the vulnerability of the economy of mauritius due to overconcentration of the dodo industry </hyperbole>; or, the sustainability of a street entirely owned by landlords. Maybe someone wants to <hyperbole> make some Ronald Coase type speculation about how property rights could have saved the dodo </hyperbole>.
Tangentially related: this comment chain reminded me of the categorical imperative (the first formulation in that article)