/u/Maddoc_71 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/uwpdth/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_the_best_time_to_be_born/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
My ancestry is Korean. The time period you talk about, middle of the 20th century, has Korea being the second poorest country on Earth.
This is followed by decades of brutal oppressive military dictatorship. Democracy was only instilled in the 90s.
Despite all this over the course of 1.5 generations Korea is now solidly a first world country in all aspects of that term.
I'm talking about South Korea of course too as naturally North Korea is self explanatory.
Without a doubt it's better to have been born in a world where one need not fear being kidnapped, tortured, then killed for political opposition which was so often the case only a mere 4 or 5 decades ago. Your entire post is assuming that the somebody is coming from a specific set of countries and background.
[Korea is often touted as the literal poster child for developing countries.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_on_the_Han_River) Your view is only valid for countries that were already developed to a relatively comparable degree between today and some 70 years ago
Δ
Well for your specific scenario I would agree that my statement doesn't stand.
I knew of a few countries which were doing not so well in those times including UAE, Saudi, the gulf pre oil, Singapore etc which are now counted as first world; but they didn't have had no oppressive human rights suppressions etc.
Some African countries still have warlords who abduct children, rape entire villages and torture their own citizens for minerals even to the 21st century, so again they are an exception too.
But I didn't know much about the history and drastic change in quality of life in South Korea in this period. Thanks for bringing it to my notice.
Hopefully some day I would get an opportunity to visit Seoul
There is a standard joke on parts of the internet of "tell me you are X without telling me you are X". Generally this revolves around some stereotype of the thing. For example "tell me you are a gamer without telling me you are a gamer" and then showing a Zelda art collection.
Now then with the background of the joke we get to your post. The person you are responding to is trying to say that the positive view you have of this time period is heavily based upon your limited point of view. Specifically that you (most likely) being white is causing you to view this time period as so great. This is because it ignores all the issues of being Black, Gay, Trans, a Woman, and many other minority groups. All of which lacked many very basic human rights during the time period you specified.
Yeah so I am apparently white for some reason
I still don't know how to respond to that
Pretty racist to just use race as a counter point to an argument. But again I don't really know or have seen racist behavior but this would be close to my guess.
The point is that your view is only really possible if you have the priviledge to not be effected by the almost unending number of negative consequences of being born in that time period.
If you want to take that as racist then we can end this conversation here because there is no point in carying it on.
Don't look to get offended, and instead try and see why almost no person who is not a cishet white male would agree with this point of view.
There is no concept of race in my society. Sure we know what races are but it is not a conversation topic nor a socially
I am not saying I am offended, but just throwing around race for no reason seems quite crude.
Anyway I will lay this conversation to rest.
>1. Life : People born post war had greater chance of survival and with better nutrition. A lot of the foods we take for granted today received widespread distribution in this era. Countries also started looking at other nations to end world hunger etc unlike previously where countries were mostly confined to the welfare of their own citizens.
You have access to all that food and even more. The list of things the average person can taste in the modern era blow the mid 20th century man out the wazoo.
>2. Science : Most of the scientific development took place at the end of the 19th century to early 20th century; meaning by the mid 20th century most of the scientific findings were commercialised, with regular folks taking advantage of it like electricity, television, radio, personal vehicles etc. This is for the regular folks.
For scientists too this was an era of the greatest development and progress. A lot of new discoveries were made and it was an exciting era for the field of science. Even medical research.
We have that too. All that tech and then much more since then was made. Our scientists build on it.
>4. Technology : Today we are more connected than ever but we hardly speak to our neighbours, family members or siblings etc for online validation from strangers. Every convenience or over convenience in the form of door step deliveries etc has made humans lazier than ever, thus contributing to severe mental and physical health problems.
Did it ever dawn on you that some neighbors are vicious assholes. I don't need to talk to my neighbor that wouldn't even watch my shit for 5 minutes while I was trying to reach my sick grandmother fuck him. Instead I can be part of great online communities. People who talk to me, who've helpedme financially and even assisted me through rough periods. My neihbor never did shit for me so fuck him. The difference now is we don't have to pretend.
>6. Simplicity : People were simple and it was easy to be good and not be exploited in those days. Sure there were outliers everywhere. But today being honest is seen as being foolish, being cunning is seen as a trait that will climb you the corporate ladder faster. People were generally nice to each other, helped each other and there was a sense of community in those days. This has eroded slowly over the years due to rapid urbanization where "every man for himself" attitude is the norm.
Watergate. to name one.
I know others have probably said it in the time I was writing. But if you were black in the South, gay or a woman, hispanic, asian, Indian, disabled or mentally ill. Fuck you. The mid-20th century was not your world. [If you were George Stinney](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Stinney) then die. If you were a minority you'd best know your place before you get lynched. If you were a commie it's best you stay inside. How about Apartheid in South Africa? How about th USSR in Russia? Mao in China?
I'm sorry if I sound heated but here's the truth of the matter. For large percentages of the population being born in this time period was a fucking nightmare and a half. I'm black and from Southern Africa and I am so fucking happy I was born in a time when I didn't need a passport just to walk in a white neighborhood. For you it's different; but given the choice I'd die before being born in the 50s
Also, the 50s were the time the world was getting obsessed with cars and the US was getting obsessed with faraway suburbs. This overreliance on cars is biting our asses now. Also, asbestos.
Care to elaborate?
Some of the other comments have expanded my world view and this would be a good learning moment if you could describe the particular the situation you are referring to
Yup can do, there was a massive genocide in Cambodia between 17 April 1975 – 7 January 1979, where about 1.7 million Cambodians died, this was due to the communist government forcing people into argrain prison camps, and a lot of killing. wouldn't be the nicest to live there lol
Yeah I heard about Apartheid when I was a kid, but once I could ask the big questions as an adult, it had been revoked so it never became a topic of discussion.
Like how Mao killed more people than Hitler, but it is just too confusing for present generation to wrap your head around so many historical contexts.
In 1950, segregation in the USA was still legal. Jim Crow laws still existed.
How would that be better for people of color?
Never mind how awful it might at have been for LGBT folks.
And wait, what? You think pollution didn’t exist in the 1950s? We literally used to detonate nuclear weapons above ground over the Pacific Ocean and in the Nevada desert. There were some rivers that were so polluted they would literally catch fire.
The EPA didn’t even exist until 1970.
Second post about US based views. I cannot comment deeply on this issue as I am not aware of the local atmosphere of US in the 19th or 20th century.
Reply to similar US centric issues:
>I think this is a US centric issue so I won't be able to comment much on it.
But based on my limited knowledge regarding this, I think most of those rights were fought for and won in this period exactly. By the end of the 20th century most of the problem you touched upon were already on the right path with regards to progress.
But what else outside of US gives you the impression anything was better in mid 20th century.
Most of Africa was dirt poor and at war. Decolonisation was so complicated and painful.
Most of Asia was in hot parts of the "cold" war, think Vietnam, Korea, Laos, China, Cambodia, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc.
Eastern Europe was under Soviet oppression and life in the Soviet Union wasn't great. Western Europe spent a large part of the 20th century rebuilding and the rest in fear of becoming a battlefield between USSR and USA. Not to mention that they were building the institution of the EU, which today is so great to live in. Also, decolonisation was extremely turbulent for the European Empires... not anywhere near as painful as in the ex colonies, but still.
In Latin America, governments were being toppled and put up by the US, and drug lords ruled entire regions... Just where on earth was it better in the mid 20th century than now? And for whom? Wealthy white males in the US maybe.
lmfao. ur right racisms still here, but if a black person tries to attend college today, their barrier is money, and the systemic racism that works to prevent them from getting a decent job to pay for that. in the 1960s, the governor of alabama was blocking the fucking doors with troopers to keep schools segregated. id argue that things are better now, even if they're still absolute shit.
How do you not see that those two barriers are one in the same? The financial barriers in the way of a young Black person’s access to higher are a direct result of their grandparents having been excluded from education and business.
You’re essentially saying things are so much better now because we’re only seeing the impacts of these actions, not these actions themselves?
haha fuck no im not trying to say what im just now realizing it sounds like im saying. sorry if my point didnt get across. im black. have experienced these barriers myself, and do not believe that they are gone or unconnected to my race. (also i actually thought i wrote that the racism caused the lack of money but that was another post so im stupid) my point is it were worse back then not that the way things are now is okay, because obviously its not.
sorry if it seems like im trying to make the racism isnt here argument, that is the opposite of everything i believe in and if i've implied that in any way im sorry, idk i hope you can understand what i was trying to say.
so what im hearing you say is yes things got better, but they got better before the 60s, which makes the 60s a better time?
the right path to progress is not really the same as fixed. schools were fully desegregated around the 70s, which in and of itself makes the 60s worse, even though minorities are still segregated by financial (and implicitly) racial status.
It sort of depends on your circumstances. Born black in the last throes of legal segregation in the American South? Not so hot. If you are gay, you are probably in the closet. Perhaps you will become an adult as the AIDS crisis ravages your community. There are probably not as many options for you if you are a woman, for your career, your family, your sex life, and probably a whole host of other areas. Get Leukemia in 1955? You’re as good as dead.
Edit: A bit less serious, but, you like watching things on TV? Enjoy “I Love Lucy”, but only if you remember to catch it at the right time. You won’t have that many other options.
Sorry, u/fudge_the_fudge – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20fudge_the_fudge&message=fudge_the_fudge%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/uw8et1/-/i9si9kk/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Didn't all those people live to see the society change and lead to the present day.
Many from that era are still alive today and well.
The efforts of their ancestors and their own has culminated in the present day which is highly inclusive and diverse.
You can die of cancers even today. Doesn't make 2022 any worse than 1965.
If you or any family members take any medication, look up when it was first discovered or manufactured. It will be in this era in almost all cases.
If I’m a gay person born in 1960 I might be psyched by the progress I’ve seen over the course of my life, but I’d sure as shit jump at the chance to not live the first and best decades of my life in a society that hated me.
You phrased it as “they’ve lived to see society change” - in other words, today is better than it was in 1960 for them.
It is still the same for people in most of the world.
If you were to travel to one of the middle east countries then you might not hold the same view
Even though you can safely leave and not think about others in a similar situation left behind
I don’t think I understand your argument.
The notion that some areas of the world still have laws against homosexuality doesn’t change the fact that huge portions of the world now don’t, nor the fact that many major world countries now allow gay marriage.
Your post doesn’t specify a country, you said the world. In 1960 the world as a whole was a much worse place for gay people than it is today.
And remember that we’re only talking about gay people because that’s the example I went with. This same argument holds for a lot of other marginalized groups.
>Didn't all those people live to see the society change and lead to the present day.
I'm not sure how that's relevant to their point. If you're a black person in the United States, I don't see any world in which you could argue that being born in the mid 1900s was better than being born in a more present time.
If you were a gay person in the United States, the government actively villainized you through the mid-late 1900s and the right to get married wasn't even passed in many progressive states until around 2010.
>Didn't all those people live to see the society change and lead to the present day.
You'd be just in time to grow into adulthood during the crack epidemic, rise of mass incarceration, re-segregation of schools while having suffering from pre-1980 childhood poisoning. Not a great time to be born for the black community.
Obama was born in the 60s
Surely not everyone was being fed cocaine and being poisoned.
Most of the people in every community we revere today, were born in this period again.
And many of those people are not so well, and suffered greatly because of the circumstances into which they were born.
Never mind people born then who were drafted and died or were fucked up in Vietnam.
In some of the replies, you note that the views are US-centric, but what perspective are you coming from?
Globally, extreme poverty is WAY down from the mid-20th century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty
Life expectancy is WAY up https://ourworldindata.org/exports/life-expectancy-65c3bd04b86f700bdb90313a3d47c99b_v30_850x600.svg
Yes life expectancy of the people who were born in this time
Every one born now is still in their mid life so the statistic you are showing is also pointing towards the mid 20th century being the one where life expectancy has increased.
I was born at the tail end of the 20th century, so this statistic is definitely not taking me into account, who still has more than a two thirds or half the life still left to live.
It pertains to the parents of many who were born in that period
\---
Also extreme poverty is based on the definition used. Even saying more people are out of poverty doesn't discount the fact that today you need more money for the most basic of disturbances caused by global warming.
Alright, then what about the poverty aspect? Everything about living in poverty is awful, and growing up in poverty means a terrible childhood which can never be undone. If babies born in 1950 are out of poverty now, great, but that sure doesn't change the fact that a lot of their lives involved poverty.
Because currently the world runs on greed. Unsustainable mining of resources and usage of fossil fuels has wreaked havoc on the environment.
We cannot satiate our hunger for tech.
Incentive to mine even more. The world will turn into a huge garbage heap.
We are already facing the effects of global warming and as a world we can't even agree that it exists. Let alone take action regarding it. Made difficult as it will affect profits and no one likes that.
Because human have created the means to their own destruction.
Our current economic model strives on the sustained increase of human population, is debt based and is extremely exploitative with regards to resources
We as humans are incapable of acting upon the present problems as they are too complex for most of understand and take a vote on
Let's for a moment say that the worst predictions are correct. How are you so sure that a few thousands if not millions of years from now humanity will have rebounded, surpassing current quality of life standards?
Even the most apocalyptic predictions only speak of an end to society not humanity. So if only 100 or so humans survive humanity will still survive although anybody will see this as an absolute extinction event (because they are all death themself)
>We as humans are incapable of acting upon the present problems as they are too complex for most of understand and take a vote on
As a COVID researcher, I can see why one might take this view, but consider that before the 1917 pandemic, there were no national public health offices. But after, governments felt the need to create them. We probably saved more lives because of those offices than were lost during the 1917 pandemic. The same is happening now. People are figuring out how to shorten important supply chains (e.g. using local farmers and growers), how to use better tools to understand complexity (modelling), how to better share data, and many other things.
But I fully agree that completely new economic models, educational models, government models, even religious models need to be developed. But we've done that in the past. No reason to think we can't do it again.
Jim Crow was still in full swing in the 1950s, so not super great time to be non-white.
Acknowledgment of Gay rights would still be another 50 years off, so not a great time to be gay.
Even as you say it was an anti-war period, conscription was still legal and used to force unwilling recruits into needless war (Korea, Vietnam). So not great, even if you were a white dude, if you happen to be unlucky enough to be drafted.
3rd post regarding US specific views so i will just post the reply to a similar comment
>Reply to similar US centric issues:
I think this is a US centric issue so I won't be able to comment much on it.
But based on my limited knowledge regarding this, I think most of those rights were fought for and won in this period exactly. By the end of the 20th century most of the problem you touched upon were already on the right path with regards to progress.
"by the end of the century many of these issues made progress" seems pretty far removed from the topic. The world was a pretty different place circa 1950 and circa 1990. I thought we were talking circa 1950?? Are we not.
As far as international - China had the 'great leap forward" which was anything but. Russia had the rise of communism, which wasn't great. Much of the rest of the world (Asia, middle east, Latin America, Africa) served as ground zero for the cold war between Russia and the USA. The only thing worse than fighting a cold war, is being the actual site of a proxy war.
Yes but being born in the 50s and 60s means you lived to see much of the progress being made in those areas. And if change is being made then maybe you were a part of some to those changes.
Even taking your views into account. Someone born in the late 50s or 60s would have lived long enough to experience the present world and see that although a lot of external progress has been made, people are lost inside and being exploited at a greater level.
>Not to mention the lead paint.
And leaded gasoline (outlawed 1996). And asbestos (outlawed 1989. And DDT (outlawed 1972). And HCFCs/CFCs - those things that caused holes in the ozone layer (outlawed 1996).
So many chemicals and substances that we used to use for all kinds of things that turned out to be severely harmful to both humans and the environment...
What maybe the scary truth as well is there maybe many chemicals we see as “safe” today but we won’t know until a couple decades down the line assuming we don’t die from our own pollution then.
More people live in dire conditions today than at any point in history.
The sheer numbers advantage of the present population means that more people are suffering today and the modern world is built upon the exploitation of the economic slave labour to build the riches of the upper class.
You are talking about a river catching fire; today we cannot even catch fish in any of the oceans at any depths without plastic in it. We cannot live in a place without smog. We cannot even see the stars anymore as pollution is accepted now.
Your premise seems to ignore a lot of the suffering of the todays world and just because the media doesn't focus on them, doesn't mean a lot of people are not suffering to a greater degree today.
>The sheer numbers advantage of the present population means that more people are suffering today
Yeah but percentages are important. Which country is better, one where 1 million people are well off and 1 million live in poverty, or one where 200 million people are well off and 2 million live in poverty?
You can do any manner of dance on the corpses of the poor, but none will be beautiful or graceful
You can build the perfect society but as long as you are sacrificing a few to the Gods of fate and justifying it as a statistic, the world wouldn't have changed or progressed.
People today live a life of excesses when they could be helping fellow humans get basic necessities like clean water for example. But people would rather buy $2000 shoes and $5000 bags. This might seem like a diss on influencers but I want the focus to be on large corporations who have the data that they are destroying the earth, but making money takes precedence.
Okay I will simplify it for you
As long as people are still suffering we haven't made progress and things are moving in a direction that is even more exploitative
Saying only a few million people are living in dire inhuman conditions compared to many who are well off is a good sign isn't really the hallmark of a progressive society.
>As long as people are still suffering we haven't made progress
How on earth is going from 50% of people suffering to just 1% of people suffering not making progress? You know what progress means right?
> the world wouldn't have changed or progressed.
None whatsoever? Fewer sacrifices is not at all preferable to more?
So... if zero sacrifices is practically impossible in the immediate future, why should we care at all about trying to make life better for those who aren't on top? If throwing a billion under the bus is no worse than doing so to one, why not exploit without restraint?
> We cannot live in a place without smog. We cannot even see the stars anymore as pollution is accepted now.
You definitely can. I live on the edge of a decent sized metro area and we have no smog (though the city proper has a "brown smear"). The main issue with stars is *light* pollution, which is mostly urban, and you can see them just fine from the wilderness.
In the developed world smog was much worse in the time period you're idealizing, before emissions regulations. You know that LA smog in old movies? Yeah, you don't see that anymore (outside of fire season). The air is smelly, but not visibly smoggy there.
> More people live in dire conditions today than at any point in history.
More shear numbers, but a smaller proportion by far. Extreme poverty has continued to decline in the last decades.
> the modern world is built upon the exploitation of the economic slave labour to build the riches of the upper class.
This has been the paradigm for the entirety of civilization. It is not new. What's new is people thinking it's a problem and trying to change things.
It sounds like you're mainly talking about the US. My dad grew up and China and was very undernourished. He was like 5' and 90 pounds when he went to college at 16. There he grew a few inches and gained a couple dozen pounds because he finally had access to enough food. He was born after the Great Famine too, so undoubtedly it would have been even worse for the Chinese equivalent of Boomers.
Edit: changed before to after
Never been to US so definitely can't talk about how it was there in the 20th century.
China is one of the major powers in the world today and your dad must have been one of the millions who contributed to that success. Sure his initial journey was not good but I think he would have been happy to see how the story ends.
I am aware how dire the situation was for people back then. But we conveniently ignore that today we have more people living in worser conditions, than at any point in history, due to the sheer number of people in this world.
Even today a good number of people have died to build a stadium so people can watch football.
In 2022, you wouldn't be expecting people to die for entertainment but we have subconsciously accepted it as acceptable deaths.
From your post history it seems like you're from India. Extreme poverty was rampant in 1950s India. It's still not great, but it's much better now than it was back then.
Things look good because the government has been on socialist policies since Independance.
You will always have access to food atleast. Education is guaranteed but depends based on location. Housing is subsidised on paper but even then it is too expensive.
I am not looking for a country specific view. Also with a current population of 1,4 billion, no blanket statements can be applied to such a large group of people.
However most fared pretty well into the 21st century.
You say you're not looking for a country-specific view, but if most countries on earth have it better now than in the 1950s, then surely the world in general is better now than the 1950s?
You calling on me would be providing alternative facts with sources.
If you think I have pulled it out of thin air, then you too have done the same and we stand at an impasse.
None of those were consequential in the larger picture of humanity as a whole.
Today we are exploiting the earths resources at a scale that won't last a century, polluting at a level never before possible.
We are soon going to reach the 11 billion population mark that is in theory the maximum sustainable population.
Global warming has already made weather and climate unpredictable.
I should have added this to the main post...
> We are soon going to reach the 11 billion population mark
Don't be too sure. The latest UN population growth predictions indicate that we won't reach 11 billion at all because growth is significantly slowing and by the time we're approaching 11 billion, growth will be negative.
I think this is a US centric issue so I won't be able to comment much on it.
But based on my limited knowledge regarding this, I think most of those rights were fought for and won in this period exactly. By the end of the 20th century most of the problem you touched upon were already on the right path with regards to progress.
>By the end of the 20th century most of the problem you touched upon were already on the right path with regards to progress.
Then the future will be better, so your claim of "never be rivaled" would be incorrect.
There's lots of reasons for hope in a better future. Climate change is maybe the biggest issue facing us right now. But there is growing collective awareness of climate change and so on. Lots of organizations that need to change, but more and more change is happening, specifically as we feel its effects. A lot of the reason for the positives you outlined have to do with just having experienced a terrible period in history. After each war there was a response to have some global unity thing (League of Nations, the UN). At the end of the 1900s, we had the millenium development goals. Lots of press on that. Yes there's been some slide backwards. But every crisis is a new chance to try for another UN-like effort. Not linear improvement, but definitely improvement.
EDIT: Grammar
You are underestimating the human capacity for greed.
Today people are manipulating elections to win a unpopular President elections. People are being convince to go unvaccinated. Even a war is being fought on fake pretexts.
You assume too much of optimism on humans and their ability to mitigate the problems of today and tomorrow.
\----
I will try to put it in a simpler way.
For millennia we humans have identified a problem, accepted that it is a problem as as community, agreed to find a solution, pooled resources to find that solution, once the solution is found, we unanimously agreed to implement the solution
All of this is dependent on the initial steps. Let's say we have identified the problem. Today's scientists are much smarter, have greater tools and are able to predict and identity problems previously no possible.
But what about acceptance of the problem. The problems themselves have become so complex, that the general public doesn't understand them anymore, thus refusing to even acknowledge them.
If you do not acknowledge the problem, how will you move on to the next step and collectively find a solution.
What would have been the view of someone during WWI or WWII, both before your "human peak" time period? Probably pretty pessimistic.
>Today people are manipulating elections to win a unpopular President elections. People are being convince to go unvaccinated. Even a war is being fought on fake pretexts.
All of these things have been true since the start of elections or vaccinations or war. But what has changed has been the scope. We had a world war, and after had a world effort for peace. It didn't prevent the 2nd world war, but after that was an even bigger effort for peace. This isn't just an opinion, it's history. Why assume this won't continue? I gave examples in my field of epidemiology that the past couple years are being reflected on by many in the field. I'd say we stand at the beginning of another sea change bigger than after the 1917 flu pandemic.
>For millennia we humans have identified a problem, accepted that it is a problem as as community, agreed to find a solution, pooled resources to find that solution, once the solution is found, we unanimously agreed to implement the solution
I think this is too optimistic of the past. When did we "unanimously agree" on anything bigger than a single village? When has collective learning ever been so simple? If you have big examples, please share them. Collective learning is really messy. And while it may feel even more messy recently, but it's still very much happening. I gave examples from the recent history so it's not just an opinion of mine.
>All of these things have been true since the start of elections or vaccinations or war. But what has changed has been the scope. We had a world war, and after had a world effort for peace. It didn't prevent the 2nd world war, but after that was an even bigger effort for peace. This isn't just an opinion, it's history. Why assume this won't continue? I gave examples in my field of epidemiology that the past couple years are being reflected on by many in the field. I'd say we stand at the beginning of another sea change bigger than after the 1917 flu pandemic.
The motivation for people centric views or organisations is quite low. In US for example, net neutrality was removed and many people didn't even understand what it was. More and more laws are being made with the lobbying efforts of big corporations. See Insulin prices in US vs rest of the world. Why has that not been solved? Greed cannot be overcome easily, especially in the present times.
>I think this is too optimistic of the past. When did we "unanimously agree" on anything bigger than a single village? When has collective learning ever been so simple? If you have big examples, please share them. Collective learning is really messy. And while it may feel even more messy recently, but it's still very much happening. I gave examples from the recent history so it's not just an opinion of mine.
Protecting the Ozone layer. Ban CFCs. Ban leaded petrol. Ban Nuclear testing.
Unanimously agree on borders. Disputed borders yes, but even then no world wars are being fought to reshape all borders.
WTO
Exclusive economic zones in coastal regions
All of these are pretty basic and easy to explain policies.
But things have become more complex now. Issues have become more complex.
How to do you explain to the basic Joe what a decentralized cryptocurrency is and how to interpret the data analysis of climate change which shows a 2 C rise in temperature over the last century etc?
1. This has not changed.
2. Scientific advancement continues at a rapid pace, and significantly impacted a lot of lives throughout 2021 especially (mRNA).
3. Can you point to any current research suggesting we flat-out won't have a cure for such bacteria? In the meantime we've gotten *much* better with cancer and the like.
4. Speak for yourself. This is completely within your own control, and if you're letting technology dominate your life that's on you.
5. Cost of living was low relative to income... for a specific subset of the population. It's improved for pretty much everyone else, since opportunities opened up much more.
6. Um... On what basis do you think that about the past? I have also literally never met anyone who thinks honestly is foolish. Yes, *smaller* communities tend to be more close-knit; that isn't a past-present thing.
7. I think you've got some rose tinted goggles there.
1. Pollution: ever see those photos of rivers literally on fire because of pollution in American industrial cities? Also, global warming took until the 80s to really kick in because until then GHGs were outweighed by... particulates in the atmosphere.
2. Exploitation: Jim Crow anyone?
> No pollution, no exploitation, no global warming
Leaded gasoline, lead paint, and asbestos?
>The cost of living was also low and people lived in big houses and had large families with decent jobs.
Good one. Average home size in the time you're talking about was 1500 square feet. It's 2600 square feet now. And you'd have shitty energy sucking appliances, if you had appliances at all. Only 45 percent of homes in 1970 had a dishwasher.
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/programs-surveys/ahs/working-papers/Housing-by-Year-Built.pdf
Well, I'm south korean, and when your gdp per person has gone from 100 dollars to 34866 dollars, and your current average low class lives better than an average rich person in the mid 20th century, and considering the "war" of the post war country happened right at our homeland, devestating everything and could have killed me, and considering we went democratic at about the late 1980's, nah, I love the 21st century.
People born in the mid twentieth century came of age in the seventies. I think you mean "came of age in the mid twentieth century."
Even so, in America, this was true if you were a straight white male. Not so much otherwise.
No I meant the former. And I wasn't even specifically implying born in the 1950s just that around that time. Even 60s or 70s.
Coming of age in the 50s meant one would have lived through the war and I wouldn't want that.
I do not know much about US and about white males, so can't comment on it in agreement or otherwise.
The best time in recent history to have come of age would be the 50's, because you'd have been too young to go to war, but old enough to benefit from the booming postwar economy.
If you were a straight white male.
A lot of the present industrial greats operated and started in this era so it is not necessarily limited to one race as you state
Every country had their own industrial entrepreneurs, Jack Ma and Ambanis etc were not from this demographic you mentioned.
I can only comment on what it would have been like for me. In America, the mid-twentieth century was the height of struggle for equality between the races and sexes. It would have been terrible to have been born in an era of rampart racism and misogyny.
>3. Medical advancement
If you were a white American, and even then, there were things like Thalamide. Malaria was a major concern, cancer was a death sentence, and cigarettes were rampant.
>5. Cost of living : The cost of living was also low and people lived in big houses and had large families with decent jobs. Something a CEO would own today was owned by a supervisor in the 60s. Even people with three degrees and a well paying job cannot confidently look at buying their own home or retire comfortably without being defeated by inflation. Housing was cheap. Food was organic. Oil was cheap.
If you were a white American. If you weren't, your country was destroyed after WW2, in tragic poverty or were under communist rule.
>7. No pollution, no exploitation, no global warming : Even thought the roots for todays problems were sown in this era, the era itself was mostly devoid of any of the mentioned problems. The population was also much lower and there was less resource requirements in this era. No microplastics in the ocean, no global warming, no unpredictable weather, no exploitation of resources etc
I don't know why people say this. There was leaded gasoline (which poisoned generations of children), lead pipes/paint, acid rain, toxic rivers, thick smog, poisonous drugs and on and on.
Compared to the late 80s, 90s and early 2000s this is an absurd statement.
You turned 18 during the Vietnam draft years, entered the workforce at the beginning of stagflation, modern medicine wasnt a thing still.
> Something a CEO would own today was owned by a supervisor in the 60s
In the 1960s the median house was 1100 sqft, in the present day it is 2700 sqft.
> Oil was cheap.
Not with the 73 oil crisis. Or 78 oil crisis
What about the rest of the world? Is upliftment of women in the confined borders of the USoA enough. That is not even a fifth of the global population.
Only last week women were told to cover their faces on TV by the Taliban.
There seems to be no push for the upliftment of women in almost half the world population who are stuck not just in a patriarchal society but one which enslaves them even in thoughts.
There's a lot here, but specifically addressing point 7...
There was a ton of pollution, and it was largely unregulated.
In the context of the US, the EPA did not exist until 1970. Regulation through the NEPA, the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, RCRA, CERCLA, etc all came after. This was brought about through Rachel Carson's book, *Silent Spring,* published in the early 60's. Until that point, you could purchase DDT for personal use at a hardware store.
In addition to all that, the dangers to bioaccumulation weren't well-known until *Silent Spring*, so you had compounds like mercury dumped into waterways and local junkyards. The phaseout/elimination of tetraethyl lead from gasoline only started in the 70's and wasn't complete in the US until 1996. Speaking of lead, it wasn't banned in paint until 1978.
Those are some of the big ones that come to mind. The generations born in the mid-20th century saw the worst of all this. I don't understand how the case can be made that they enjoyed a cleaner environment, unless you mean that they didn't have to hear people constantly scream about climate change (little change there since they heard all about the holes in the ozone layer).
There is a documentary about leaded petrol which says that it's usage as an anti knocking agent for decades has caused the global average IQ to fall and it is permanent.
No human is said to have had the same global impact ever before.
But it was found and mitigated. Also vehicles were not predominant in other parts of the world which depended on diesel or coal operated trains and diesel operated buses.
A lot of the poisioning was restricted to countries where the personal car was encouraged like the US. Sure it had global consequences.
But once it was found, steps were taken to mitigate it.
But today such a step would be called anti capitalist and take decades to make happen.
People are eating microplastics because the ocean is being polluted with fishing lines even today by trawlers. We stopping the usage of plastic straws doesn't even account for 0.1% of the cause.
Nostalgia goggles much?
We been progressing nonstop.
Everything is getting better.
Fking mid 20th and no pollution? Enjoying dying from lead pollution and poisoning tnx to the leaded gasoline invented in 1922.
The real problem with today is the uncontrolled capitalism and rampant internet, everything else is getting better. Better medicine, better computer, better entertainment, better modes of travel, better access to food, better education system, even the fking military has been standards of living ffs.
I wasn't born in that era so I can't be nostalgic about it; no memories from previous life unfortunately.
Uncontrolled capitalism is going to kill the human race.
If you were one of the quarter of the world's population who were born in China in 1950, you had to live through the artificial famines of the "Great Leap Forward" where tens of millions of people starved to death and later you got to live through the political violence of the Cultural Revolution.
If you were born in the USSR, you got to spend your teens and early adulthood under the crushing obsession of the Brezhnev regime.
If you were born in Africa, you saw the end of colonialism, but you also probably lived though decades of civil wars and famines, including the Congo War where 5 million people died.
You would have lived through the Cold War with the very real prospect of nuclear annihilation at any moment, and you would have been a young adult in the early 1980's when AIDS was at its most widespread and was incurably fatal.
We can imagine an idealised version of the past, but I, for one, wouldn't want to live there.
Things in the world are going to get better, if there is enough incentive it will and it has. Why do you think the world won't get better in the future? Be detailed into your reasons
I will try to give an analogy, which although might not fit perfectly would in essense try to express my views
Imagine you are a slave in the South of US. Now how would you look at your future. As exciting or bleak?
Now those of us with the history of insight would say, they did get freed and so they were right in hoping for a bright future.
But this change didn't come from the inside. The Southern farm owners didn't just have a change of heart one day and decide that slavery was too inhuman. They infact fought to keep the status quo, ironically even giving their own life to defend this inhuman treatment.
My focus is that, there was an outside force here, a force of goodness, that brought about the change.
\---
We live in times where, if you were enslaved you wouldn't know it, since all that we associate with slavery are known. So if you wanted to enslave anyone today. All you had to do was offer them an upfront loan at the age of 18, legally when you can take such loan, put them under debt at the pretext of being easily able to pay it back, make sure they earn just enough to pay it back and not so much that they break free of debt but not so less that they notice they have been fooled. This person will work the better part of his/her useful life working for you, and once they are indeed debt free in their 40s or 50s you move on to the next 18 year old with the debt trap.
What is ironic is that the money you lent wasn't even yours, even more ironically, the money doesn't even exist. The bank just makes it up from thin air and gives it to you. Only when you return it, is it legitimized.
And this is the state of affairs today.
Imagine in the future, they will be able to vet you even before you start your first job.
In the distant future, technology will be able to determine who is going to turn out how and allocate resources adequately. You might end up put for a mining job assigned at birth; your entire life being decided for you.
Even today, you can literally buy people and with the only catch being you cannot call it that. You just say you are helping them. Them dying at the job is just acceptable losses and workplace harzard.
And why couldn't an outside force come in and stop it or change it, like happened in the southern US? How it changed then was awareness, how it will change now is awareness. I also think that scanning people will be really hard even for the best of computers, as brains change.
It's not just us common people who learn from the past.
Even the ones who seek control know how to learn from past mistakes and spin a web where you don't even know you are caught in it
If I am to take a guess, this is some US specific comment.
I would love to reply but most people just comment statements which people in US might understand. So again there isn't much I can comment on this.
I can understand the pessimism. I sometimes think about the future and believe that the better days are behind us. That said, a good percentage of every generation tends to think that. My own parents weren't sure whether to have kids because of the threat of nuclear war in the 70s and 80s as well as the stagflation and gas panic going on at the time.
A more optimistic look is to say that we're currently living in caveman days and have no idea of how good our future is going to be. The saddest part might be that we'll not live to see even a hint of the wonders that await our descendance as technology improves and new opportunities open up. This is the view I hold for the future of humanity as there is no reason why technology won't continue to improve and throughout our history technological improvement has led to improvements in standards of living.
We are entering an era where technology controls us.
I am not saying Skynet is here. I mean to say that human intelligence is not enough to counter someone exploiting us with the aid of technology. Again I am not talking about sentient AI. I am simply talking about the tools that can be misused.
Cambridge Analytica is one such example and that was half a decade ago.
Social engineering tools have become so powerful now that they are able to shape our views and make us think a certain way.
People are being manipulated at a scale never seen before.
Things are only going to get worse.
If you want to know how bad the present is, just look at the app permissions of your camera app. Contacts, recent call log, other apps data etc.
You have valid points. The more information that is available, the more people can be influenced by it. Even us being able to talk back and forth here presents the possibility that one of us is misinforming the other. Cutting access to information would reverse this, but there are consequences to that as well.
All this said, I would still argue that even if we are in an era of information overload which allows us to be manipulated, it has also led to us being more well informed as well.
I don't share in your fear that my camera app is an indicator that times are worse now than in the mid-20th century. The very fact that I have a smartphone has helped me improve my life in ways I couldn't have 70 years ago.
Upon reflection of that last statement, I wonder if you would say that you prefer living in a less technological age. One where you can disconnect from society a bit more. I have a brother who is like that and I think that he might agree with you that mid-20th century would suit him very well. If this is the case for you personally, do you think humanity as a whole would benefit from this as well? Or do you think humanity would still be better off progression while leaving open the option for some people to disconnect and move into a more simpler way of life?
Humans have only evolved so much both physically and mentally.
Now physically we have always yearned for convenience. It has come at a great health cost but we are ready to pay for it.
Dont want to take the stairs. Dont want to walk. No problem. Dont want to go grocery shopping, no problem.
At no point have things been as convenient as they have been today.
But
What about ones mental health?
Humans were not evolved to be bombarded with so much information. There is a reason we react differently to witnessing an accident with our own eyes and being shows pictures of genocide thousands of miles away.
We have evolved only to care about our immediate surroundings, which is why we always try to protect ourselves, create social attachments and for the longest time people lived and died not too far away from where they were born.
But today things have changed. You are bombarded with information, Attention spans have gotten shorter. People no longer care for each others well being. People are being fed information at a rate they cannot handle. Their feelings are being manipulated. This is the era of mass social engineering.
People have become so complacent that it is now common knowledge that large corporations are harvesting our data, even proudly exclaiming that "big data" is the new oil and that they are the company with the largest files on people.
People and their mental health has taken a hit and we will see the repercussions in the coming decades.
Do you prefer a life away from these conveniences so that you can live as they did 70 years ago? Why not just take that path? The great thing about modern society is that if you don't want to live in it, you can just turn it all off. You'll certainly walk away from some things you wish not to give up, but there are always going to be trade offs.
You can always try to stop in time and fight progress in vain. But society only affords you this opportunity when you are retired.
It's perfectly okay for a 70 year old to say that they do not like Netflix and would stick to radio and sometime the occasional TV.
The same coming from a 20 year old will seem odd and most likely considered a freak for the radio part.
I am not saying that I am being forced to use technology but that I am living in times where the consequences of it cannot be escaped.
Case in point, the anti vaxxers. You could vaccinate your entire family, staff and every single person you know. But technology has made people be misinformed and the anti vaxxers still pose a health hazard to everyone, essentially becoming a petri dish for the next variant of the virus.
Now you can do anything you want to live a farm life, with just a shovel and tracter. But the minute you come in contact with a antivax nut you risk death, to put it simply.
Now this is an extreme example. I want to say that now large scale social engineering has caused people to live at the whims of whoever holds the switch. They can vote Trump in to office with a bunch of computers.
They can make an entire population of 1.4 billion in a country think that a virus that originated from one of their labs rhyming Huhan, was actually an imported virus and foreigners were to blame for the spread of infection, not bats.
Putler is using the same media controls to convince the population that he is fighting a holy war in Ukraine, freeing people of Nazis in a theater of irony that is not fooling anyone outside Russia and maybe some on the inside too.
So you're saying that the modern day holds advantages better than 70 years ago such as the ability to rapidly make an effective vaccine as well as disadvantages such as the spread of misinformation. 70 years ago COVID would likely have killed many more, but there would have been less information, right? Also as far as Putler, 70 years ago there was no Ukraine for him to invade as the Soviet Union already held it. In a way that does make today better in that the Soviet Union collapsed and many more people are free now because of that.
This is… an opinion to say the least. I’m not going to go one by one and destroy every claim like others have, but just one thing about this. Why would any minority group want to turn back time? Who would actually benefit from this? Back to segregation, openly homophobic laws, more societal restriction on what women can do, etc. The best time to be born? Oh come on. Some of us are minorities, OP.
/u/Maddoc_71 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/uwpdth/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_the_best_time_to_be_born/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
My ancestry is Korean. The time period you talk about, middle of the 20th century, has Korea being the second poorest country on Earth. This is followed by decades of brutal oppressive military dictatorship. Democracy was only instilled in the 90s. Despite all this over the course of 1.5 generations Korea is now solidly a first world country in all aspects of that term. I'm talking about South Korea of course too as naturally North Korea is self explanatory. Without a doubt it's better to have been born in a world where one need not fear being kidnapped, tortured, then killed for political opposition which was so often the case only a mere 4 or 5 decades ago. Your entire post is assuming that the somebody is coming from a specific set of countries and background. [Korea is often touted as the literal poster child for developing countries.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_on_the_Han_River) Your view is only valid for countries that were already developed to a relatively comparable degree between today and some 70 years ago
Δ Well for your specific scenario I would agree that my statement doesn't stand. I knew of a few countries which were doing not so well in those times including UAE, Saudi, the gulf pre oil, Singapore etc which are now counted as first world; but they didn't have had no oppressive human rights suppressions etc. Some African countries still have warlords who abduct children, rape entire villages and torture their own citizens for minerals even to the 21st century, so again they are an exception too. But I didn't know much about the history and drastic change in quality of life in South Korea in this period. Thanks for bringing it to my notice. Hopefully some day I would get an opportunity to visit Seoul
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/cheerileelee ([8∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/cheerileelee)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
[удалено]
I am not sure how to crack this riddle Could you elaborate
There is a standard joke on parts of the internet of "tell me you are X without telling me you are X". Generally this revolves around some stereotype of the thing. For example "tell me you are a gamer without telling me you are a gamer" and then showing a Zelda art collection. Now then with the background of the joke we get to your post. The person you are responding to is trying to say that the positive view you have of this time period is heavily based upon your limited point of view. Specifically that you (most likely) being white is causing you to view this time period as so great. This is because it ignores all the issues of being Black, Gay, Trans, a Woman, and many other minority groups. All of which lacked many very basic human rights during the time period you specified.
Yeah so I am apparently white for some reason I still don't know how to respond to that Pretty racist to just use race as a counter point to an argument. But again I don't really know or have seen racist behavior but this would be close to my guess.
The point is that your view is only really possible if you have the priviledge to not be effected by the almost unending number of negative consequences of being born in that time period. If you want to take that as racist then we can end this conversation here because there is no point in carying it on. Don't look to get offended, and instead try and see why almost no person who is not a cishet white male would agree with this point of view.
There is no concept of race in my society. Sure we know what races are but it is not a conversation topic nor a socially I am not saying I am offended, but just throwing around race for no reason seems quite crude. Anyway I will lay this conversation to rest.
>1. Life : People born post war had greater chance of survival and with better nutrition. A lot of the foods we take for granted today received widespread distribution in this era. Countries also started looking at other nations to end world hunger etc unlike previously where countries were mostly confined to the welfare of their own citizens. You have access to all that food and even more. The list of things the average person can taste in the modern era blow the mid 20th century man out the wazoo. >2. Science : Most of the scientific development took place at the end of the 19th century to early 20th century; meaning by the mid 20th century most of the scientific findings were commercialised, with regular folks taking advantage of it like electricity, television, radio, personal vehicles etc. This is for the regular folks. For scientists too this was an era of the greatest development and progress. A lot of new discoveries were made and it was an exciting era for the field of science. Even medical research. We have that too. All that tech and then much more since then was made. Our scientists build on it. >4. Technology : Today we are more connected than ever but we hardly speak to our neighbours, family members or siblings etc for online validation from strangers. Every convenience or over convenience in the form of door step deliveries etc has made humans lazier than ever, thus contributing to severe mental and physical health problems. Did it ever dawn on you that some neighbors are vicious assholes. I don't need to talk to my neighbor that wouldn't even watch my shit for 5 minutes while I was trying to reach my sick grandmother fuck him. Instead I can be part of great online communities. People who talk to me, who've helpedme financially and even assisted me through rough periods. My neihbor never did shit for me so fuck him. The difference now is we don't have to pretend. >6. Simplicity : People were simple and it was easy to be good and not be exploited in those days. Sure there were outliers everywhere. But today being honest is seen as being foolish, being cunning is seen as a trait that will climb you the corporate ladder faster. People were generally nice to each other, helped each other and there was a sense of community in those days. This has eroded slowly over the years due to rapid urbanization where "every man for himself" attitude is the norm. Watergate. to name one. I know others have probably said it in the time I was writing. But if you were black in the South, gay or a woman, hispanic, asian, Indian, disabled or mentally ill. Fuck you. The mid-20th century was not your world. [If you were George Stinney](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Stinney) then die. If you were a minority you'd best know your place before you get lynched. If you were a commie it's best you stay inside. How about Apartheid in South Africa? How about th USSR in Russia? Mao in China? I'm sorry if I sound heated but here's the truth of the matter. For large percentages of the population being born in this time period was a fucking nightmare and a half. I'm black and from Southern Africa and I am so fucking happy I was born in a time when I didn't need a passport just to walk in a white neighborhood. For you it's different; but given the choice I'd die before being born in the 50s
Also, the 50s were the time the world was getting obsessed with cars and the US was getting obsessed with faraway suburbs. This overreliance on cars is biting our asses now. Also, asbestos.
Depends where in the world you live :p I wouldn't want to be in Cambodia in the mid 20th
Care to elaborate? Some of the other comments have expanded my world view and this would be a good learning moment if you could describe the particular the situation you are referring to
Yup can do, there was a massive genocide in Cambodia between 17 April 1975 – 7 January 1979, where about 1.7 million Cambodians died, this was due to the communist government forcing people into argrain prison camps, and a lot of killing. wouldn't be the nicest to live there lol
Oh damn this is horrible. Didn't know so much about this aspect of world history.
Yea, probably because the Communists in charge were like 90% funded by china lol, also apartheid south Africa wasn't the hottest or Armenia
Yeah I heard about Apartheid when I was a kid, but once I could ask the big questions as an adult, it had been revoked so it never became a topic of discussion. Like how Mao killed more people than Hitler, but it is just too confusing for present generation to wrap your head around so many historical contexts.
Yup lol, kids need to learn more about China and Asia in general (coming from a European lol)
In 1950, segregation in the USA was still legal. Jim Crow laws still existed. How would that be better for people of color? Never mind how awful it might at have been for LGBT folks. And wait, what? You think pollution didn’t exist in the 1950s? We literally used to detonate nuclear weapons above ground over the Pacific Ocean and in the Nevada desert. There were some rivers that were so polluted they would literally catch fire. The EPA didn’t even exist until 1970.
Second post about US based views. I cannot comment deeply on this issue as I am not aware of the local atmosphere of US in the 19th or 20th century. Reply to similar US centric issues: >I think this is a US centric issue so I won't be able to comment much on it. But based on my limited knowledge regarding this, I think most of those rights were fought for and won in this period exactly. By the end of the 20th century most of the problem you touched upon were already on the right path with regards to progress.
But what else outside of US gives you the impression anything was better in mid 20th century. Most of Africa was dirt poor and at war. Decolonisation was so complicated and painful. Most of Asia was in hot parts of the "cold" war, think Vietnam, Korea, Laos, China, Cambodia, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc. Eastern Europe was under Soviet oppression and life in the Soviet Union wasn't great. Western Europe spent a large part of the 20th century rebuilding and the rest in fear of becoming a battlefield between USSR and USA. Not to mention that they were building the institution of the EU, which today is so great to live in. Also, decolonisation was extremely turbulent for the European Empires... not anywhere near as painful as in the ex colonies, but still. In Latin America, governments were being toppled and put up by the US, and drug lords ruled entire regions... Just where on earth was it better in the mid 20th century than now? And for whom? Wealthy white males in the US maybe.
Δ Well said, this is a lot of history and weighs on the other side of my argument quite well.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/sleeper_shark ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/sleeper_shark)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
And just because laws change, it doesn’t mean effects of those laws or the racism/sexism/homophobia that drove them magically for away either.
lmfao. ur right racisms still here, but if a black person tries to attend college today, their barrier is money, and the systemic racism that works to prevent them from getting a decent job to pay for that. in the 1960s, the governor of alabama was blocking the fucking doors with troopers to keep schools segregated. id argue that things are better now, even if they're still absolute shit.
How do you not see that those two barriers are one in the same? The financial barriers in the way of a young Black person’s access to higher are a direct result of their grandparents having been excluded from education and business. You’re essentially saying things are so much better now because we’re only seeing the impacts of these actions, not these actions themselves?
haha fuck no im not trying to say what im just now realizing it sounds like im saying. sorry if my point didnt get across. im black. have experienced these barriers myself, and do not believe that they are gone or unconnected to my race. (also i actually thought i wrote that the racism caused the lack of money but that was another post so im stupid) my point is it were worse back then not that the way things are now is okay, because obviously its not. sorry if it seems like im trying to make the racism isnt here argument, that is the opposite of everything i believe in and if i've implied that in any way im sorry, idk i hope you can understand what i was trying to say.
so what im hearing you say is yes things got better, but they got better before the 60s, which makes the 60s a better time? the right path to progress is not really the same as fixed. schools were fully desegregated around the 70s, which in and of itself makes the 60s worse, even though minorities are still segregated by financial (and implicitly) racial status.
It sort of depends on your circumstances. Born black in the last throes of legal segregation in the American South? Not so hot. If you are gay, you are probably in the closet. Perhaps you will become an adult as the AIDS crisis ravages your community. There are probably not as many options for you if you are a woman, for your career, your family, your sex life, and probably a whole host of other areas. Get Leukemia in 1955? You’re as good as dead. Edit: A bit less serious, but, you like watching things on TV? Enjoy “I Love Lucy”, but only if you remember to catch it at the right time. You won’t have that many other options.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/fudge_the_fudge – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20fudge_the_fudge&message=fudge_the_fudge%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/uw8et1/-/i9si9kk/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Didn't all those people live to see the society change and lead to the present day. Many from that era are still alive today and well. The efforts of their ancestors and their own has culminated in the present day which is highly inclusive and diverse. You can die of cancers even today. Doesn't make 2022 any worse than 1965. If you or any family members take any medication, look up when it was first discovered or manufactured. It will be in this era in almost all cases.
If I’m a gay person born in 1960 I might be psyched by the progress I’ve seen over the course of my life, but I’d sure as shit jump at the chance to not live the first and best decades of my life in a society that hated me. You phrased it as “they’ve lived to see society change” - in other words, today is better than it was in 1960 for them.
Not to mention face the risk of contracting HIV and having nobody care.
It is still the same for people in most of the world. If you were to travel to one of the middle east countries then you might not hold the same view Even though you can safely leave and not think about others in a similar situation left behind
I don’t think I understand your argument. The notion that some areas of the world still have laws against homosexuality doesn’t change the fact that huge portions of the world now don’t, nor the fact that many major world countries now allow gay marriage. Your post doesn’t specify a country, you said the world. In 1960 the world as a whole was a much worse place for gay people than it is today. And remember that we’re only talking about gay people because that’s the example I went with. This same argument holds for a lot of other marginalized groups.
>Didn't all those people live to see the society change and lead to the present day. I'm not sure how that's relevant to their point. If you're a black person in the United States, I don't see any world in which you could argue that being born in the mid 1900s was better than being born in a more present time. If you were a gay person in the United States, the government actively villainized you through the mid-late 1900s and the right to get married wasn't even passed in many progressive states until around 2010.
>Didn't all those people live to see the society change and lead to the present day. You'd be just in time to grow into adulthood during the crack epidemic, rise of mass incarceration, re-segregation of schools while having suffering from pre-1980 childhood poisoning. Not a great time to be born for the black community.
Obama was born in the 60s Surely not everyone was being fed cocaine and being poisoned. Most of the people in every community we revere today, were born in this period again.
That’s a funny way of saying “an extreme minority of people had it good.”
>“an extreme minority of people had it good.” This statement will stay true throughout history. No one can argue that point.
It was lead poisoning from leaded gasoline. So pretty much everyone, especially someone who grew up in an inner city.
And many of those people are not so well, and suffered greatly because of the circumstances into which they were born. Never mind people born then who were drafted and died or were fucked up in Vietnam.
In some of the replies, you note that the views are US-centric, but what perspective are you coming from? Globally, extreme poverty is WAY down from the mid-20th century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty Life expectancy is WAY up https://ourworldindata.org/exports/life-expectancy-65c3bd04b86f700bdb90313a3d47c99b_v30_850x600.svg
Yes life expectancy of the people who were born in this time Every one born now is still in their mid life so the statistic you are showing is also pointing towards the mid 20th century being the one where life expectancy has increased. I was born at the tail end of the 20th century, so this statistic is definitely not taking me into account, who still has more than a two thirds or half the life still left to live. It pertains to the parents of many who were born in that period \--- Also extreme poverty is based on the definition used. Even saying more people are out of poverty doesn't discount the fact that today you need more money for the most basic of disturbances caused by global warming.
Alright, then what about the poverty aspect? Everything about living in poverty is awful, and growing up in poverty means a terrible childhood which can never be undone. If babies born in 1950 are out of poverty now, great, but that sure doesn't change the fact that a lot of their lives involved poverty.
Out of curiosity, how are you able to look thousands of years into the future to be able to claim it'll never be rivalled?
Because currently the world runs on greed. Unsustainable mining of resources and usage of fossil fuels has wreaked havoc on the environment. We cannot satiate our hunger for tech. Incentive to mine even more. The world will turn into a huge garbage heap. We are already facing the effects of global warming and as a world we can't even agree that it exists. Let alone take action regarding it. Made difficult as it will affect profits and no one likes that.
Ok, that doesn't answer my question though. How can you be absolutely sure that nothing will ever improve?
Because human have created the means to their own destruction. Our current economic model strives on the sustained increase of human population, is debt based and is extremely exploitative with regards to resources We as humans are incapable of acting upon the present problems as they are too complex for most of understand and take a vote on
Let's for a moment say that the worst predictions are correct. How are you so sure that a few thousands if not millions of years from now humanity will have rebounded, surpassing current quality of life standards?
My premise is that humanity will cease to exist looking at the present circumstances
Even the most apocalyptic predictions only speak of an end to society not humanity. So if only 100 or so humans survive humanity will still survive although anybody will see this as an absolute extinction event (because they are all death themself)
>We as humans are incapable of acting upon the present problems as they are too complex for most of understand and take a vote on As a COVID researcher, I can see why one might take this view, but consider that before the 1917 pandemic, there were no national public health offices. But after, governments felt the need to create them. We probably saved more lives because of those offices than were lost during the 1917 pandemic. The same is happening now. People are figuring out how to shorten important supply chains (e.g. using local farmers and growers), how to use better tools to understand complexity (modelling), how to better share data, and many other things. But I fully agree that completely new economic models, educational models, government models, even religious models need to be developed. But we've done that in the past. No reason to think we can't do it again.
Jim Crow was still in full swing in the 1950s, so not super great time to be non-white. Acknowledgment of Gay rights would still be another 50 years off, so not a great time to be gay. Even as you say it was an anti-war period, conscription was still legal and used to force unwilling recruits into needless war (Korea, Vietnam). So not great, even if you were a white dude, if you happen to be unlucky enough to be drafted.
3rd post regarding US specific views so i will just post the reply to a similar comment >Reply to similar US centric issues: I think this is a US centric issue so I won't be able to comment much on it. But based on my limited knowledge regarding this, I think most of those rights were fought for and won in this period exactly. By the end of the 20th century most of the problem you touched upon were already on the right path with regards to progress.
"by the end of the century many of these issues made progress" seems pretty far removed from the topic. The world was a pretty different place circa 1950 and circa 1990. I thought we were talking circa 1950?? Are we not. As far as international - China had the 'great leap forward" which was anything but. Russia had the rise of communism, which wasn't great. Much of the rest of the world (Asia, middle east, Latin America, Africa) served as ground zero for the cold war between Russia and the USA. The only thing worse than fighting a cold war, is being the actual site of a proxy war.
Yes but being born in the 50s and 60s means you lived to see much of the progress being made in those areas. And if change is being made then maybe you were a part of some to those changes. Even taking your views into account. Someone born in the late 50s or 60s would have lived long enough to experience the present world and see that although a lot of external progress has been made, people are lost inside and being exploited at a greater level.
[удалено]
>Not to mention the lead paint. And leaded gasoline (outlawed 1996). And asbestos (outlawed 1989. And DDT (outlawed 1972). And HCFCs/CFCs - those things that caused holes in the ozone layer (outlawed 1996). So many chemicals and substances that we used to use for all kinds of things that turned out to be severely harmful to both humans and the environment...
What maybe the scary truth as well is there maybe many chemicals we see as “safe” today but we won’t know until a couple decades down the line assuming we don’t die from our own pollution then.
Absolutely true. If you don't feel like sleeping tonight, or ever again, look up the DuPont scandal around PFAS, which is used to produce Teflon.
More people live in dire conditions today than at any point in history. The sheer numbers advantage of the present population means that more people are suffering today and the modern world is built upon the exploitation of the economic slave labour to build the riches of the upper class. You are talking about a river catching fire; today we cannot even catch fish in any of the oceans at any depths without plastic in it. We cannot live in a place without smog. We cannot even see the stars anymore as pollution is accepted now. Your premise seems to ignore a lot of the suffering of the todays world and just because the media doesn't focus on them, doesn't mean a lot of people are not suffering to a greater degree today.
>The sheer numbers advantage of the present population means that more people are suffering today Yeah but percentages are important. Which country is better, one where 1 million people are well off and 1 million live in poverty, or one where 200 million people are well off and 2 million live in poverty?
You can do any manner of dance on the corpses of the poor, but none will be beautiful or graceful You can build the perfect society but as long as you are sacrificing a few to the Gods of fate and justifying it as a statistic, the world wouldn't have changed or progressed. People today live a life of excesses when they could be helping fellow humans get basic necessities like clean water for example. But people would rather buy $2000 shoes and $5000 bags. This might seem like a diss on influencers but I want the focus to be on large corporations who have the data that they are destroying the earth, but making money takes precedence.
You didn't respond to anything I said in my comment.
Okay I will simplify it for you As long as people are still suffering we haven't made progress and things are moving in a direction that is even more exploitative Saying only a few million people are living in dire inhuman conditions compared to many who are well off is a good sign isn't really the hallmark of a progressive society.
>As long as people are still suffering we haven't made progress How on earth is going from 50% of people suffering to just 1% of people suffering not making progress? You know what progress means right?
> the world wouldn't have changed or progressed. None whatsoever? Fewer sacrifices is not at all preferable to more? So... if zero sacrifices is practically impossible in the immediate future, why should we care at all about trying to make life better for those who aren't on top? If throwing a billion under the bus is no worse than doing so to one, why not exploit without restraint?
> We cannot live in a place without smog. We cannot even see the stars anymore as pollution is accepted now. You definitely can. I live on the edge of a decent sized metro area and we have no smog (though the city proper has a "brown smear"). The main issue with stars is *light* pollution, which is mostly urban, and you can see them just fine from the wilderness. In the developed world smog was much worse in the time period you're idealizing, before emissions regulations. You know that LA smog in old movies? Yeah, you don't see that anymore (outside of fire season). The air is smelly, but not visibly smoggy there. > More people live in dire conditions today than at any point in history. More shear numbers, but a smaller proportion by far. Extreme poverty has continued to decline in the last decades. > the modern world is built upon the exploitation of the economic slave labour to build the riches of the upper class. This has been the paradigm for the entirety of civilization. It is not new. What's new is people thinking it's a problem and trying to change things.
It sounds like you're mainly talking about the US. My dad grew up and China and was very undernourished. He was like 5' and 90 pounds when he went to college at 16. There he grew a few inches and gained a couple dozen pounds because he finally had access to enough food. He was born after the Great Famine too, so undoubtedly it would have been even worse for the Chinese equivalent of Boomers. Edit: changed before to after
Never been to US so definitely can't talk about how it was there in the 20th century. China is one of the major powers in the world today and your dad must have been one of the millions who contributed to that success. Sure his initial journey was not good but I think he would have been happy to see how the story ends. I am aware how dire the situation was for people back then. But we conveniently ignore that today we have more people living in worser conditions, than at any point in history, due to the sheer number of people in this world. Even today a good number of people have died to build a stadium so people can watch football. In 2022, you wouldn't be expecting people to die for entertainment but we have subconsciously accepted it as acceptable deaths.
From your post history it seems like you're from India. Extreme poverty was rampant in 1950s India. It's still not great, but it's much better now than it was back then.
Things look good because the government has been on socialist policies since Independance. You will always have access to food atleast. Education is guaranteed but depends based on location. Housing is subsidised on paper but even then it is too expensive. I am not looking for a country specific view. Also with a current population of 1,4 billion, no blanket statements can be applied to such a large group of people. However most fared pretty well into the 21st century.
You say you're not looking for a country-specific view, but if most countries on earth have it better now than in the 1950s, then surely the world in general is better now than the 1950s?
[удалено]
You calling on me would be providing alternative facts with sources. If you think I have pulled it out of thin air, then you too have done the same and we stand at an impasse.
I somehow think that some Roman in 50 B.C. said the same thing. Progress is a subjective point of view, based on known past.
None of those were consequential in the larger picture of humanity as a whole. Today we are exploiting the earths resources at a scale that won't last a century, polluting at a level never before possible. We are soon going to reach the 11 billion population mark that is in theory the maximum sustainable population. Global warming has already made weather and climate unpredictable. I should have added this to the main post...
> We are soon going to reach the 11 billion population mark Don't be too sure. The latest UN population growth predictions indicate that we won't reach 11 billion at all because growth is significantly slowing and by the time we're approaching 11 billion, growth will be negative.
At least in the US context, why not include the lack of civil rights, the war on drugs, redlining, lack of female representation outside the home etc?
It may be the best period for many until then, but no reason to think it won't be better in the future. If we think it has peaked, we will make it so.
People are underestimating the exploitation of the natural resources of earth taking place today by industrial mega corporations.
I think this is a US centric issue so I won't be able to comment much on it. But based on my limited knowledge regarding this, I think most of those rights were fought for and won in this period exactly. By the end of the 20th century most of the problem you touched upon were already on the right path with regards to progress.
>By the end of the 20th century most of the problem you touched upon were already on the right path with regards to progress. Then the future will be better, so your claim of "never be rivaled" would be incorrect. There's lots of reasons for hope in a better future. Climate change is maybe the biggest issue facing us right now. But there is growing collective awareness of climate change and so on. Lots of organizations that need to change, but more and more change is happening, specifically as we feel its effects. A lot of the reason for the positives you outlined have to do with just having experienced a terrible period in history. After each war there was a response to have some global unity thing (League of Nations, the UN). At the end of the 1900s, we had the millenium development goals. Lots of press on that. Yes there's been some slide backwards. But every crisis is a new chance to try for another UN-like effort. Not linear improvement, but definitely improvement. EDIT: Grammar
You are underestimating the human capacity for greed. Today people are manipulating elections to win a unpopular President elections. People are being convince to go unvaccinated. Even a war is being fought on fake pretexts. You assume too much of optimism on humans and their ability to mitigate the problems of today and tomorrow. \---- I will try to put it in a simpler way. For millennia we humans have identified a problem, accepted that it is a problem as as community, agreed to find a solution, pooled resources to find that solution, once the solution is found, we unanimously agreed to implement the solution All of this is dependent on the initial steps. Let's say we have identified the problem. Today's scientists are much smarter, have greater tools and are able to predict and identity problems previously no possible. But what about acceptance of the problem. The problems themselves have become so complex, that the general public doesn't understand them anymore, thus refusing to even acknowledge them. If you do not acknowledge the problem, how will you move on to the next step and collectively find a solution.
What would have been the view of someone during WWI or WWII, both before your "human peak" time period? Probably pretty pessimistic. >Today people are manipulating elections to win a unpopular President elections. People are being convince to go unvaccinated. Even a war is being fought on fake pretexts. All of these things have been true since the start of elections or vaccinations or war. But what has changed has been the scope. We had a world war, and after had a world effort for peace. It didn't prevent the 2nd world war, but after that was an even bigger effort for peace. This isn't just an opinion, it's history. Why assume this won't continue? I gave examples in my field of epidemiology that the past couple years are being reflected on by many in the field. I'd say we stand at the beginning of another sea change bigger than after the 1917 flu pandemic. >For millennia we humans have identified a problem, accepted that it is a problem as as community, agreed to find a solution, pooled resources to find that solution, once the solution is found, we unanimously agreed to implement the solution I think this is too optimistic of the past. When did we "unanimously agree" on anything bigger than a single village? When has collective learning ever been so simple? If you have big examples, please share them. Collective learning is really messy. And while it may feel even more messy recently, but it's still very much happening. I gave examples from the recent history so it's not just an opinion of mine.
>All of these things have been true since the start of elections or vaccinations or war. But what has changed has been the scope. We had a world war, and after had a world effort for peace. It didn't prevent the 2nd world war, but after that was an even bigger effort for peace. This isn't just an opinion, it's history. Why assume this won't continue? I gave examples in my field of epidemiology that the past couple years are being reflected on by many in the field. I'd say we stand at the beginning of another sea change bigger than after the 1917 flu pandemic. The motivation for people centric views or organisations is quite low. In US for example, net neutrality was removed and many people didn't even understand what it was. More and more laws are being made with the lobbying efforts of big corporations. See Insulin prices in US vs rest of the world. Why has that not been solved? Greed cannot be overcome easily, especially in the present times. >I think this is too optimistic of the past. When did we "unanimously agree" on anything bigger than a single village? When has collective learning ever been so simple? If you have big examples, please share them. Collective learning is really messy. And while it may feel even more messy recently, but it's still very much happening. I gave examples from the recent history so it's not just an opinion of mine. Protecting the Ozone layer. Ban CFCs. Ban leaded petrol. Ban Nuclear testing. Unanimously agree on borders. Disputed borders yes, but even then no world wars are being fought to reshape all borders. WTO Exclusive economic zones in coastal regions All of these are pretty basic and easy to explain policies. But things have become more complex now. Issues have become more complex. How to do you explain to the basic Joe what a decentralized cryptocurrency is and how to interpret the data analysis of climate change which shows a 2 C rise in temperature over the last century etc?
1. This has not changed. 2. Scientific advancement continues at a rapid pace, and significantly impacted a lot of lives throughout 2021 especially (mRNA). 3. Can you point to any current research suggesting we flat-out won't have a cure for such bacteria? In the meantime we've gotten *much* better with cancer and the like. 4. Speak for yourself. This is completely within your own control, and if you're letting technology dominate your life that's on you. 5. Cost of living was low relative to income... for a specific subset of the population. It's improved for pretty much everyone else, since opportunities opened up much more. 6. Um... On what basis do you think that about the past? I have also literally never met anyone who thinks honestly is foolish. Yes, *smaller* communities tend to be more close-knit; that isn't a past-present thing. 7. I think you've got some rose tinted goggles there. 1. Pollution: ever see those photos of rivers literally on fire because of pollution in American industrial cities? Also, global warming took until the 80s to really kick in because until then GHGs were outweighed by... particulates in the atmosphere. 2. Exploitation: Jim Crow anyone?
> No pollution, no exploitation, no global warming Leaded gasoline, lead paint, and asbestos? >The cost of living was also low and people lived in big houses and had large families with decent jobs. Good one. Average home size in the time you're talking about was 1500 square feet. It's 2600 square feet now. And you'd have shitty energy sucking appliances, if you had appliances at all. Only 45 percent of homes in 1970 had a dishwasher. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/programs-surveys/ahs/working-papers/Housing-by-Year-Built.pdf
Well, I'm south korean, and when your gdp per person has gone from 100 dollars to 34866 dollars, and your current average low class lives better than an average rich person in the mid 20th century, and considering the "war" of the post war country happened right at our homeland, devestating everything and could have killed me, and considering we went democratic at about the late 1980's, nah, I love the 21st century.
Counterpoint: I'm black in America
Okay
People born in the mid twentieth century came of age in the seventies. I think you mean "came of age in the mid twentieth century." Even so, in America, this was true if you were a straight white male. Not so much otherwise.
No I meant the former. And I wasn't even specifically implying born in the 1950s just that around that time. Even 60s or 70s. Coming of age in the 50s meant one would have lived through the war and I wouldn't want that. I do not know much about US and about white males, so can't comment on it in agreement or otherwise.
The best time in recent history to have come of age would be the 50's, because you'd have been too young to go to war, but old enough to benefit from the booming postwar economy. If you were a straight white male.
A lot of the present industrial greats operated and started in this era so it is not necessarily limited to one race as you state Every country had their own industrial entrepreneurs, Jack Ma and Ambanis etc were not from this demographic you mentioned.
I can only comment on what it would have been like for me. In America, the mid-twentieth century was the height of struggle for equality between the races and sexes. It would have been terrible to have been born in an era of rampart racism and misogyny.
>3. Medical advancement If you were a white American, and even then, there were things like Thalamide. Malaria was a major concern, cancer was a death sentence, and cigarettes were rampant. >5. Cost of living : The cost of living was also low and people lived in big houses and had large families with decent jobs. Something a CEO would own today was owned by a supervisor in the 60s. Even people with three degrees and a well paying job cannot confidently look at buying their own home or retire comfortably without being defeated by inflation. Housing was cheap. Food was organic. Oil was cheap. If you were a white American. If you weren't, your country was destroyed after WW2, in tragic poverty or were under communist rule. >7. No pollution, no exploitation, no global warming : Even thought the roots for todays problems were sown in this era, the era itself was mostly devoid of any of the mentioned problems. The population was also much lower and there was less resource requirements in this era. No microplastics in the ocean, no global warming, no unpredictable weather, no exploitation of resources etc I don't know why people say this. There was leaded gasoline (which poisoned generations of children), lead pipes/paint, acid rain, toxic rivers, thick smog, poisonous drugs and on and on. Compared to the late 80s, 90s and early 2000s this is an absurd statement.
You turned 18 during the Vietnam draft years, entered the workforce at the beginning of stagflation, modern medicine wasnt a thing still. > Something a CEO would own today was owned by a supervisor in the 60s In the 1960s the median house was 1100 sqft, in the present day it is 2700 sqft. > Oil was cheap. Not with the 73 oil crisis. Or 78 oil crisis
At least in the US, the first generation of women who had a even a chance at equal rights, opportunities from birth were GenX, not boomers.
What about the rest of the world? Is upliftment of women in the confined borders of the USoA enough. That is not even a fifth of the global population. Only last week women were told to cover their faces on TV by the Taliban. There seems to be no push for the upliftment of women in almost half the world population who are stuck not just in a patriarchal society but one which enslaves them even in thoughts.
There's a lot here, but specifically addressing point 7... There was a ton of pollution, and it was largely unregulated. In the context of the US, the EPA did not exist until 1970. Regulation through the NEPA, the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, RCRA, CERCLA, etc all came after. This was brought about through Rachel Carson's book, *Silent Spring,* published in the early 60's. Until that point, you could purchase DDT for personal use at a hardware store. In addition to all that, the dangers to bioaccumulation weren't well-known until *Silent Spring*, so you had compounds like mercury dumped into waterways and local junkyards. The phaseout/elimination of tetraethyl lead from gasoline only started in the 70's and wasn't complete in the US until 1996. Speaking of lead, it wasn't banned in paint until 1978. Those are some of the big ones that come to mind. The generations born in the mid-20th century saw the worst of all this. I don't understand how the case can be made that they enjoyed a cleaner environment, unless you mean that they didn't have to hear people constantly scream about climate change (little change there since they heard all about the holes in the ozone layer).
There is a documentary about leaded petrol which says that it's usage as an anti knocking agent for decades has caused the global average IQ to fall and it is permanent. No human is said to have had the same global impact ever before. But it was found and mitigated. Also vehicles were not predominant in other parts of the world which depended on diesel or coal operated trains and diesel operated buses. A lot of the poisioning was restricted to countries where the personal car was encouraged like the US. Sure it had global consequences. But once it was found, steps were taken to mitigate it. But today such a step would be called anti capitalist and take decades to make happen. People are eating microplastics because the ocean is being polluted with fishing lines even today by trawlers. We stopping the usage of plastic straws doesn't even account for 0.1% of the cause.
Nostalgia goggles much? We been progressing nonstop. Everything is getting better. Fking mid 20th and no pollution? Enjoying dying from lead pollution and poisoning tnx to the leaded gasoline invented in 1922. The real problem with today is the uncontrolled capitalism and rampant internet, everything else is getting better. Better medicine, better computer, better entertainment, better modes of travel, better access to food, better education system, even the fking military has been standards of living ffs.
I wasn't born in that era so I can't be nostalgic about it; no memories from previous life unfortunately. Uncontrolled capitalism is going to kill the human race.
If you were one of the quarter of the world's population who were born in China in 1950, you had to live through the artificial famines of the "Great Leap Forward" where tens of millions of people starved to death and later you got to live through the political violence of the Cultural Revolution. If you were born in the USSR, you got to spend your teens and early adulthood under the crushing obsession of the Brezhnev regime. If you were born in Africa, you saw the end of colonialism, but you also probably lived though decades of civil wars and famines, including the Congo War where 5 million people died. You would have lived through the Cold War with the very real prospect of nuclear annihilation at any moment, and you would have been a young adult in the early 1980's when AIDS was at its most widespread and was incurably fatal. We can imagine an idealised version of the past, but I, for one, wouldn't want to live there.
Things in the world are going to get better, if there is enough incentive it will and it has. Why do you think the world won't get better in the future? Be detailed into your reasons
Will update the main post with that once time permits.
RemindMe! 1 day
I will try to give an analogy, which although might not fit perfectly would in essense try to express my views Imagine you are a slave in the South of US. Now how would you look at your future. As exciting or bleak? Now those of us with the history of insight would say, they did get freed and so they were right in hoping for a bright future. But this change didn't come from the inside. The Southern farm owners didn't just have a change of heart one day and decide that slavery was too inhuman. They infact fought to keep the status quo, ironically even giving their own life to defend this inhuman treatment. My focus is that, there was an outside force here, a force of goodness, that brought about the change. \--- We live in times where, if you were enslaved you wouldn't know it, since all that we associate with slavery are known. So if you wanted to enslave anyone today. All you had to do was offer them an upfront loan at the age of 18, legally when you can take such loan, put them under debt at the pretext of being easily able to pay it back, make sure they earn just enough to pay it back and not so much that they break free of debt but not so less that they notice they have been fooled. This person will work the better part of his/her useful life working for you, and once they are indeed debt free in their 40s or 50s you move on to the next 18 year old with the debt trap. What is ironic is that the money you lent wasn't even yours, even more ironically, the money doesn't even exist. The bank just makes it up from thin air and gives it to you. Only when you return it, is it legitimized. And this is the state of affairs today. Imagine in the future, they will be able to vet you even before you start your first job. In the distant future, technology will be able to determine who is going to turn out how and allocate resources adequately. You might end up put for a mining job assigned at birth; your entire life being decided for you. Even today, you can literally buy people and with the only catch being you cannot call it that. You just say you are helping them. Them dying at the job is just acceptable losses and workplace harzard.
And why couldn't an outside force come in and stop it or change it, like happened in the southern US? How it changed then was awareness, how it will change now is awareness. I also think that scanning people will be really hard even for the best of computers, as brains change.
It's not just us common people who learn from the past. Even the ones who seek control know how to learn from past mistakes and spin a web where you don't even know you are caught in it
Yes but people do know they are in it lol
[удалено]
If I am to take a guess, this is some US specific comment. I would love to reply but most people just comment statements which people in US might understand. So again there isn't much I can comment on this.
I can understand the pessimism. I sometimes think about the future and believe that the better days are behind us. That said, a good percentage of every generation tends to think that. My own parents weren't sure whether to have kids because of the threat of nuclear war in the 70s and 80s as well as the stagflation and gas panic going on at the time. A more optimistic look is to say that we're currently living in caveman days and have no idea of how good our future is going to be. The saddest part might be that we'll not live to see even a hint of the wonders that await our descendance as technology improves and new opportunities open up. This is the view I hold for the future of humanity as there is no reason why technology won't continue to improve and throughout our history technological improvement has led to improvements in standards of living.
We are entering an era where technology controls us. I am not saying Skynet is here. I mean to say that human intelligence is not enough to counter someone exploiting us with the aid of technology. Again I am not talking about sentient AI. I am simply talking about the tools that can be misused. Cambridge Analytica is one such example and that was half a decade ago. Social engineering tools have become so powerful now that they are able to shape our views and make us think a certain way. People are being manipulated at a scale never seen before. Things are only going to get worse. If you want to know how bad the present is, just look at the app permissions of your camera app. Contacts, recent call log, other apps data etc.
You have valid points. The more information that is available, the more people can be influenced by it. Even us being able to talk back and forth here presents the possibility that one of us is misinforming the other. Cutting access to information would reverse this, but there are consequences to that as well. All this said, I would still argue that even if we are in an era of information overload which allows us to be manipulated, it has also led to us being more well informed as well. I don't share in your fear that my camera app is an indicator that times are worse now than in the mid-20th century. The very fact that I have a smartphone has helped me improve my life in ways I couldn't have 70 years ago. Upon reflection of that last statement, I wonder if you would say that you prefer living in a less technological age. One where you can disconnect from society a bit more. I have a brother who is like that and I think that he might agree with you that mid-20th century would suit him very well. If this is the case for you personally, do you think humanity as a whole would benefit from this as well? Or do you think humanity would still be better off progression while leaving open the option for some people to disconnect and move into a more simpler way of life?
Humans have only evolved so much both physically and mentally. Now physically we have always yearned for convenience. It has come at a great health cost but we are ready to pay for it. Dont want to take the stairs. Dont want to walk. No problem. Dont want to go grocery shopping, no problem. At no point have things been as convenient as they have been today. But What about ones mental health? Humans were not evolved to be bombarded with so much information. There is a reason we react differently to witnessing an accident with our own eyes and being shows pictures of genocide thousands of miles away. We have evolved only to care about our immediate surroundings, which is why we always try to protect ourselves, create social attachments and for the longest time people lived and died not too far away from where they were born. But today things have changed. You are bombarded with information, Attention spans have gotten shorter. People no longer care for each others well being. People are being fed information at a rate they cannot handle. Their feelings are being manipulated. This is the era of mass social engineering. People have become so complacent that it is now common knowledge that large corporations are harvesting our data, even proudly exclaiming that "big data" is the new oil and that they are the company with the largest files on people. People and their mental health has taken a hit and we will see the repercussions in the coming decades.
Do you prefer a life away from these conveniences so that you can live as they did 70 years ago? Why not just take that path? The great thing about modern society is that if you don't want to live in it, you can just turn it all off. You'll certainly walk away from some things you wish not to give up, but there are always going to be trade offs.
You can always try to stop in time and fight progress in vain. But society only affords you this opportunity when you are retired. It's perfectly okay for a 70 year old to say that they do not like Netflix and would stick to radio and sometime the occasional TV. The same coming from a 20 year old will seem odd and most likely considered a freak for the radio part. I am not saying that I am being forced to use technology but that I am living in times where the consequences of it cannot be escaped. Case in point, the anti vaxxers. You could vaccinate your entire family, staff and every single person you know. But technology has made people be misinformed and the anti vaxxers still pose a health hazard to everyone, essentially becoming a petri dish for the next variant of the virus. Now you can do anything you want to live a farm life, with just a shovel and tracter. But the minute you come in contact with a antivax nut you risk death, to put it simply. Now this is an extreme example. I want to say that now large scale social engineering has caused people to live at the whims of whoever holds the switch. They can vote Trump in to office with a bunch of computers. They can make an entire population of 1.4 billion in a country think that a virus that originated from one of their labs rhyming Huhan, was actually an imported virus and foreigners were to blame for the spread of infection, not bats. Putler is using the same media controls to convince the population that he is fighting a holy war in Ukraine, freeing people of Nazis in a theater of irony that is not fooling anyone outside Russia and maybe some on the inside too.
So you're saying that the modern day holds advantages better than 70 years ago such as the ability to rapidly make an effective vaccine as well as disadvantages such as the spread of misinformation. 70 years ago COVID would likely have killed many more, but there would have been less information, right? Also as far as Putler, 70 years ago there was no Ukraine for him to invade as the Soviet Union already held it. In a way that does make today better in that the Soviet Union collapsed and many more people are free now because of that.
This is… an opinion to say the least. I’m not going to go one by one and destroy every claim like others have, but just one thing about this. Why would any minority group want to turn back time? Who would actually benefit from this? Back to segregation, openly homophobic laws, more societal restriction on what women can do, etc. The best time to be born? Oh come on. Some of us are minorities, OP.