5 ms·

"That we want to waste our time. That, however much we might complain, we find satisfaction in endless, circular argument." "But political and economic and imm

"That we want to waste our time. That, however much we might complain, we find satisfaction in endless, circular argument." "But political and economic and immunological crises pile on one another in succession, over the background roar of ecological collapse. Time is not infinite. None of us can afford to spend what is left of it dallying with the stupid and bland." But in the past we had plenty of crises and yet we used to spend our downtime shooting the shit, going around in circles, with stupid and bland people just like ourselves (there's not many geniuses in any particular locality, and they usually aren't the ones shooting the shit, just as they don't now). At least it was face to face, I suppose. And at least you could go home and leave them behind to watch tv! Edit: I will admit that there was more time to think and daydream (and be bored) then. Probably because you didn't have a tv in your pocket and, even if you did, there was often really nothing to watch.

coldtea 6y ago
>But in the past we had plenty of crises and yet we used to spend our downtime shooting the shit, going around in circles, with stupid and bland people just like ourselve Past people were much more involved in societal change and day to day history than we are.
- enkid 6y ago
  You can't make a broad statement like that. In most places, for most times, people have been pretty passive. The mass of people being involved is the exception, not the rule, and even then, it normally was not a majority, but a local minority that acted at the right time that changed things.
  - 411111111111111 6y ago
    I think both statements can be true. It's just when there are only two hundred people around, each voice has more influence then even an enthusiastic politician nowadays. So just by living like we do today with having opinions and voicing them you've already influenced your society back then. If you do the same today, nothing would've changed.
    - enkid 6y ago
      But that's comparing apples to oranges. You're defining society "nowadays" as being hundreds of millions of people, and society "back then" as having only two hundred people. That's like complaining that people are more involved in their family and their workplace than they are with people across the country. It's absurd. I also can't think of a time period or large geographic area that's had writing being common and most people were constrained to a society of 200 people, unless they were purposefully insular.
      - 411111111111111 6y ago
        while you're once again correct that i'm comparing oranges to apples, my point nonetheless stands. the world population before the industrialization was in the lower hundreds of thousands. the usual town did house significantly less then a thousand people. compared to a usual town of today with >40k inhabitants.
        Pirgo 6y ago
        World population by early 19th century was already 1 billion, what are you talking about?
        411111111111111 6y ago
        yes, it was. the first industrialization started in the middle 18th century though, so not sure what your point is.
        coldtea 6y ago
        Probably that already in the "middle 18th century" it was close to a billion people (and in any case, many more than low thousands: hundreds of millions). Heck, ancient Athens alone (a single Greek city) had a population in the "low thousands" in 500 B.C.
        detaro 6y ago
- Pirgo 6y ago
  Kids these days!
  - coldtea 6y ago
    Yeah, I don't believe (or see historical proof) for eternal stasis, so I don't find the argument "haha, he complants about kids these days, like tons of people did on their day, so it must have been always wrong to complaint about that" convincing. There was a Rome, and then a fall of Rome and the dark ages. And the same for tons of institutions, states, cultures, etc. Heck, there was the pre-war Germany and then there was the Nazi germany. "Kids these days" is often very true compared to what preceeding generations did at various times.
    - Pirgo 6y ago
      There were many "past people" who did absolutely nothing when faced with atrocities brought upon Jews in Nazi Germany, just as there are "now people" who risk their very lives by engaing in various forms of activism regarding societal change. Making broad statements about level of engagement of "past people" is akin to statements like "in our time music used to be much better!".

coldtea 6y ago

>But in the past we had plenty of crises and yet we used to spend our downtime shooting the shit, going around in circles, with stupid and bland people just like ourselve Past people were much more involved in societal change and day to day history than we are.

enkid 6y ago
You can't make a broad statement like that. In most places, for most times, people have been pretty passive. The mass of people being involved is the exception, not the rule, and even then, it normally was not a majority, but a local minority that acted at the right time that changed things.
- 411111111111111 6y ago
  I think both statements can be true. It's just when there are only two hundred people around, each voice has more influence then even an enthusiastic politician nowadays. So just by living like we do today with having opinions and voicing them you've already influenced your society back then. If you do the same today, nothing would've changed.
  - enkid 6y ago
    But that's comparing apples to oranges. You're defining society "nowadays" as being hundreds of millions of people, and society "back then" as having only two hundred people. That's like complaining that people are more involved in their family and their workplace than they are with people across the country. It's absurd. I also can't think of a time period or large geographic area that's had writing being common and most people were constrained to a society of 200 people, unless they were purposefully insular.
    - 411111111111111 6y ago
      while you're once again correct that i'm comparing oranges to apples, my point nonetheless stands. the world population before the industrialization was in the lower hundreds of thousands. the usual town did house significantly less then a thousand people. compared to a usual town of today with >40k inhabitants.
      - Pirgo 6y ago
        World population by early 19th century was already 1 billion, what are you talking about?
        411111111111111 6y ago
        yes, it was. the first industrialization started in the middle 18th century though, so not sure what your point is.
        coldtea 6y ago
        Probably that already in the "middle 18th century" it was close to a billion people (and in any case, many more than low thousands: hundreds of millions). Heck, ancient Athens alone (a single Greek city) had a population in the "low thousands" in 500 B.C.
        detaro 6y ago
Pirgo 6y ago
Kids these days!
- coldtea 6y ago
  Yeah, I don't believe (or see historical proof) for eternal stasis, so I don't find the argument "haha, he complants about kids these days, like tons of people did on their day, so it must have been always wrong to complaint about that" convincing. There was a Rome, and then a fall of Rome and the dark ages. And the same for tons of institutions, states, cultures, etc. Heck, there was the pre-war Germany and then there was the Nazi germany. "Kids these days" is often very true compared to what preceeding generations did at various times.
  - Pirgo 6y ago
    There were many "past people" who did absolutely nothing when faced with atrocities brought upon Jews in Nazi Germany, just as there are "now people" who risk their very lives by engaing in various forms of activism regarding societal change. Making broad statements about level of engagement of "past people" is akin to statements like "in our time music used to be much better!".