3 ms·

So edgy. While everything you point out is true, if I gave you a magic one-way doorway to 1700, you wouldn't take it. Nobody even remotely rational would. Tod

• hutzlibu 9y ago
  I am a child of my time. So of course I do not want to go back, as allmost all of my knowledge and skills were useless there. And as I said, I like technology. I just don't like it, that we got this technology by unsustainable exploitation. And about diseases, starvation, etc. as far as I know, we still have those and in absolute numbers, much more than ever, as there are much more people living on the world today. And looking into modern (first world) hospitals or old people homes, were all those happy people slowly and forgotten rot away - I am not sure, that if you would sum up their suffering you would come up with better numbers than in the most barbaric times, where the old ones had to go to die in the snow, when they became useless. So like I said, yes we have technology now and technology is awesome for solving problens. But now we face the problems caused by technology. And they are big. So no, I would not go back, I rather go forward with better technology. But to develop and use better technology, one needs to see first the problems of the existing one and its effect on society.
  • dmpk2k 9y ago
    Your argument seems to be that modern time dehumanizes us, along the likes on Kafka or the Luddite movement. And I think it has some merit -- e.g. family structures have become increasingly nuclear in the past century, which is one factor in modern depression. The West has weak social structures, and I think that's a big mistake. But is not scraping in the dirt dehumanizing too? Huddling in a smoky dark single-room shelter against the freezing winter nights? Living alone because the rest of the community is scared they'll catch what you caught? Or you or a loved one dying during childbirth? We have the luxury of romantisizing the past because we don't live it. It largely sucked. For example, let's talk disease. Disease was one of the biggest scourges humanity had to suffer since time immemorial. The Spanish Flu of 1918 killed more people than WW1 did. Indeed, a large portion of WW1 deaths were caused by infections too. The worst outbreak we've had recently was SARS, which killed less than 800 people globally, and this was a big deal. The Black Death killed about half of Europe, but it originated along the Silk Road and hit China too. It also reached the Middle East. Everywhere it went it lead to mass depopulation. And that wasn't the first time either: the Justinian Plague was an earlier outbreak of the Bubonic Plague, you just rarely read about it in popular history books. Wiped out whole cities. Historically, between 1-1.5% of women died in childbirth per birth, the biggest cause being disease. Now consider that your average family had 7-10 children... When was the last time you saw someone with leprosy? They used to have leper colonies because there were so many infections. Or were scared of someone coughing because they might give you tuberculosis? There were all those STDs which we can cure now with antibiotics, but back then would make you sterile, disfigure you, or make you go literally insane as you aged. Have you ever seen an iron lung outside a museum? And don't forget smallpox (basically a mini black death) or polio, both which have been wiped out or nearly so. People born nowadays simply cannot understand how horrific infectious diseases use to be. We're living in a golden age (for now). What we saw with Ebola pandemic in Africa recently is more the historical norm. As for old people and old-age homes: that's a choice individuals have the luxury to make. Once upon a time old people sometimes wandered off to die during lean times to save their own families from the same. One is not like the other.
    • hutzlibu 9y ago
      "Your argument seems to be that modern time dehumanizes us" Well, yes, my argument goes a bit in that direction. (but I had to look up who Luddite was - and no, I am not in line with him, but I do like Kafka) Anyway, you do not have to convince me, that technology is incredibly useful in making our lives much more easy. I know that. And I do not want to miss it. And I certainly do not glorify medieval times. So I would agree, that for the average person, live back then and there was probably much worse, than it is today for the average person. But I am not so sure about comparing to a primitive hunting-tribe. Live was (is) tough for them, for sure. But it was not all-the-time war with neighbours. Most of the time it was peace. Things were simple, although hard. The need to find and hold good hunting grounds. Care for the own tribe. Watch out for predators and potential enemies. Supply for the winter. And as far as I know, they did not had at all the disease problem, you described: mostly because there were just not so many people-connections for a big plague. And they did not live inside their own shit, like the people in the medieval cities without sewerage. They lived in clean homes, washed themself every day in the river and ate good food (mostly). People also got sick, sure. And when they were not strong enough(or too hungry), they died. And were not kept alive only to send more bills until the final fading out. And humankind lived in that manner for most of its time. Civilisation and living in cities are quite new. So I would argue, that our genes are still more adopt to that primitive livestyle and therefore you would be more happy to live that way. But again, I do not want to go back to that. It would also be impossible, without wiping out most of mankind. And have you read 1984? One main topic was that the newspapers there reported and proved daily, how the lifestandard again has improved over the past. Only that it certainly didn't, but nobody could prove otherwise. And your stating, that we live now in the most happy world of all times, reminded me of that (also, that I learned that literally in school). But we have no way of knowing - so even the poor peasants from a feudal farm might have all in all been happier than the average low wage or unemployed looser from today. Even though the guy from today is much richer and healthier from a materialistic point of view. But materialistic things are only a base and no guarantee for happiness. And lastly - I simply feel much more alive and happy, if I am in wild nature. Not so much, if I am in loud, stinking and hectic city. I can only stand the latter if I block out parts of my senses, desensibilize - one could also say, if I kill parts of myself. And I think, this is exactly what many, if not most people do today. They still move around and do and buy things - but on the inside they are pretty dead. Even though the medical report would classify them as stable and healthy. And there is less and less nature and more and more (polluted) cities. So that's why I am sceptical of your original argument ... But otherwise I pretty much agree with you, also why you made your arguments as there are indeed many people who romantice the past and have not yet lived even for one day without hot water from the tap. Well, I did (for quite some more time) and I know it is fun, as long as the sun shines and you have enough supplies. Otherwise, in more practical terms, I suppose we want pretty similar things for the future. Better, sustainable technology, which does not leave a wasteland behind nor pollute everything. So for example, if all the cities would have only electric cars and the power comes mostly from solarplants located in the dessert (or a clean fusion plant) ... well, that would be a huge step forward, in my opinion.