3 ms·

I'm not an expert in medieval history, but I have worked in India's countryside (specifically: Maharashtra, a few hours from Pune) with an Indian multinational

by crdb 11y ago

I'm not an expert in medieval history, but I have worked in India's countryside (specifically: Maharashtra, a few hours from Pune) with an Indian multinational and let me assure you that the peasants there (whose conditions of living economically mirror those of medieval peasants, although they have slightly more rights in theory) don't have much leisure time. It's morning to evening back-breaking physical work, undernourishment as a matter of fact, and very high probability of death - some of the families we talked to had been 2/3 decimated by the age of 35, from traffic accidents, a host of diseases like cholera, snakes, you name it... There is no question when I'd rather live.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
This. I think that before the industrial revolution, we had peak leisure (for an average individual) during hunter-gatherer times, and it went quickly downhill when we invented agriculture.
- visarga 11y ago
  But sill, wealthy enough people, who have access to medicine and other resources still don't know how to be happier. They just are less sick and live more.
  - crdb 11y ago
    I disagree, but only based on empirical evidence (and I have no idea how one could measure it scientifically without getting into an argument as to what defines happiness - Maslow?). I've lived in third world, "second" world, and a host of first world countries including the very desirable Australia, Singapore and Switzerland and I've definitely found a strong correlation between wealth (including scientific and political) and happiness. Past a certain level of personal wealth and regardless of the surroundings (although they affect that level), philosophy becomes more important, but that's another argument. Even there, I'd argue more prosperous countries are correlated with sounder philosophies and happier HNWIs, but my sample size is much smaller.
paulmd 11y ago
As an aside - decimation refers to a punitive act in which the Romans would kill every tenth man. If you have 2/3 mortality, that's much worse than decimation.

by crdb 11y ago

TeMPOraL 11y ago

This. I think that before the industrial revolution, we had peak leisure (for an average individual) during hunter-gatherer times, and it went quickly downhill when we invented agriculture.

visarga 11y ago
But sill, wealthy enough people, who have access to medicine and other resources still don't know how to be happier. They just are less sick and live more.
- crdb 11y ago
  I disagree, but only based on empirical evidence (and I have no idea how one could measure it scientifically without getting into an argument as to what defines happiness - Maslow?). I've lived in third world, "second" world, and a host of first world countries including the very desirable Australia, Singapore and Switzerland and I've definitely found a strong correlation between wealth (including scientific and political) and happiness. Past a certain level of personal wealth and regardless of the surroundings (although they affect that level), philosophy becomes more important, but that's another argument. Even there, I'd argue more prosperous countries are correlated with sounder philosophies and happier HNWIs, but my sample size is much smaller.

paulmd 11y ago

As an aside - decimation refers to a punitive act in which the Romans would kill every tenth man. If you have 2/3 mortality, that's much worse than decimation.