5 ms·
What the author misses is that we perceive our welfare by measuring it against our peers. The people of 1918 had no idea what inventions were coming in 100 year
by abraxas 4y ago
What the author misses is that we perceive our welfare by measuring it against our peers. The people of 1918 had no idea what inventions were coming in 100 years and even if they could postulate some of them it was purely in the realm of science fiction for them. Not to mention, imagine the excitement of witnessing stuff like refrigeration, transoceanic flight, television, radio, telephone, mass mobility all come online during your lifetime.
Of course knowing what one knows today one might be tempted by the creature comforts that our complex society affords us but personally given the choice of being born John Rockefeller or being born myself I'd be kinda tempted by the former. It's hard to overstate how status contributes to one's perception of well being. Rich people 100 years ago did not feel deprived because they had no YouTube. They had parties and shows and concubines to keep the boredom out. Come to think of it even knowing what I know about the 21st century I'd probably take the Rockefeller deal... maybe I'm unusual.
EDIT Alas there is a 21st century version of the earth that I would not trade for the riches of a robber baron. But that version of the earth does not exist nor is it likely to come into being in the next few decades that I might have. Such earth has no Twitter but instead has peace and prosperity across the world no matter the continent. Has no climate crisis to resolve and cancers and similarly devastating diagnoses are mere inconveniences akin to sniffles. In this utopian earth the ecosystems are being cherished rather than exploited and economic improvements don't come at the expense of future generations. In this alternative earth the pursuit of knowledge and art are the most well respected pursuits and those who are best remembered are ones who most contributed to such endeavors during their lifetimes. In other words, complete fantasy and utopia. But that would be a world I'd refuse to trade for the Rockefeller status.
So yeah, tell me again how to do that robber baron thing?
- sokoloff 4y agoI would 100% take the lifestyle of a 2022 SWE over a 1918 Rockefeller (or maybe a better reference is 1889 when he was 50). It's not even close by my way of reckoning.
- biohax2015 4y agoWhat about a 2022 fast food worker? 2022 data center monkey making 60k / yr?
- monero-xmr 4y agoI would prefer to live in 2022 USA no matter my profession than anyone in 1918. Antibiotics, computers / internet, cancer therapy, airplanes, you don’t have half your kids die of random stuff before age 18, the list goes on and on
- JauntTrooper 4y agoTo add to this point, John Rockefeller's daughter Alice died of dysentery at 13 months old.
- mrff 4y agoAbsolutely! In the 1920's the son of the president of The United States died from an infected blister he got playing tennis. That's a fear I don't have. I love music, and even a fast food worker has better access to recording than Rockefeller did. I probably listen to more music in a year than Rockefeller heard on his lifetime. In 1911 hundreds of people died when temperatures went over 100 in North East New York. We build a city in the middle of the desert where temperatures reach 110 almost every year and fast food workers in Las Vegas are not dying by the hundreds.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- anonymouskimmer 4y agoTBF Las Vegas has a much lower summer humidity than New York.
- johnwheeler 4y agoYou’ll have better healthcare, hygiene, and pretty much better everything. Status is for the birds. Who gives a shit.
- abraxas 4y agoI think in due course you'll get to see how impotent a lot of modern medicine is when faced with certain maladies especially those that come with advanced age, e.g. cancers, strokes etc. We're far better at telling you what you're going to die of vs 100 years ago but not really all that much better at keeping you alive.
- sokoloff 4y agoThe overall statistics argue that we are meaningfully better: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2020-2021/LExpMort.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2020-2021/LExpMort.pdf
- abraxas 4y agoYeah, I won't argue that we made no progress. But most of the amazing life expectancy progress came from combatting infant mortality. As you can see from your own sources, the life expectancy of a senior adult only increased by a handful of years between the early 20th century and now. If anything I consider the progress in medicine to be lagging compared to progress made in most other areas like automation, transporation, communication etc.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- paulpauper 4y agoIt's not that he misses it, that's his point. Comparing wealth to people 100+ years ago as measured by technology is better than comparing it to people living today. I don't know how convincing this is as an argument though against higher taxes. Probably not that convincing.
- yucky 4y agoHe isn't missing the point, he's saying that by definition means it's all in your heads. You are better off, the only reason you don't feel it is because you are lying to yourself. Not you specifically, just in general.