3 ms·

> I'd certainly rather be an average person in this day and age than an average person in the stone age and I think most people would as well if they understood

> I'd certainly rather be an average person in this day and age than an average person in the stone age and I think most people would as well if they understood what it entailed. As would I, but you simply have no basis to expand this claim into "most people would rather be Joe the Plumber than Augustus" which is what the article author is attempting to do with a hodge-podge of anecdotal rhetoric.

Natsu 10y ago
I don't think I could live where I do without utter misery if it weren't for temperature-controlled housing, so at least personally, I'd rather be able to live in comfort as today than to be a king from ages past. Perhaps some would be attracted by, say, the authority of ancient rulers. But I'd much rather live comfortably in the modern age than claiming imperium sine fine, ordering men to die in the Colosseum, waging war against the Gauls, having a salad bear my name or whatever exactly it is about being Caesar that's supposed to be attractive.
- forgotpwtomain 10y ago
  > I don't think I could live where I do without utter misery if it weren't for temperature-controlled housing I doubt you would feel this way if you'd never heard of temperature controlled housing - that aside. > Perhaps some would be attracted by, say, the authority of ancient rulers. But I'd much rather live comfortably in the modern age than claiming imperium sine fine, ordering men to die in the Colosseum, waging war against the Gauls, having a salad bear my name or whatever exactly it is about being Caesar that's supposed to be attractive. I'm not at all disputing your particular preference, or mine, or the author's of the article, if you re-read my past comments the argument is the same: the particular preference for modern day-convenience of a single individual over say vast wealth/power != 'most ordinary Americans are richer than J.D. Rockefeller'. Now maybe most ordinary Americans really don't care for the same things you don't care for, maybe for them skype calls and modern health-care (even with the ridiculous US medical bills) is preferable to Rockefeller style wealth; but such a point should be supported with data, not "I think it's preferable so most Americans must also think so." This is terribly shoddy writing with no material (non-subjective) facts provided to support the argument and we should expect better on HN (whether we happen to subjectively nod to the opinion or not is really beside the point).
  - Natsu 10y ago
    Well, it really does if you don't take "richer" to mean "has more US dollars" (or whatever currency) and instead take it to mean "has a better quality of life." I don't find it particularly hard to prefer climate control, healthcare, etc. from the modern age to even the things from just 100 years ago, let alone further back. Maybe that should be supported better, but ...

Natsu 10y ago

I don't think I could live where I do without utter misery if it weren't for temperature-controlled housing, so at least personally, I'd rather be able to live in comfort as today than to be a king from ages past. Perhaps some would be attracted by, say, the authority of ancient rulers. But I'd much rather live comfortably in the modern age than claiming imperium sine fine, ordering men to die in the Colosseum, waging war against the Gauls, having a salad bear my name or whatever exactly it is about being Caesar that's supposed to be attractive.

forgotpwtomain 10y ago
> I don't think I could live where I do without utter misery if it weren't for temperature-controlled housing I doubt you would feel this way if you'd never heard of temperature controlled housing - that aside. > Perhaps some would be attracted by, say, the authority of ancient rulers. But I'd much rather live comfortably in the modern age than claiming imperium sine fine, ordering men to die in the Colosseum, waging war against the Gauls, having a salad bear my name or whatever exactly it is about being Caesar that's supposed to be attractive. I'm not at all disputing your particular preference, or mine, or the author's of the article, if you re-read my past comments the argument is the same: the particular preference for modern day-convenience of a single individual over say vast wealth/power != 'most ordinary Americans are richer than J.D. Rockefeller'. Now maybe most ordinary Americans really don't care for the same things you don't care for, maybe for them skype calls and modern health-care (even with the ridiculous US medical bills) is preferable to Rockefeller style wealth; but such a point should be supported with data, not "I think it's preferable so most Americans must also think so." This is terribly shoddy writing with no material (non-subjective) facts provided to support the argument and we should expect better on HN (whether we happen to subjectively nod to the opinion or not is really beside the point).
- Natsu 10y ago
  Well, it really does if you don't take "richer" to mean "has more US dollars" (or whatever currency) and instead take it to mean "has a better quality of life." I don't find it particularly hard to prefer climate control, healthcare, etc. from the modern age to even the things from just 100 years ago, let alone further back. Maybe that should be supported better, but ...