6 ms·

Would you have survived in the middle ages?

28 points by soundsop 17y ago

zackattack 17y ago
This was my favorite kottke.org post from last year, "I wanted to ask for survival tips in case I am unexpectedly transported to a random location in Europe (say for instance current France/Benelux/Germany) in the year 1000 AD (plus or minus 200 years). I assume that such transportation would leave me with what I am wearing, what I know, and nothing else. Any advice would help." http://kottke.org/08/06/survival-tips-for-the-middle-ages http://kottke.org/08/06/survival-tips-for-the-middle-ages Jason even opened it up for comments.
- rms 17y ago
  Great post. It was also discussed here. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=418516 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=418516
- anthropocentric 17y ago
  In reading the Kottke thread for about 30 mins (it rules), I just had this thought: What if Michaelangelo (or some other prolific inventors) weren't that special. What if they were simply average Joe's like you and me that were transported back in time. They used their basic knowledge of stuff around them to "invent" things.
  - piramida 17y ago
    assuming that could be true, we get the paradox of "who actually did invent this things, then?" :)
  - rms 17y ago
    Like this guy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avicenna http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avicenna
  - zackattack 17y ago
    Honestly, besides the natural teleological questions this prompts, if I were transported back to the middle ages there's not all that much I'm sure I could invent. For example, I have no idea how a computer is actually built, from the ground-up. Maybe I could have a few acute scientific observations ("try penicillin!"; "use tungsten for your light bulb!", "b-b-boil that milk!") and I could probably derive Calculus. But... that's about it. The vast majority of human knowledge is culturally transmitted; few humans have cumulative "clones" of the current "repository" of human knowledge stored in their memory.
    - eru 17y ago
      Yes. Though knowing that certain directions are promising, would help. You know where to search. For example, I could not build a steam engine, but I know enough to describe how one could build a basic atmospheric steam engine, and that to improve upon it, you'd need to separate the condensation of the steam from the rest of the engine. But I guess I would have a lot of problems, convincing any sane medieval person to take my ideas seriously.
      - khafra 17y ago
        You could leave one helluva Leonardo-style sketch notebook, at the very least, if you could be spared the parchment.
    - HeyLaughingBoy 17y ago
      You don't need to invent much. Think of what you already know: Wash your hands before eating; boil the water before drinking; put toilet facilities downstream of drinking water; cover open wounds and keep them clean. In short, you already know about the biggest contribution to human health: Just Stay Clean. Everything else is icing on the cake.
- hillel 17y ago
  I recorded a song based on the kottke post and a similar thread over on marginalrevolution.com. http://www.sugarfix.net/2008/06/23/song-1000-ad/ http://www.sugarfix.net/2008/06/23/song-1000-ad/
TheSOB88 17y ago
Brings up the point of our continued evolution towards weaker bodies - the more cures we have for asthma, children's diabetes, etc., the more the people that have those ailments reproduce, and the more people there are with those ailments.
- barrkel 17y ago
  And the contrary point: we are likely to find fixes for genetic diseases, halting the deterioration there.
  - piramida 17y ago
    And another point - how much would remain of an original nature-made human after that. So far, every optimization/fix we made to our body's protective system led to a more serious illness that would avoid the invented cure. I'm afraid fixes on gene level would open the door to the new kind of threat, it's a race we can't win. BTW, site shows http 403.
    - jjs 17y ago
      > how much would remain of an original nature-made human after that. Humans have long been evolving in response to patterns of human behavior and technology. We're already partly artificial, so why not make it the artificiality we want, rather than the one we got by accident?
    - ii 17y ago
      > BTW, site shows http 403. Try proxy server. Any anonymous US proxy works for me. They seem to have crazy IP (spam?) filters that block many legitimate providers, including mine.
- Bjoern 17y ago
  Actually humanity is not really part anymore of the "survival of the fittest" or evolutionary cycle. We are actively changing ourselves and starting, in laboratories at least, to modify genetics. Won't take long before parents can "modify" their children to be smarter, healthier, etc.
gregwebs 17y ago
There is an assuption here that the only infulential factor on health is genes. Environment could play an even stronger role. A person in the middle ages wouldn't be surrounded by a toxic environment and be consuming the chemical-laden nutrient deprived food that is standard fare today.
- rjprins 17y ago
  Speak for yourself, the nutrient rich food and especially the variety I eat each day was not available in the middle ages. Remember that people in the those times where much shorter (as proved by the shorter beds), this is the result of malnutrion. Toxicity is likely to be higher then, open or no sewage systems, very low hygiene (people didn't bathe, lots of animals) and remember they used woodstoves in side the house!
  - eru 17y ago
    The woodstoves were actually somewhat good for health as the smoke killed the bugs. Obviously the smoke also damaged the lungs and eyes.
  - gregwebs 17y ago
    sewage systems are necessary for sanitation in cities. Most people were living in the country side. "hygiene" is largely a social aspect that doesn't effect health much. Some researchers claim people did not lose height in the Middle Ages at all. Variety of food is not that important- we just need to get all the required nutrients in the foods we eat. Great to hear you are able to go against the modern trends and eat nutrient rich food.
- ZeroGravitas 17y ago
  I've just finished reading a history of medicine that claims that medicine's impact on prolonging life is miniscule, maybe 2% of the increase in live expectancy. The biggest impact is childhood (and prenatal) nutrition and basic sanitation. So if you did get sent back to the middle ages, the diseases would be much less likely to kill you as you are generally much more robust as a result of your late 20th century upbringing, and you'd be less likely to get them as you would understand how they spread e.g. avoiding drinking water with human excrement in it. And of you course you didn't die in childbirth or shortly after, by conveniently being in a different century, which will put you above average in life span too. And the big message from the book: avoid the doctors. They would actively be weakening you via bleeding, laxatives and emetics, right up until about the 1920s.
mahmud 17y ago
I am from Somalia: In 1991 - 1992 I witnessed exactly that, a lapse into a dark, and long forgotten period of pure human savagery.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

28 points by soundsop 17y ago

This was my favorite kottke.org post from last year, "I wanted to ask for survival tips in case I am unexpectedly transported to a random location in Europe (say for instance current France/Benelux/Germany) in the year 1000 AD (plus or minus 200 years). I assume that such transportation would leave me with what I am wearing, what I know, and nothing else. Any advice would help." http://kottke.org/08/06/survival-tips-for-the-middle-ages http://kottke.org/08/06/survival-tips-for-the-middle-ages Jason even opened it up for comments.

rms 17y ago
Great post. It was also discussed here. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=418516 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=418516
anthropocentric 17y ago
In reading the Kottke thread for about 30 mins (it rules), I just had this thought: What if Michaelangelo (or some other prolific inventors) weren't that special. What if they were simply average Joe's like you and me that were transported back in time. They used their basic knowledge of stuff around them to "invent" things.
- piramida 17y ago
  assuming that could be true, we get the paradox of "who actually did invent this things, then?" :)
- rms 17y ago
  Like this guy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avicenna http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avicenna
- zackattack 17y ago
  Honestly, besides the natural teleological questions this prompts, if I were transported back to the middle ages there's not all that much I'm sure I could invent. For example, I have no idea how a computer is actually built, from the ground-up. Maybe I could have a few acute scientific observations ("try penicillin!"; "use tungsten for your light bulb!", "b-b-boil that milk!") and I could probably derive Calculus. But... that's about it. The vast majority of human knowledge is culturally transmitted; few humans have cumulative "clones" of the current "repository" of human knowledge stored in their memory.
  - eru 17y ago
    Yes. Though knowing that certain directions are promising, would help. You know where to search. For example, I could not build a steam engine, but I know enough to describe how one could build a basic atmospheric steam engine, and that to improve upon it, you'd need to separate the condensation of the steam from the rest of the engine. But I guess I would have a lot of problems, convincing any sane medieval person to take my ideas seriously.
    - khafra 17y ago
      You could leave one helluva Leonardo-style sketch notebook, at the very least, if you could be spared the parchment.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 17y ago
    You don't need to invent much. Think of what you already know: Wash your hands before eating; boil the water before drinking; put toilet facilities downstream of drinking water; cover open wounds and keep them clean. In short, you already know about the biggest contribution to human health: Just Stay Clean. Everything else is icing on the cake.
hillel 17y ago
I recorded a song based on the kottke post and a similar thread over on marginalrevolution.com. http://www.sugarfix.net/2008/06/23/song-1000-ad/ http://www.sugarfix.net/2008/06/23/song-1000-ad/

TheSOB88 17y ago

Brings up the point of our continued evolution towards weaker bodies - the more cures we have for asthma, children's diabetes, etc., the more the people that have those ailments reproduce, and the more people there are with those ailments.

barrkel 17y ago
And the contrary point: we are likely to find fixes for genetic diseases, halting the deterioration there.
- piramida 17y ago
  And another point - how much would remain of an original nature-made human after that. So far, every optimization/fix we made to our body's protective system led to a more serious illness that would avoid the invented cure. I'm afraid fixes on gene level would open the door to the new kind of threat, it's a race we can't win. BTW, site shows http 403.
  - jjs 17y ago
    > how much would remain of an original nature-made human after that. Humans have long been evolving in response to patterns of human behavior and technology. We're already partly artificial, so why not make it the artificiality we want, rather than the one we got by accident?
  - ii 17y ago
    > BTW, site shows http 403. Try proxy server. Any anonymous US proxy works for me. They seem to have crazy IP (spam?) filters that block many legitimate providers, including mine.
Bjoern 17y ago
Actually humanity is not really part anymore of the "survival of the fittest" or evolutionary cycle. We are actively changing ourselves and starting, in laboratories at least, to modify genetics. Won't take long before parents can "modify" their children to be smarter, healthier, etc.

gregwebs 17y ago

There is an assuption here that the only infulential factor on health is genes. Environment could play an even stronger role. A person in the middle ages wouldn't be surrounded by a toxic environment and be consuming the chemical-laden nutrient deprived food that is standard fare today.

rjprins 17y ago
Speak for yourself, the nutrient rich food and especially the variety I eat each day was not available in the middle ages. Remember that people in the those times where much shorter (as proved by the shorter beds), this is the result of malnutrion. Toxicity is likely to be higher then, open or no sewage systems, very low hygiene (people didn't bathe, lots of animals) and remember they used woodstoves in side the house!
- eru 17y ago
  The woodstoves were actually somewhat good for health as the smoke killed the bugs. Obviously the smoke also damaged the lungs and eyes.
- gregwebs 17y ago
  sewage systems are necessary for sanitation in cities. Most people were living in the country side. "hygiene" is largely a social aspect that doesn't effect health much. Some researchers claim people did not lose height in the Middle Ages at all. Variety of food is not that important- we just need to get all the required nutrients in the foods we eat. Great to hear you are able to go against the modern trends and eat nutrient rich food.
ZeroGravitas 17y ago
I've just finished reading a history of medicine that claims that medicine's impact on prolonging life is miniscule, maybe 2% of the increase in live expectancy. The biggest impact is childhood (and prenatal) nutrition and basic sanitation. So if you did get sent back to the middle ages, the diseases would be much less likely to kill you as you are generally much more robust as a result of your late 20th century upbringing, and you'd be less likely to get them as you would understand how they spread e.g. avoiding drinking water with human excrement in it. And of you course you didn't die in childbirth or shortly after, by conveniently being in a different century, which will put you above average in life span too. And the big message from the book: avoid the doctors. They would actively be weakening you via bleeding, laxatives and emetics, right up until about the 1920s.

mahmud 17y ago

I am from Somalia: In 1991 - 1992 I witnessed exactly that, a lapse into a dark, and long forgotten period of pure human savagery.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]