10 ms·

This is common to all periods of the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past

This is common to all periods of the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(P... Today, we take for granted that the production of each individual is greatly improved by machinery. We own multiple items of clothing, eat a varied diet, and live in homes of concrete heated and cooled by electricity. And this description applies to upcoming economies like Ukraine. If you take the example of what a feudal Russian lived in the 1700, many built their own homes out of wood using an axe and wood from the forest, they would buy fabric and furs but had to make and mend their own clothes, they would hunt and work the land of their lord for sustinence. Their diet was restricted to seasons and death by famine and disease was rampant. The few coins they could accumulate went towards the purchase of must haves (metal tools, basic textiles, a furnace, and luxuries like animals). In winter, they would sleep on top of their furnace for heat, and their home was filled with smoke. Urban centres were no different. The 1000sqft apartments we have today are 5-10x the size of dwellings in London or Paris during the same period. You can see this visiting the ruins of Rome too. Life was tough but we forget how tough it was because most of us idealize the simpler times of the past.

tome 9y ago
People lived in 100sqft apartments?
- vmarsy 9y ago
  People today still? In Paris, Chambre de bonnes "must have a minimum surface area of 9 m2"[1]. That's 96.87 sqft. "The rooms usually have a surface area of around 6–12 m2" (65 to 129 sqft) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chambre_de_bonne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chambre_de_bonne
  - tome 9y ago
    Well OK, but that goes somewhat against my parent comment who was trying to show that things were worse then!
    - ido 9y ago
      At least in Vienna and Berlin a lot of modern small 1-2 BR apartments are the same apartments that 100+ years ago housed a whole family (or 2!). For example we (2 adults + 1 toddler) live in an old 70m^2 (750 square feet) apartment that's built in a way suggesting it originally housed 2 families in the 2 large rooms (what we now use as 1 bedroom and 1 living-room) and shared the kitchen/bathroom. So it is very likely 8+ people lived here, and it is now considered small for the 3 of us. The apartment building is from either the late 19th century or early 20th century. I imagine a lot of these tiny "single-person" apartments in Paris used to house a lot more than 1 person 100+ years ago.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    I recently stayed in an AirBnB studio in Paris smaller than 9m². The toilet was shared among the five studios on the same floor.
    - TomMarius 9y ago
      So it was a private room?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- ppeetteerr 9y ago
  They still do today. Perhaps the average apartment in Paris was more like 200-250sqft, but living conditions were greatly worse off than today.
kristianp 9y ago
Makes you wonder if Hunter gatherer times were better. Due to the much lower population densities than feudal times there would have been less famine I imagine.
- ppeetteerr 9y ago
  It really depends on where the people lived. Iceland survived for 1000 years on a diet of some root vegetables, fish, milk and mammals. I would not wish their existence on anyone today. People in warmer climates would have a better diet but it's clear that agriculture and husbandry were historically more desirable over pure hunting and gathering, even in warmer regions like Egypt.
  - cgh 9y ago
    That Icelandic diet sounds pretty similar to how I eat today. What's unhealthy about it?
    - ppeetteerr 9y ago
      It's not the same cooking you've come to expect. There is a whole wikipedia entry on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_cuisine#Medieval_Iceland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_cuisine#Medieval_Ice...
    - Eric_WVGG 9y ago
      I assume your response is coming from a low-carb/paleo perspective? No leafy greens or vitamin-rich vegetables. The vegetables that are there (root vegetables) are carby and not especially nutritious. Huge vitamin deficiency across the board.
      - cgh 9y ago
        That is simply incorrect. For example, beef liver is about twenty times more nutritious than fruit by mass. My original question was a bit cheeky as I already knew the answer.
josteink 9y ago
> The 1000sqft apartments we have today For people in the SI-world (most of the world) confused by this imperial-speak, this roughly equates to 93 square meters.
- semi-extrinsic 9y ago
  This example clearly illustrates a superior point of basically all Freedom Units: you get more of them. More is more better.
  - ojm 9y ago
    You get less inches than cm. Less miles than km. Not so free after all!
    - duncan_bayne 9y ago
      I was going to reply "fewer inches!" but then I realised that inches are (at least in principle) not discrete; half an inch is a perfectly reasonable measurement. Anyone here know which of "less inches" or "fewer inches" is grammatically correct?
      - skj 9y ago
        "fewer" is for things you can count. Less length, but fewer inches.
  - dom0 9y ago
    > More is more better ... that's just simple science!
  - norikki 9y ago
    In the spirit of standardization, I think all systems of speaking besides American English should be made illegal in all countries. That way, no one will have to pay translators to unnecessarily switch back and forth between equivalent languages, or have to put up with any of those stupid British accents. You can't deny the economic advantages of this. Who cares about losing cultural heritage? That's just for obstructionists like those filthy Americans. /s
bamboozled 9y ago
I enjoyed how you've painted a bleak view of the past, not mention any of the nice things about times gone by and then pretend people longing for simpler times is a kind of ignorance. You believe western civilisation has come a long way from the cesspool it mostly has been, while neglecting to think about the true cost of our material wealth, which is has resulted in much destruction of the natural world.
- Kiro 9y ago
  > not mention any of the nice things about times gone by Unexploited natural resources aside, what are those nice things?
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    Also: unexploited natural resources are mostly nice in so far as they're available to be exploited. That you have metric shittons of coal or lithium under your feet is pretty much meaningless if you can't do anything with it.
thriftwy 9y ago
Ukraine is downcoming if anything, its GDP/pers actually reduced when compared to 1991. Isn't true for other CIS states en masse.
hutzlibu 9y ago
"Life was tough but we forget how tough it was because most of us idealize the simpler times of the past." I would say that life was tougher for the poor indeed. But if you take a rich peasant/small noble - they did not lived that miserable. And the things we idealize about them - less complicated live (they did not had to worry about china, nor russia, nor korea, nor NSA, etc. only to dangers close to them, big nobleman, enemy neighbours), allmost no pollution/noise. Living close to nature, going hunting, working with your body in the field - are still valid, I think. If you had a self-sustainable village in times of peace, people had not to worry too much about other things, than the things they could see. Or a native american hunter tribe. If they were strong - then they had a pretty good, altough simple live. Even though they were hungry in spring and occasionally fought wars. So the idealisation is not per se wrong, people just don't know, that the image they have in their mind, is not valid for the average person. So even if there would be a going back, I do not think it makes sense - but while going forward, we can still try to strive for the things we idealize about the past, like simplicity. And by that I do not mean giving up on technology or globalisation, just avoiding unnecessary complications. So ... more decoupling, modularisation, on the technological as well as on the political level, just KISS ... even though that it is not simple, I know, but it is still something worth going for. And not more global regulations, "free trade" agreements you have to study for years to understand and still missing out the secret parts, competing locked down systems going together with companys making their products harder to repair on purpose, and so on and on and on. So I am dreaming of the day, when I can just print out the small broken part of my vacuum cleaner(or car, ... or computer) with the official specs, instead of having to by a new one, because this model gets no longer produced.
panglott 9y ago
One of my favorite essays about this is Brad DeLong's "our Economic Appetites" http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/01/we-are-live-at-the-week-our-economic-appetite.html http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/01/we-are-live-at-the-wee...

tome 9y ago

People lived in 100sqft apartments?

vmarsy 9y ago
People today still? In Paris, Chambre de bonnes "must have a minimum surface area of 9 m2"[1]. That's 96.87 sqft. "The rooms usually have a surface area of around 6–12 m2" (65 to 129 sqft) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chambre_de_bonne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chambre_de_bonne
- tome 9y ago
  Well OK, but that goes somewhat against my parent comment who was trying to show that things were worse then!
  - ido 9y ago
    At least in Vienna and Berlin a lot of modern small 1-2 BR apartments are the same apartments that 100+ years ago housed a whole family (or 2!). For example we (2 adults + 1 toddler) live in an old 70m^2 (750 square feet) apartment that's built in a way suggesting it originally housed 2 families in the 2 large rooms (what we now use as 1 bedroom and 1 living-room) and shared the kitchen/bathroom. So it is very likely 8+ people lived here, and it is now considered small for the 3 of us. The apartment building is from either the late 19th century or early 20th century. I imagine a lot of these tiny "single-person" apartments in Paris used to house a lot more than 1 person 100+ years ago.
- icebraining 9y ago
  I recently stayed in an AirBnB studio in Paris smaller than 9m². The toilet was shared among the five studios on the same floor.
  - TomMarius 9y ago
    So it was a private room?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ppeetteerr 9y ago
They still do today. Perhaps the average apartment in Paris was more like 200-250sqft, but living conditions were greatly worse off than today.

kristianp 9y ago

Makes you wonder if Hunter gatherer times were better. Due to the much lower population densities than feudal times there would have been less famine I imagine.

ppeetteerr 9y ago
It really depends on where the people lived. Iceland survived for 1000 years on a diet of some root vegetables, fish, milk and mammals. I would not wish their existence on anyone today. People in warmer climates would have a better diet but it's clear that agriculture and husbandry were historically more desirable over pure hunting and gathering, even in warmer regions like Egypt.
- cgh 9y ago
  That Icelandic diet sounds pretty similar to how I eat today. What's unhealthy about it?
  - ppeetteerr 9y ago
    It's not the same cooking you've come to expect. There is a whole wikipedia entry on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_cuisine#Medieval_Iceland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_cuisine#Medieval_Ice...
  - Eric_WVGG 9y ago
    I assume your response is coming from a low-carb/paleo perspective? No leafy greens or vitamin-rich vegetables. The vegetables that are there (root vegetables) are carby and not especially nutritious. Huge vitamin deficiency across the board.
    - cgh 9y ago
      That is simply incorrect. For example, beef liver is about twenty times more nutritious than fruit by mass. My original question was a bit cheeky as I already knew the answer.

josteink 9y ago

> The 1000sqft apartments we have today For people in the SI-world (most of the world) confused by this imperial-speak, this roughly equates to 93 square meters.

semi-extrinsic 9y ago
This example clearly illustrates a superior point of basically all Freedom Units: you get more of them. More is more better.
- ojm 9y ago
  You get less inches than cm. Less miles than km. Not so free after all!
  - duncan_bayne 9y ago
    I was going to reply "fewer inches!" but then I realised that inches are (at least in principle) not discrete; half an inch is a perfectly reasonable measurement. Anyone here know which of "less inches" or "fewer inches" is grammatically correct?
    - skj 9y ago
      "fewer" is for things you can count. Less length, but fewer inches.
- dom0 9y ago
  > More is more better ... that's just simple science!
- norikki 9y ago
  In the spirit of standardization, I think all systems of speaking besides American English should be made illegal in all countries. That way, no one will have to pay translators to unnecessarily switch back and forth between equivalent languages, or have to put up with any of those stupid British accents. You can't deny the economic advantages of this. Who cares about losing cultural heritage? That's just for obstructionists like those filthy Americans. /s

bamboozled 9y ago

I enjoyed how you've painted a bleak view of the past, not mention any of the nice things about times gone by and then pretend people longing for simpler times is a kind of ignorance. You believe western civilisation has come a long way from the cesspool it mostly has been, while neglecting to think about the true cost of our material wealth, which is has resulted in much destruction of the natural world.

Kiro 9y ago
> not mention any of the nice things about times gone by Unexploited natural resources aside, what are those nice things?
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  Also: unexploited natural resources are mostly nice in so far as they're available to be exploited. That you have metric shittons of coal or lithium under your feet is pretty much meaningless if you can't do anything with it.

thriftwy 9y ago

Ukraine is downcoming if anything, its GDP/pers actually reduced when compared to 1991. Isn't true for other CIS states en masse.

hutzlibu 9y ago

"Life was tough but we forget how tough it was because most of us idealize the simpler times of the past." I would say that life was tougher for the poor indeed. But if you take a rich peasant/small noble - they did not lived that miserable. And the things we idealize about them - less complicated live (they did not had to worry about china, nor russia, nor korea, nor NSA, etc. only to dangers close to them, big nobleman, enemy neighbours), allmost no pollution/noise. Living close to nature, going hunting, working with your body in the field - are still valid, I think. If you had a self-sustainable village in times of peace, people had not to worry too much about other things, than the things they could see. Or a native american hunter tribe. If they were strong - then they had a pretty good, altough simple live. Even though they were hungry in spring and occasionally fought wars. So the idealisation is not per se wrong, people just don't know, that the image they have in their mind, is not valid for the average person. So even if there would be a going back, I do not think it makes sense - but while going forward, we can still try to strive for the things we idealize about the past, like simplicity. And by that I do not mean giving up on technology or globalisation, just avoiding unnecessary complications. So ... more decoupling, modularisation, on the technological as well as on the political level, just KISS ... even though that it is not simple, I know, but it is still something worth going for. And not more global regulations, "free trade" agreements you have to study for years to understand and still missing out the secret parts, competing locked down systems going together with companys making their products harder to repair on purpose, and so on and on and on. So I am dreaming of the day, when I can just print out the small broken part of my vacuum cleaner(or car, ... or computer) with the official specs, instead of having to by a new one, because this model gets no longer produced.

panglott 9y ago

One of my favorite essays about this is Brad DeLong's "our Economic Appetites" http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/01/we-are-live-at-the-week-our-economic-appetite.html http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/01/we-are-live-at-the-wee...