Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Formal proof of Capitalism's prosperity?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

In Ayn Rand's works it is de rigueur that Capitalism (here defined as a political system whose primary purpose the protection of individual rights) necessarily leads to two things. First, it will lead greater aggregate prosperity e.g. increased national output, technological progress, etc. Second, that it will be universally positive for all (or even most) honest participants, and that people will necessarily have upward mobility, etc.

 

My question is, has anybody ever formally proven the above, basing the proof on first principles?

 

Remember that all we know about Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics and (abstract) Politics can be perfectly true without the above being proven, or even being proven false. In other words, if Capitalism made us poorer, or screwed over a small number of honest individuals through no fault of their own, then that still wouldn't matter: Capitalism would still, logically, be the only moral system.

 

Ayn Rand purposefully did not cover this in her works, wherein she stopped at defining the proper system, not analyzing its aggregate effects (even though she clearly made reference a lot to the presumed conclusions of said analysis).

 

Has somebody else taken on this task?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand never viewed capitalism from the collectivist point of view of common good. Capitalism by her definition is a socioeconomic system based on individual rights where all property is privately own. In other words, for Ayn Rand capitalism  first of all is a moral system which befits and benefits the rational individual. Since society doesn't  exists as a physical entity but in fact simply a collection of individuals who interact with each other, a system which benefits each and every individual will benefit society as a whole. This is not a primary moral justification of capitalism, but one can take it as a formal logical proof that capitalism will necessarily lead to the greater prosperity of society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Ayn Rand's works it is de rigueur that Capitalism (here defined as a political system whose primary purpose the protection of individual rights) necessarily leads to two things. First, it will lead greater aggregate prosperity e.g. increased national output, technological progress, etc. Second, that it will be universally positive for all (or even most) honest participants, and that people will necessarily have upward mobility, etc.

 

My question is, has anybody ever formally proven the above, basing the proof on first principles?

 

Remember that all we know about Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics and (abstract) Politics can be perfectly true without the above being proven, or even being proven false. In other words, if Capitalism made us poorer, or screwed over a small number of honest individuals through no fault of their own, then that still wouldn't matter: Capitalism would still, logically, be the only moral system.

 

Ayn Rand purposefully did not cover this in her works, wherein she stopped at defining the proper system, not analyzing its aggregate effects (even though she clearly made reference a lot to the presumed conclusions of said analysis).

 

Has somebody else taken on this task?

 

Quite simply, because this isn't a "proof from first principles" kind of question.  This can only be answered by the empirical record of relatively free economies versus that of controlled economies.  Rand herself said that it would have been nearly impossible to come to the conclusions that she did prior to the industrial revolution; i.e. prior to the first major empirical demonstration of the productive power of the human mind in a (relatively) free context.  This is a historical and empirical question, and the case for capitalism's ability to generate prosperity has been aptly made by many different economists and historians (and not simply Objectivists).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other eases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it." Wealth of Nations 

That was written by Adam Smith in the year 1776, clearly before full Industrial revolution took place. Yet he concluded that a work motivated by self-interest benefits the individual and society. He also observed that "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember that all we know about Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics and (abstract) Politics can be perfectly true without the above being proven, or even being proven false. In other words, if Capitalism made us poorer, or screwed over a small number of honest individuals through no fault of their own, then that still wouldn't matter: Capitalism would still, logically, be the only moral system.

 

Capitalism is the applications of ethics to politics and derived from the nature of man.  It would be a contradiction to claim that the nature of man requires a system of living that makes that life harder.  You simply wouldn't choose it if that was the result.  Economic liberty is the moral system because it does make life possible in the full sense of that word – To allows you to thrive. 

 

If you are looking for first case results, which I take it to mean ostensive proof with no critical review, then you need to merely look at the countries of the world that represent the extremes of the issue.  Communist countries are a joke while economies that are freer support a higher quality of life. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite simply, because this isn't a "proof from first principles" kind of question.  This can only be answered by the empirical record of relatively free economies versus that of controlled economies.  Rand herself said that it would have been nearly impossible to come to the conclusions that she did prior to the industrial revolution; i.e. prior to the first major empirical demonstration of the productive power of the human mind in a (relatively) free context.  This is a historical and empirical question, and the case for capitalism's ability to generate prosperity has been aptly made by many different economists and historians (and not simply Objectivists).

 

So you are saying that Ayn Rand took capitalism as a self-evident primary and then proceeded to derive Ethics etc. accordingly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are saying that Ayn Rand took capitalism as a self-evident primary and then proceeded to derive Ethics etc. accordingly?

 

Reading comprehension's not so good, huh?  The Industrial Revolution is an illustration of the productive power of man's mind under a relatively free system, not a proof.  Rand's derivation of her ethical system is clearly spelled out in her work; the fact that she was inspired by historical examples does not eliminate the derivation that she put down in writing for her ethics.

 

The inspiration for Einstein's theory of relativity was his imagination of what it would be like to ride on the crest of a light wave.  By your logic, that must have been all the support his theory had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading comprehension's not so good, huh?  The Industrial Revolution is an illustration of the productive power of man's mind under a relatively free system, not a proof.  Rand's derivation of her ethical system is clearly spelled out in her work; the fact that she was inspired by historical examples does not eliminate the derivation that she put down in writing for her ethics.

 

The inspiration for Einstein's theory of relativity was his imagination of what it would be like to ride on the crest of a light wave.  By your logic, that must have been all the support his theory had.

 

No reason to be hostile.

 

There's a big difference between observing something ("there's a little twinkly light in the sky") and understanding it ("it's a star that's 27 light years away, it's made out of hydrogen and other gasses, etc. etc.").

 

Yes, Ayn Rand observed the IR, and took it's success as empirical evidence. I think I implied as much in my original post. She did not offer an explanation why pure freedom (which she readily admits has never been tried) necessarily leads to greater aggregate prosperity. She guessed that it would based on our past experience, that is all.

 

However, given her bottoms-up proof of Capitalism (here defined as a system that protects individual rights), this analysis was not necessary. In other words, to Ayn Rand, if you proved that Capitalism does not lead to aggregate growth and progress, her response would have to be, "so what". Compelling people against their will is wrong, even if there are broader "downsides" to this (which aren't "downsides" anymore than our inability live to 1000 years is a "downside" to being human--it's just nature which we must accept as true).

 

So Ayn Rand, as I said in my first post, did not cover this question. She did not attempt to analyze capitalism as a political system in detail to connect exactly why it works (or whether it works, or where it works). I'm wondering if anybody post-Ayn Rand has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't usually post anymore, because I have a habit of posting poorly thought out ideas. However...

 

George Reismann is an economist who was heavily influenced by Rand and Mises. He wrote a giant book about Capitalism, so I would look at that. 

 

 

It is the basic, metaphysical fact of man’s nature—the connection between his survival and his use of reason—that capitalism recognizes and protects.

In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate. They can deal with one another only in terms of and by means of reason, i.e., by means of discussion, persuasion, and contractual agreement, by voluntary choice to mutual benefit. The right to agree with others is not a problem in any society; it is the right to disagree that is crucial. It is the institution of private property that protects and implements the right to disagree—and thus keeps the road open to man’s most valuable attribute (valuable personally, socially, and objectively): the creative mind.

 

From what I understand, she was using this as her criteria, that private property and individual rights were the only sane way to approach civilization, and anything else is kind of insane. I think if you wanted to argue philosophically for another system, you would do so arguing from this perspective. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't usually post anymore, because I have a habit of posting poorly thought out ideas. However...

 

George Reismann is an economist who was heavily influenced by Rand and Mises. He wrote a giant book about Capitalism, so I would look at that. 

 

 

It is the basic, metaphysical fact of man’s nature—the connection between his survival and his use of reason—that capitalism recognizes and protects.

In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate. They can deal with one another only in terms of and by means of reason, i.e., by means of discussion, persuasion, and contractual agreement, by voluntary choice to mutual benefit. The right to agree with others is not a problem in any society; it is the right to disagree that is crucial. It is the institution of private property that protects and implements the right to disagree—and thus keeps the road open to man’s most valuable attribute (valuable personally, socially, and objectively): the creative mind.

 

From what I understand, she was using this as her criteria, that private property and individual rights were the only sane way to approach civilization, and anything else is kind of insane. I think if you wanted to argue philosophically for another system, you would do so arguing from this perspective. 

 

Yes, I met George and his wife a long time ago :-).

 

Here again this follows the line of reasoning we're all used to: that capitalism is the only moral system. What I would like to find is why the moral system necessarily means it's the most prosperous system in aggregate, and will always lead to the social mobility that the spirit of capitalism seems to embody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you want to examine economics. Philosophy doesn't tell you how economies function.

 

Yes, and I wondered whether this should have been posted under economics. However, to me there's a more abstract, Politics-level question here: does pure Capitalism lead to greater prosperity? How do we know?

 

Note that "pure" capitalism has never been tried, and all of our positive examples occurred within mixed economies, and that mix certainly doesn't make the case since the 1950s were arguably a much more regulated time than many eras before with a lot less growth. Etc. Etc.

 

Based on non-conclusive evidence, it's natural to look for the root cause. It seems to me, the only way we can know for sure--and indeed understand exactly how it works (for, there are a lot of "implementation details" when it comes to creating a functioning political system), is to show the logical connection between the perfectly consistent protection of individual rights and greater aggregate prosperity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and I wondered whether this should have been posted under economics. However, to me there's a more abstract, Politics-level question here: does pure Capitalism lead to greater prosperity? How do we know?

 

Note that "pure" capitalism has never been tried, and all of our positive examples occurred within mixed economies, and that mix certainly doesn't make the case since the 1950s were arguably a much more regulated time than many eras before with a lot less growth. Etc. Etc.

 

Based on non-conclusive evidence, it's natural to look for the root cause. It seems to me, the only way we can know for sure--and indeed understand exactly how it works (for, there are a lot of "implementation details" when it comes to creating a functioning political system), is to show the logical connection between the perfectly consistent protection of individual rights and greater aggregate prosperity.

 

 

Greater aggregate prosperity is irrelevant.

 

Focusing on the ends is dangerous with those (general public) already predisposed to pragmatism and justifying means (immoral ones) by the ends.  Speaking of Capitalism in these terms makes us look like we are ALSO trying to justify the means (the system) by the ends - purported prosperity.

 

In fact Objectivism is focused on the individual and which system is best most moral most just etc, for that individual.

 

To name but a few principles, justice, honesty, independence are all something undermined by the concept of "aggregate" prosperity being a goal.  Imagine a villainous hybrid system that allowed people of moderate to high moral and intellectual capacity to act on their own volition but forced people (I mean literally forced like some sort of involuntary rehab... not merely persuasion but force) of objectively low intellect and low motivated self-destructive people to educate themselves, to get healthy, to become rational, to reform themselves, and then to work.  Such a system might very well lead to even greater "prosperity" than Capitalism but it would in no way be morally superior due to the use of force against the self destructive and hopeless.  In a truly free society people are permitted to be self-destructive, to be irrational, to be non-prosperous.  To the extent that the freedom of some people to be self-destructive and non-prosperous is interfered with (as in the example) "aggregate" prosperity can be raised.  This however is not moral.

 

 

Perhaps "potential for moral individual prosperity" is the kind of result of capitalism we should try to demonstrate.

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greater aggregate prosperity is irrelevant.

 

If "aggregate" prosperity is raised, then I would question if the supposed system is the moral one and that I was mistaken about capitalism. Objectivism isn't a philosophy where the moral thing to do has inferior results to the immoral thing. So if there really was greater prosperity across the board and for yourself, to me that suggests capitalism is not a superior system. Usually pro-capitalist argument of the Objectivist sort are that non-capitalist systems are unsustainable by their very nature so can't ever be a raise in prosperity for anyone. But Rand didn't reach the idea that capitalism is the ideal system from first principles. As Dante was saying, it's mostly an empirical question that can't be answered by simply a priori principles of morality. As best as we know, capitalism is the best based upon ideas of what fundamentally allowed for greater prosperity after the industrial revolution, i.e. individual rights.

 

You seem to be saying: I don't care about the consequences of capitalism, it's morally right based upon individual rights.

Rand seemed to be saying: Capitalism brings about the greatest prosperity, which is good for me. What is good for me is moral. The morally good part is actually what leads to the prosperity.

 

If someone discovered greater prosperity from non-capitalist systems, then Rand's arguments for capitalism would be ruined. Doesn't invalidate egoism, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greater aggregate prosperity is irrelevant.

 

Well yes, and you are underscoring a sub-point I made. Qua Ayn Rand and Objectivism--as I pointed out above--aggregate outcomes are completely irrelevant. Capitalism is the moral system, even if it leads to aggregate economic stagnation.

 

The problem is, every single politician (and even politically-motivated intellectuals like Harry Binswanger) talk exclusively about Capitalism's practical benefits, not it's moral foundation. I daresay I quick survey of this Forum would show that as well. Everybody talks about Capitalism as the practical system that will make everybody rich, allow everybody a chance at riches, etc. etc. We blame every aggregate setback on the absence of Capitalism thus implying that Capitalism is the answer to all of these "problems". All with absolutely zero intellectual foundation.

 

Yes, many people here get it, but most don't.

 

Or, if there's actually an intellectual foundation somewhere for a logical connection between aggregate positive outcomes and individual rights, I'm all ears. Such a work would be very, very powerful politically...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]

Rand seemed to be saying: Capitalism brings about the greatest prosperity, which is good for me. What is good for me is moral. The morally good part is actually what leads to the prosperity.

 

If someone discovered greater prosperity from non-capitalist systems, then Rand's arguments for capitalism would be ruined. Doesn't invalidate egoism, though.

 

I'm not sure Ayn Rand would really put things that way, and I think we're all in agreement that she'd be the first to say that practical aggregate outcomes are irrelevant since Capitalism (again, defined here as a system which consistently protects Individual Rights) is the only moral system.

 

Perhaps a way to put it is that she was inspired by the relative freedom in the USA, turned her attention to philosophy, discovered the roots of Morality, discovered the principles of Individual Rights based on that Morality, and then noticed that the resultant system was very much like Capitalism as most knew it and proceed to be an advocate of that system because it was the closest thing to the ideal system. I think she engaged in a leap of faith (or maybe, an educated guess) that capitalism would also do all of these other popular things like make everybody richer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps one could perform an analysis thusly (for a non-economist average man):

 

1.  Identify what are the "supposed" ills and drawbacks (flaws) to prosperity in a Capitalist system as identified by a Naysayer.

 

2.  Attempt to get an admission that the Naysayer at least believes that Capitalism does promote overall prosperity generally, except for those "flaws" identified by the naysayer. 

 

3.  Try to show that the "flaws" are a consequence of reality and justice (the naysayer may not buy it...), proceed to get some sort of admission as to the personal interest the naysayer has in the ills being fixed (insofar as the naysayer has identified an "interest" in the drawbacks being fixed),

 

4.  Address, identify, define, that personal interest in insofar as that interest is moral, advocate taking responsibility for that interest, and address the economic opportunities in that interest, as a freely acting individual.

 

5.  Conclude that in a truly free capitalist society, multitudes of others with the same moral economic interest, will be able to freely address those ills and drawbacks, in a mutually beneficial way, while maintaining non-interference with the parts of Capitalism which are not ills or drawbacks to prosperity.

 

 

You will note, this argument does depend on first showing Capitalism is mostly the most prosperous system, then showing that to the extent that it allegedly flawed, it is the "best" system for encouraging correction of those "flaws" in a moral way.  The problem inherent in this approach is that it cannot counter Mysticism and Altruism as such and hence will likely not be effective with a mystic or an altruist.

 

 

An example scenario for economic interest would be for example microloans to the potentially productive, for education and counselling, with a payback of interest (and gratitude) upon the persons gaining a life of productivity and rationality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or, if there's actually an intellectual foundation somewhere for a logical connection between aggregate positive outcomes and individual rights, I'm all ears. Such a work would be very, very powerful politically...

 

The issue might be right here (I bolded it) since you are asking for a collective sum justification of an individual ethical standard.  Under Objectivism and the spiral theory of knowledge, objectivity is a process of taking the essentials of facts, integrating, returning to fact check against reality to wash, rinse, and repeat in expanding circles of connected knowledge.   Objectivism as a process does not connect individual actions to collective results.  They simply don’t cross paths.  It would connect individual results to individual actions however so that would be the better starting point. 

 

I’ll save a follow up to the actual proof of prosperity for another post later since this is an important point I suspect is causing the disconnect between yourself and others. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue might be right here (I bolded it) since you are asking for a collective sum justification of an individual ethical standard.  Under Objectivism and the spiral theory of knowledge, objectivity is a process of taking the essentials of facts, integrating, returning to fact check against reality to wash, rinse, and repeat in expanding circles of connected knowledge.   Objectivism as a process does not connect individual actions to collective results.  They simply don’t cross paths.  It would connect individual results to individual actions however so that would be the better starting point. 

 

I am not asking for a, "sum justification of an individual ethical standard". I don't see how you could have read that into what I wrote. As a matter of fact I feel like I've repeated myself many times here trying to say that is not what I am after, and to be sure the entire premise of my post is the non-asking of that question. Capitalism is the only moral system, and morality is based on the nature of man and our objective interpretation of same. Nobody disputes that.

 

 

I’ll save a follow up to the actual proof of prosperity for another post later since this is an important point I suspect is causing the disconnect between yourself and others. 

 

 

Er uh... yeah, that is exactly what I am asking about. I'm glad you see what I was asking about right after you didn't :-).

 

And yes, it is important...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To get proof on a societal level, your simply need to look at any country in the proper context of its history as well as determine what the yard stick for prosperity is. This might be crucial to you if you’re debating someone else on this, which I’m assuming since you said it is important. 

 

A good thing to do, if you want to remove the geographic and culture assertions of “unfairness” (which are just that – ask Hong Kong) is compare two countries that are close together.  East vs. West Germany during the cold war is a great example since the East German economy was 40% of Western Germany at the time of unification.    

 

A modern example would be South versus North Korea:

 

  • South Korea's GDP (purchasing power parity) is $1,622 billion.
  • North Korea's is $40 billion.
  • South Korea's GDP (real growth rate) is 2.7%.
  • In the North it is 0.8%.
  • The GDP per capita is $32,400 in South Korea.
  • In the North it is just $1,800.
  • South Korea exports total $552.6 billion
  • The North's are just $4.71 billion.
  • For every 1,000 live births in South Korea, 4.08 of the infants die on average.
  • In the North, 26.21 die.
  • Life expectancy in the South is 79.3 years.
  • In the North it is ten years less at 69.2.
  • 81.5% of South Korea has access to the Internet.
  • Less than 0.1% of North Koreans do.
  • The intentional homicide rate per 100,000 people is 2.6 in the South.
  • In North Korea it is 15.2.
  • The BBC reports that North Koreans tend to be 1.2 - 3.1 inches shorter than their South Korean counterparts.

There are many examples however depending on how you want to stock pile information.  I do not have the time to hunt all of this down since I’m on break but if you need ammo, here you go!

 

  • You can plot the rapid increase in life expectancy post Industrial Revolution. 
  • You can go classic with the Weimar Republic vs. Austria in the 20’s and show the monetary and economic policy differences. 
  • You can track China’s modern boom by plotting it along the time frame from when they eased some regulations. 
  • Look at Cambodia pre and post revolution.  Yikes.  If you ignore the horror of the revolution you’ll see an economy in the Bronze Age for the span of the regime.  That is no joke – It was that bad.  It is the number one reason I have no toleration for egalitarianism. 
  • You can plot Cuba’s decline to when they effectively froze their country in the 50’s post revolution.  You have to look at pre and post revolution numbers then remember that, no matter how bad it looks, they are better than they should be since the Soviets basically fed the country until 1990. 
  • An interesting case study is India versus Hong Kong from post WWII to the 90’s.  Hong Kong has little real estate but has had incredible growth over the years due to economic liberty, but is ironically not a democracy (it was a British territory that was largely left to manage itself), while India is a democracy with loads of resources but a socialized mess of an economy that lived in abject poverty till the 90’s when they finally started westernizing to some extent.  It is shocking how far Hong Kong outpaced India which had all the materials but none of the freedom to succeed. 

 

Hope that helps. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So this demonstrates that a mixed economy is far more prosperous than a totalitarian regime. I doubt even your average mainstream Democrat would dispute that. The more finely you slice the problem, the more you run up against the old adage that "correlation does not imply causality". Comparing North/South Korea is pretty easy, but comparing Germany to France is another story. Clearly externalities start to play a decisive role closer to the margin.

 

Maybe another way to pose this whole question is, how do you defend against a mixed economy on "practical" grounds--i.e. without reference to morality, but in reference to general prosperity, upward mobility, etc.? Again, for the Nth time here, I know Ayn Rand would not do that, but we all know that virtually everybody, including influential Objectivists, else do. We all like to talk about the wondrous prosperity that pure Capitalism would bring if it were ever actually tried. We all like to say that the "moral is necessarily the practical". The problem is, I don't know how to do that with a lot of hand-waving. With this limitation, it's impossible to have much of a commentary about events within our mixed economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are asking about "better" results for the aggregate. But note two points.

 

1. The terms "better or worse" or "universal positive or negative" or "greater or inferior" presuppose a value system. But it is objectivism that demonstrates philosophically how values are grounded.

 

2. As it has been pointed out, there is no such thing in reality as a "society." It is an abstraction that helps us conceptualize individual people working and living together. An individual exists in reality, not a society as such.

 

These points taken together show that if you allow for an economic system that provides the objectively best values to individuals, then the debate is over -- you have, by default, provided the best system for the abstracted "society" by providing that for the real, existing individuals.

 

What you seem to be asking (or hung up on) is the idea that if Person A has a lot of money and wealth and a great means of providing for his needs, then that by itself is "good." But what if Person A got that money by stealing and killing from others? Could you say in that case that it is good for Person A to have money to provide for his needs? Not based on objective moral value. It's bad. So if you could show that the "aggregate" of people could provide for their needs, but they had to do objectively immoral things to do so, then no, it is not a "good" thing. 

 

Another way to put this issue is this way:

 

1. The best way for me to survive is to give me the freedom to do the things I need to do to survive, including gathering materials for food, shelter, warmth, protection, comfort, etc.

 

2. A natural corollary to Point 1 is  that I must be given the freedom to trade with others so that I can gain the things I need and want for survival and thriving. 

 

3. Any system that restricts my ability to gather and/or trade for materials for my own survival and thriving is objectively bad for me.

 

4. Any system that restricts others from their ability to gather and/or trade for materials is also objectively bad for me, because it limits the people I can trade with and the resources I can trade for.

 

5. Therefore, the free market economic system is by default the best economic system for the "aggregate" participating in it. Any other system, by definition, limits trading ability, and therefore limits individuals' ability to survive and thrive. 

Edited by secondhander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...