<div class="text-justify">

We had a "parenting night off" last night, as our daughter went to her Mummi and Pappa's place overnight. This is quite a rare occurrence for us and pretty much, we *wasted it* watching a movie and getting into bed early - it was great. We would have gone to the movies or out to dinner or something, but I don't have a vaccine passport or armband to wear, so am not allowed out in public. 

>We also went for a walk *on* the lake to test out our new outdoor winter gear - my first of this type really.

I have lived in Finland for 18 years now and while I do brave the winter weather, I tend to *make do* with what I have as much as possible and don't have much specialized clothing for the weather. Finns tend to have a whole range of clothes for every possible weather combination and slight variation in temperature, whilst mine are more like *warm, cold, fucking cold.*


![IMG_20211230_135042.jpg](https://files.peakd.com/file/peakd-hive/tarazkp/243qPnBCAndd9pD49javt37XVztyhJqQQBgHA42M3eUR13CEPxv3do9XBZ3cFPeHufV4b.jpg)


One of the reasons I haven't bought any gear though is that considering how often I would go out, I just couldn't warrant spending the money on it. Yesterday though and with the post-Christmas sales on, we went and bought a couple items - 2x pants, 2x jackets and a pair of gloves - *700€* - and that is with 50% off and a 10% staff discount that my wife gets. So, at full price, it would have been over 1500€ worth! 

*That is insane...*

But, at least on our hour test on the local stretch of lake, I could move well, was uniformly warm without freezing fingers, toes or ears and dry all over. That is a positive change, though I am going to have to go walking a *hell of a lot more* to feel like the cost was warranted. 

>I also looked the part - that matters, right?

It is interesting to me though, as I grew up in a very "make do" kind of family, especially for me as the 4th boy, meaning I got predominantly hand-me-downs from my older brothers, who grew up in a different decade and generation. *Looking the part* wasn't first and foremost on the minds of my parents, nor was having the right equipment for pretty much anything. However, since I didn't think that much of it at the time either, it did teach me how to stretch usecase further, compound abilities and workout ways for items to perform double duties.

I was thinking about this in terms of culture and imagination and I have always felt that Finns in general are pretty unimaginative. This doesn't mean they are untalented or skilled, but they tend to rely on what they learn and are told heavily, consume a lot of "reality" content (rather than fantasy) and are largely homogenous in thought and function. 

Some will see parts of this as adhering to tradition like the same Christmas dishes yearly, but I wonder how much of it comes through they way they consume in general, where they are not only all eating from the same pot, but what they are eating is tailored for the conditions to such a degree, that they never really have to think about alternatives. It is the kind of thing where most people would use a butter knife a the absence of a screwdriver, but a Finn will not fix it until they have bought the right tool for the job. 

*I might be exaggerating a little, but only a little.* 

In regards to myself, I wonder for example, how much of the way I write has been influenced by my childhood experience, meaning perhaps the reason that I am able to stretch across topics and combine multiple elements or have some aspects do double duty, is because this is what I have always had to do. Perhaps since necessity is the mother of invention, a lack of right tools to fulfil needs, *is the killer of convention.*

While I am far from the most talented at this, I was thinking about it in regards to other people too, where for example, a great many of the most successful entrepreneurs are school dropouts that didn't fit in with the conventions. Also, many of them come from families where they had to "make do" with a lot, forcing them into innovating through childhood. It was either, invent something, or having nothing to do.   

A lot of sportspeople come from poor backgrounds also and while the reason for their dedication often gets attributed to a *way out of poverty,* I wonder if a lack of "good alternatives" is part of that driving force also, where rather than having "tools" that grab their attention and never allow them to be bored, they have a stick, a ball and a few friends to play with. 

Yes, inheritance of wealth matters a lot for wealth creation in the future, but I wonder what the profile would like when it comes to individuals generating wealth, if the *inheritance factor* was removed. Would it be the people who came from wealth, or those who built from poverty that are the best at wealth generation? This probably can't be calculated of course, but it would then also be interesting to see what *kinds of traits* on average the two groups had. Are there creativity differences? What about resiliency? 

I think that these kinds of skills are key to generating wealth in many instances, but not necessarily for average wealth development. For example, the Finns have been (in general) pretty good at developing wealth to some kind of average standard, but the culture doesn't encourage or support extreme levels of wealth. As a result, there is quite an even (comparatively) distribution of wealth across the entire population, although this is changing also, as the "rules" are being forgotten and it is shifting into the global trend of debt accumulation through instant gratification.  

I think that in Finland, this "right tool" mentality has allowed them to build a relatively stable experience, but it is actually relatively new and was driven originally by necessity, with the lack pre and post wars. Now though, that same stability might be becoming a weakness as the world opens up and globalizes, as the competition they face is no longer just between themselves with a culture of homogeneity, it is against the rest of the world and the most creative people on earth. 

Competition is good, but it doesn't mean that it is good for everyone equally, as there are always going to be winners and losers. I think that this is part of the attraction of centralization, as once there is a monopoly, there can be more stability in most factors, but ultimately, the majority are going to suffer. But, this suffering is largely across the board, meaning people suffer equally. For a lot of people, they would prefer to be suffering with everyone else, than see *their neighbor* doing well. 

But, humanity and society are complex, and even when we are largely aligned in what we might want outcomes to be, there are always going to be conflicts in how to get there. This is obviously compounded as we start to interact even more heavily across cultures, and compounded even further once economic interactions are intertwined to create  host of new conflicts. Gone are the days where people are "patriotic" and willing to suffer for their country, because what the internet and the business models upon it have done, is erode the nation state to such a degree (already) that people are entering into the competition as individuals. 

However, most aren't "built" to compete at this level, since they haven't had to before. Regardless of a practical skillset someone has, if they don't have that "entrepreneurial spirit", they are going to struggle to compete globally. However, this is a good thing, especially in terms of decentralization and the business models that will be built upon it, as it encourages *communities to form* around business models that offer earning, rather than going it alone. 

This will lead to centralized experiences like Splinterlands building communities of "owner/users" who can earn on their activity by working together, without that centralized control of assets. This makes each business its own market place also, where the business has to look after its customer base as both investors and consumers, or risk having their attention lost to the competition. However, this is tempered by the ownership model, as while a consumer can just pick up and leave, an owner has financial components to consider, so has to play a more complex game.

The next decade of the combination of business, economy, consumption and culture is going to be highly disruptive in many ways and is going to bring in innovations that aren't even close to being considered yet. However, for the average individual, I think if there is one skill that will help them cope in the rapidly changing world, it will be resiliency and being able to make the most out of the resources available, which takes creativity. These things can be learned and improved, but unless one is surrounded by the conditions now, it might require "artificially" learning how to reinforce these skills, meaning taking some chances, rising some losses, reflecting on the future and putting some active skin in the game, rather than *finding the right tool of avoidance.*

I think that we are entering into a phase that is going to see the most rapid changes to our society that we have experienced thus far and as such, it is going to bring about a huge amount of conflict at every level of our experience and is going to disrupt our lives in many ways, impacting our behaviors, psychology and our emotional states. More complexities that will further "break" what we know and how we do things, so that making do with defaults, just won't do at all. 

Well, I should go for a walk outside, just to cost average the price of the clothing down against usage.

Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]


</div>

Posted Using [LeoFinance <sup>Beta</sup>](https://leofinance.io/@tarazkp/full-wealth-jacket)