Comments
Follow Comments Sorted by time
bethorien
· 3 years ago
· FIRST
The rarity part is technically correct in that, if you select any random place in the universe it’s far more likely that point has a diamond than it has wood, however, the value part is incorrect. Value isn’t something that’s intrinsic to an object, it’s entirely decided by what people think, masses opinion is fact in regard to the value of an object. People consider diamond to be worth more than an equal amount of wood therefor it is more valueable than wood.
1
bethorien
· 3 years ago
and just to clarify on the rarity part being technically correct rather than fully correct, rarity doesnt have an absolute way of measuring it, one could just as easily measure the rarity of an object by looking at its average accessability to any given living sentient being. How rare is X thing on average to any living thing compared to how rare is Y thing on average for any given living being. That measure would very likely show that, assuming you consider organic material grown by something similar to a tree elsewhere from earth to be "wood" that wood would still be far more accessible on average.
1
