3 ms·

Every era probably feels like the apex of human progress because people can only measure against what they know

by KolibriFly 1y ago

jalk 1y ago
[flagged]
- jalk 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - potato3732842 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - jalk 1y ago
      Thanks, I see your point. Was not trying to be snarky/funny, but rather come with counter example to parent. I was thinking about the (recent) "Era of globalization" - but perhaps that is too short of a time span to be called an era
      - potato3732842 1y ago
        Just tossing out more examples than just MAGA would likely have sufficed IMO. Current Russian expansionism, 1930s Italian ambition in Africa, etc, etc. There's a fair bit to to make interesting comparison to even if you restrict yourself to "modern" (i.e. industrial revolution and beyond) societies.
saispas 1y ago
I'm not sure every era did think it was the apex of human progress, though, because sometimes they had physical or cultural evidence that previous generations could do things that they couldn't. E.g. if you were a petty kingdom emerging in the centuries after the Romans left Britain, you'd be fairly sure that you no longer had the technology to build aqueducts, baths or villas. And for centuries after that, a large element of learning was trying to recreate / understand the classics - e.g. the influence of Galen and Aristotle. Doesn't the modern idea of inevitable human progress really come in with the enlightenment?
- bluGill 1y ago
  Those petty kingdoms did have the technology to build that - they just were too small to have enough people.
  - saispas 1y ago
    Did they? For example, the Roman formula for waterproof concrete was lost and only rediscovered (in the 15th Century) when a manuscript came to light. I think it's more than just a lack of people or wealth (though that comes into it of course): people thought of the Romans as being 'superior', hence the effort they went to to preserve surviving classic manuscripts. It's not to say that the early medieval period couldn't eventually built magnificent edifices or build on the knowledge, but for many centuries, Rome and Greece was seen as something to aspire to.
    - bluGill 1y ago
      That isn't relevant as they didn't have the spare resources to dedicate people to the task. If they did a few smart researchers could figure something out. Just going through all their archives would have done the job if they had people to dedicate to the search (though of course they couldn't have known that and so a track to create it from scratch would also be needed). Depending on where you are talking about there may not have been local resources to make waterproof concrete, which back to my point: they didn't have the resources if they wanted to. Though we have plenty of buildings (most obviously Cathedrals) dating to well before the rediscovery of roman concrete to prove that isn't needed. Those Cathedrals only exist because they had a few resources and so they could build them over time. Those cathedrals also were in use for church services - usually in the first year of construction - to fuel the dream.
      - KineticLensman 1y ago
        > Those Cathedrals only exist because they had a few resources and so they could build them over time They also only exist because they used architectural techniques that the Romans never developed, namely the flying buttress, which could support massive relatively thin wall without hundreds of columns and arches everywhere.
f1shy 1y ago
I would argue (without any proof, just by feeling) that currently there are more people that think the past is better than the present. There is even a statement "every past time was better": is a subjective perception influenced by cognitive biases like rosy retrospection, which causes people to remember the past more fondly and forget its difficulties. Many many people today tend towards ecologism, thinking we are now just ruining the planet, and should go back in time.
bazoom42 1y ago
No, most ancient people believed in a steady decline from a golden age in the past.
potato3732842 1y ago
> Every era probably feels like the apex of human progress Tell that to 600s Western Europe. They were fully aware that there was a society before them that had the capacity to do things they could not.

Every era probably feels like the apex of human progress because people can only measure against what they know

jalk 1y ago

[flagged]

jalk 1y ago
[flagged]
- potato3732842 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - jalk 1y ago
    Thanks, I see your point. Was not trying to be snarky/funny, but rather come with counter example to parent. I was thinking about the (recent) "Era of globalization" - but perhaps that is too short of a time span to be called an era
    - potato3732842 1y ago
      Just tossing out more examples than just MAGA would likely have sufficed IMO. Current Russian expansionism, 1930s Italian ambition in Africa, etc, etc. There's a fair bit to to make interesting comparison to even if you restrict yourself to "modern" (i.e. industrial revolution and beyond) societies.

saispas 1y ago

I'm not sure every era did think it was the apex of human progress, though, because sometimes they had physical or cultural evidence that previous generations could do things that they couldn't. E.g. if you were a petty kingdom emerging in the centuries after the Romans left Britain, you'd be fairly sure that you no longer had the technology to build aqueducts, baths or villas. And for centuries after that, a large element of learning was trying to recreate / understand the classics - e.g. the influence of Galen and Aristotle. Doesn't the modern idea of inevitable human progress really come in with the enlightenment?

bluGill 1y ago
Those petty kingdoms did have the technology to build that - they just were too small to have enough people.
- saispas 1y ago
  Did they? For example, the Roman formula for waterproof concrete was lost and only rediscovered (in the 15th Century) when a manuscript came to light. I think it's more than just a lack of people or wealth (though that comes into it of course): people thought of the Romans as being 'superior', hence the effort they went to to preserve surviving classic manuscripts. It's not to say that the early medieval period couldn't eventually built magnificent edifices or build on the knowledge, but for many centuries, Rome and Greece was seen as something to aspire to.
  - bluGill 1y ago
    That isn't relevant as they didn't have the spare resources to dedicate people to the task. If they did a few smart researchers could figure something out. Just going through all their archives would have done the job if they had people to dedicate to the search (though of course they couldn't have known that and so a track to create it from scratch would also be needed). Depending on where you are talking about there may not have been local resources to make waterproof concrete, which back to my point: they didn't have the resources if they wanted to. Though we have plenty of buildings (most obviously Cathedrals) dating to well before the rediscovery of roman concrete to prove that isn't needed. Those Cathedrals only exist because they had a few resources and so they could build them over time. Those cathedrals also were in use for church services - usually in the first year of construction - to fuel the dream.
    - KineticLensman 1y ago
      > Those Cathedrals only exist because they had a few resources and so they could build them over time They also only exist because they used architectural techniques that the Romans never developed, namely the flying buttress, which could support massive relatively thin wall without hundreds of columns and arches everywhere.

f1shy 1y ago

I would argue (without any proof, just by feeling) that currently there are more people that think the past is better than the present. There is even a statement "every past time was better": is a subjective perception influenced by cognitive biases like rosy retrospection, which causes people to remember the past more fondly and forget its difficulties. Many many people today tend towards ecologism, thinking we are now just ruining the planet, and should go back in time.

bazoom42 1y ago

No, most ancient people believed in a steady decline from a golden age in the past.

potato3732842 1y ago

> Every era probably feels like the apex of human progress Tell that to 600s Western Europe. They were fully aware that there was a society before them that had the capacity to do things they could not.