Do you want to live back then?

[T'ai Chi]

Inspired from discussion on

"The Dark Ages are coming back fast… " , would one ever want to live 'back then', where 'back then' is any time in the past?

Who'd want to forsake all the improvements that we know have occured since that time in the past?

Or, would you forsake the known improvements to avoid the un-improvements. For example, give up dental care and cable TV to give up destruction from atom bombs?

 

[Babylon Sister]

Do you mean "go back" with my current knowledge intact or "go back" with my current knowledge (somehow) removed and replaced with the available knowledge of the time?

 

[MG1962]

Nooooooooooooo - the smell alone would send you insane

And no gooogle???????

 

[El Greco]

Hell no. I'm already miserable enough that I don't live at least 3000 years into the future

 

[Mojo]

For example, give up dental care and cable TV to give up destruction from atom bombs?

I've never been destroyed by an atom bomb. I think I'll stick with modern dentistry.

 

[Mr Clingford]

Well. I need glasses, tablets, have had operations on both feet, need shaped insoles to correct flat feet, so for the state of medicine today I don't want to live back in time at all. A few decades in the future, though, might do me.

 

[CFLarsen]

I don't think anyone in their right mind would.

Which is why it is so important that we fight ignorance and superstition. Because if we allow e.g. creationism to be as acceptable an explanation as evolution is (T'ai Chi wants that), we are heading straight towards a New Dark Age.

 

[Francesca R]

Who'd want to forsake all the improvements that we know have occured since that time in the past?

Two thoughts:

Happiness has not—on average—improved significantly in the last several decades [source: World Happiness Database]. So whilst people usually "would not want to go back"—they adapt to technological and ideological evolution such that they are no happier than their ancestors.

Technology is widely (if not universally) regarded as both directional and cumulative. But I view it as path dependent however—so that doing some "book burning" thought experiment, and running a part of history over again would not necessarily result in the same stages of progress in the same order. We could get re-written history managing to reach objectively-definable markers of advancement (life-expectancy, health, work:leisure ratio) either sooner or slower. H-bombs might be developed more quickly or not yet. They might also have fallen into hands that would have used them.

I think this would depend on chance quite a bit. It's hard to predict whether taking the chance would be worth it, but my instinctive response would be not to try.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Almost everything we know factually about the universe has been discovered in the last 200 years. To have lived 1000 years ago means essentially to not know anything about how the world works. Modern scientific knowledge is one of the things i treasure most about being fortunate enough to live at this time period.

 

[Morrigan]

I honestly don't think I could live without a flushing toilet. We all take it for granted until we don't have access to it anymore (for example while camping), and man...

 

[G-K-4]

I find it odd that all but a few of the people posting here, and most of the other people I've met who consider these questions, neglect social change when they look at their society's pasts.

Let's think about someone who doesn't like integrated-circuit computer technology and who considers moving to the 1940's to get to a "simpler time". First of all, what don't they like about the technology, really? I'm willing to bet it's the commercial applications of and the cultural responses to that particular technology, perhaps the negative behaviors that surround the limited tools that the public has been offered. If that's the case, why not just change cultures instead of time-periods? Or why not change your own culture?

But even more than that, if the person in question does move to the 1940's (presumably the U.S.?) how would they handle the social conditions? Has nostalgia made us forget racial segregation, or the exclusion of Jews from many prestigious universities, or many other things? I expect that most people who consider moving into the past take for granted many of the social conditions of their home-era.

The social differences are usually more pronounced the farther back in time one goes. For example, do you want an agricultural republican idyll before the rise of industrialism? Try the U.S. around 1800. Just be careful that you are white, male, and own some property so that you can vote.

Love the Medieval European life and don't care about indoor plumbing? Okay, but you better accept monarchy, the power of the Church, and a feudal economy.

The question is not as simple as it seems. And I really think it's usually meant as a way to decry the lack of public control over what technologies are produced and produced in large quantities, and especially the apparent inability of our culture to find a way to digest these innovations in sociable ways.

(On this, I have seen better adaptations. For example, in Japan it is rude to speak (loudly, of course) into one's cellular telephone while riding public transit. So what do people do instead? They use text messaging, of course.)

 

[chriswl]

Happiness has not (on average) improved significantly in the last several decades [source: World Happiness Database]. So whilst people usually "would not want to go back" they adapt to technological and ideological evolution such that they are no happier than their ancestors.

I don't think there's any good way of measuring absolute levels of happiness or comparing different eras. I don't think people describing themselves as "happy" really counts. The meaning of the word gets normalised depending on the standards of the society.

If people would choose to live in society A rather than society B then it makes sense to say that people in society A are happier. Regardless of whatever fashionable ways society A's affluent inhabitants may affect to be experiencing anguish and turmoil and regardless of how much of a brave face the impoverished peasants of society B try to put on things.

I saw an interview with someone on TV the other day who was describing all the relief work his charity did in Africa. The subject of adoption of African children by Westerners came up and he strongly objected to the assertion that a child would very likely have a "better" life in a wealthy country. At which point I wondered why he thought it was important to "help" Africans become a little less impoverished if doing so didn't actually make their lives better.

 

[chriswl]

would one ever want to live 'back then', where 'back then' is any time in the past?

I'd only consider it if I could move several levels up the social scale at the same time, which I think is cheating. Aristocrats have had a pretty good time in many periods in history. But I wouldn't like to be Mr. Average in any era but this one.

 

[Francesca R]

I don't think there's any good way of measuring absolute levels of happiness or comparing different eras. I don't think people describing themselves as "happy" really counts. The meaning of the word gets normalised depending on the standards of the society.

If people would choose to live in society A rather than society B then it makes sense to say that people in society A are happier. Regardless of whatever fashionable ways society A's affluent inhabitants may affect to be experiencing anguish and turmoil and regardless of how much of a brave face the impoverished peasants of society B try to put on things.

You're probably right. The best theoretical way to sort this out would be to allow everyone open access to any country and any point of history and say "Runaround . . . NOW!"

I saw an interview with someone on TV the other day who was describing all the relief work his charity did in Africa. The subject of adoption of African children by Westerners came up and he strongly objected to the assertion that a child would very likely have a "better" life in a wealthy country. At which point I wondered why he thought it was important to "help" Africans become a little less impoverished if doing so didn't actually make their lives better.

But from what you say—this person did not claim that enriching their lives locally did not make them better. Just that transporting them to a rich country might not.

 

[kittynh]

I think it's sad when taking a child from a culture and background, including supportive family ...is considered an improvement if it means they get a rich parent. You give up a lot.

However, there are children that would die if not adopted, and I applaud those rich people that support local orphanages and such. I was reading in a religious magazine about the work Angelina Jolie was doing, she adopts, but she also is "mother" to an orphanage in Africa, and one in Thailand. So she is saving a lot of lives.

Now Madonna! Yikes, I wouldn't wish her as mommy on anyone!

 

[Francesca R]

I'd only consider it if I could move several levels up the social scale at the same time, which I think is cheating. Aristocrats have had a pretty good time in many periods in history. But I wouldn't like to be Mr. Average in any era but this one.

I'm not sure I'd like to be Ms (World) Average in this era either. According to World Bank / UNDP the median world income in 2002 was USD 5,800 in PPP-equivalent FX. And I bet that's skewed rather a lot towards blokes . . .

 

[KingMerv00]

I'll stay put here for now. Not a big fan of burning people at the stake.

 

[drkitten]

Let's think about someone who doesn't like integrated-circuit computer technology and who considers moving to the 1940's to get to a "simpler time". First of all, what don't they like about the technology, really? I'm willing to bet it's the commercial applications of and the cultural responses to that particular technology, perhaps the negative behaviors that surround the limited tools that the public has been offered. If that's the case, why not just change cultures instead of time-periods? Or why not change your own culture?

But even more than that, if the person in question does move to the 1940's (presumably the U.S.?) how would they handle the social conditions? Has nostalgia made us forget racial segregation, or the exclusion of Jews from many prestigious universities, or many other things? I expect that most people who consider moving into the past take for granted many of the social conditions of their home-era.

I suspect that many of the people who pine for the simpler times are not those who would be affected by the social changes -- and may even be nostalgic for them (although they might not admit that, even to themselves). After all, excluding Jews from universities doesn't really affect you unless you're both college-educated and Jewish; for gentiles like myself, such "protectionism" might even be in our best interests. (Fewer squirrels competing for the nuts.)

I find it significant that relatively few (members of) minority groups are pining for the good old days of yore.

 

[Spindrift]

I'd love to visit, especially if I could pick the time and place, but I don't think I'd like to stay for that long.

I get nostalgic for the "good ole days" but when doing that one tends to forget the bad parts of the good ole days.

Perhaps if I could pick my time, place and situation I would go back. (i.e. Go back to 1960's as an astronaut, not someone stuck in a Soviet gulag.)

 

[bigred]

Er are we talking having to go back hundreds of years or ANY time in the past? If the latter, yeah, I'll take post WW II-era Alex. Lack of technology more than made up for by a much less obnoxious, much more disciplined and much saner society. Easily. No rap "music" blasting away at every street corner? No schools where kids have to be checked for weapons? Drug use and irresponsible sex among teens basically unheard of? Marriage vows that are taken seriously? No fear of leaving your doors unlocked? Give me 60 seconds, my bags are packed.