[tspike]

No, but the way we measure value is so flawed that it can seem that way.

Consider how we define poverty.

Suppose we discover an as-yet unknown group of people who have been using traditional farming methods to sustain themselves in the same area for thousands of years.

How would you classify them economically? Are they in "abject poverty", the same as a group whose traditional means of sustenance have been destroyed and who rely on international aid? What distinction do we make?

[Nasrudith]

As a very low but presumably stable level of income of course. Almost certainly would be abject poverty if they still had a small population after thousands of years along with presumambly genetic issues from isolation and a population size small enough to not be detected. That classification would be vwey correct despite having first world romanticized "sustainable farming" and "traditional means of sustance". They would still certainly lack things like modern medicine let alone other tools like "iron farm implements" that they would have very poor ability to purchase.

[tspike]

I suppose the value judgment is between "very low but presumably stable income with small positive net worth" versus "very high but extremely unstable with massively negative net worth."