[SamoyedFurFluff]

We know statistically that economic depression, warfare, and disease don’t create toughness, resilience, etc. in society. The most economically depressed, war-torn, disease-ravaged countries are not known for being particularly resilient nor are they known for producing particularly wealthy subsequent generations.

[scottiebarnes]

How do we measure toughness, resilience, etc.? Is wealth the only metric of success?

Anecdotally, in my experience through athletics, I would describe groups of athletes from certain countries to be certainly tougher. They train harder, they endure more, they have less access to quality nutrition, medicine, equipment, etc. And yet they accomplish more despite having less. You can't phase or intimidate them because they've already endured far worse.

Ex: Dagestani wrestlers, Thai kick boxers.

So while this is a hyper-granular examination, the rewards are going to those "strong men" who endured "hard times". Of course there's a lot of selection bias going on here as well.

[brutusborn]

Can you clarify? I don't think you can say "we know statistically" about economic history. I'd call that epistemological arrogance.

[SamoyedFurFluff]

I mean, empirical evidence exists as it is now. We can look at the most wealthy countries and determine if they were the most impoverished ones a generation ago. We can look at the most impoverished nations and look if they were the wealthiest ones a generation ago.

[brutusborn]

Ah I see our point of difference, you are thinking of intergenerational change whereas I interpret the quote as multigenerational, societal change.

[SamoyedFurFluff]

If we look multigenerationally, the longest-living nations are still the nations that can maintain a high quality of life the longest. It is frankly nonsensical to say that nations fall because they reached a high point; of course they can only fall if they have someplace to fall from.