4 ms·
I know this is pedantic, but based on the order of events in the article wouldn’t 543 be the worst year to be alive? By then you would have experienced the cumu
by MannishMan 6y ago
I know this is pedantic, but based on the order of events in the article wouldn’t 543 be the worst year to be alive? By then you would have experienced the cumulative horror of starving and freezing through two volcanic events and watching a third to half of your friends and family die of plague. 536 would have a been frightening and confusing as the volcanic fog began to roll in, but you couldn’t know the terror of what was to come.
- kanobo 6y agoThat's not pedantic, it's a good comment. I had the same thought when reading the article and wondered if others were wondering the same.
- TrainedMonkey 6y agoObjectively you are right, subjectively I think what matters is short term contrast. 535 vs 536 has a much steeped drop in quality of life than 542 vs 543.
- 9nGQluzmnq3M 6y agoBut the title is "worst year to be alive", so while the contrast of 536 was likely the biggest, measured objectively by food availability, life expectancy etc 543 was the worst.
- TrainedMonkey 6y agoObjectively you are right, subjectively that statement is technically correct and that is worst kind of correct :)
- afterburner 6y agoPlague and second volcano hitting in 541 is also a good candidate.
- yesplorer 6y agoI agree with you, but I also think 536 could be considered worst because of the initial shock. But as other events roll in with time, people may become used to expecting the worst. I'm thinking this way because of our current situation with the corona virus. Initially people were all into doing everything to protect themselves but as time goes in, we kind of get used to living our lives around the existence of the pandemic and the videos of people dropping dead in china aren't going around anymore.