In our agrarian past, the cultural division of labor at the time said that men worked the field, women ran the home. And that later job was brutal, never-ending, and consumed all waking hours until the day she died.
Men broke their backs in the field, women consumed their lives doing the ceaseless work that never ended, every waking moment. (And occasionally helped out in the field, too).
Running a family was a brutal two-person job -- and the kids had to dive in to help out the second they could lift something heavier than a couple pounds.
We forget so easily that for the entire history of our species - up until just recently - simply staying alive and somewhat warm and minimally fed was a hundred-hour-a-week job for mom and dad.
There are important downsides, but the Green Revolution - and dare I say it, the industrial revolution - was truly transformative for our species.
In many societies before (say) the 18th/19th Century, extended families would have been the norm, e.g. with elderly relatives living in the same household, helping with food preparation and clothes making. Harvests may have been community-wide affairs. Children would have had to dive in, as you say, but they wouldn't have had school to go to, and there would have been a wide age spread. Maternal mortality (death due to childbirth) was high, and many widowed fathers would have remarried, extending the family further (incidentally this is partly why there are so many step-sisters and step-mothers in folk stories).
Earlier. Picking berries, seeds or ears of grain is something very small hands can do.
"We forget so easily that for the entire history of our species - up until just recently - simply staying alive and somewhat warm and minimally fed was a hundred-hour-a-week job for mom and dad."
But no. You are talking about a primitive (poor) agrarian society. That only started a couple of thousands years ago, while our species used fire since over a million years in a semi nomadic live style. And those tribes in good territory, they did not had so much back braking work, as long as big land animals were around. (Also, hearding cattle was for the most part a very chilled job as well, but that also started rather recent)
The population of paleolithic humans never reached anywhere close to that of agricultural humans, suggesting that many died before reproductive age. Multiple nomadic cultures independently decided to not only spend several hours a day picking and grinding grass seeds to eat, but also to cultivate them for thousands of years into grains that would still be barely palatable by the standards of today. Nobody would choose this life unless if they had to.
So you're never going to see a massive hunter-gatherer population, essentially by definition. It doesn't say anything at all about their standards of life, which by most accounts were (and are) exceptionally high. [1]
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_affluent_society
It's not stable.
You mean nobody would choose the half nomadic hunters life?
Hm, some indigenous cultures I spoke to disagree, but the choice is not there anymore, as the bison herds they sustained on got slaughtered. The conflict of the nomads vs sedentary is an old one and the establishment of the latter, made the old ways of life simply impossible.
Until the invention of firearms, nomads had equal footing with settled people, if not an advantage (e.g. Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan). The main advantage that agricultural civilizations had was population size.
Metallurgy?
Not just firearms.
Stone axe vs bronze sword?
Bronze sword vs iron sword?
Iron sword vs steel?
Nomadic people got their advanced weapons usually through trade from settled ones. The nomadic horse archers dominance was rather an exception, also their kingdom included cities where the weapons they used were made.
"Without any external pressure, multiple peoples concluded that settling and eating grass was preferable to being nomads"
And there always was external pressure. Also .. our knowledge of that time is just fragmentary. We don't even know the real names of those cultures.
So yes, clearly there were benefits to settling and planting corn, otherwise humans would not have done it. But to my knowledge, it is not correct to call it a voluntarily process in general. Once there are fences, the nomadic lifestyle does not work anymore. Adopt or die out was (and is) the choice.
You can't divide work if you aren't near enough other people.
Portraying it as an individual choice is inaccurate. The process of populations becoming sedentary(and agrarian) spans over multiple generations and wasn't really reversible. The early settlements likely only worked because they had some method to force people from leaving and the later settlements had to be sedentary because their neighbours were sedentary, it had a cascade effect. Oversimplified but that's the gist.
That mechanism might have simply been, offering a warm and dry place and stored food, while it was freezing outside.
As of my knowledge, the transition process in general is pretty much a open research question.
This allows the formation of a priest class that can tell you what the sky father wants you to do.
They may have had to but it need not be because it led to more calories for them.
On a superstition v superstition basis it's hard to get a photo finish between them and a Bishop.
Nothing but the power of the state, which has claimed sovereignty over all the land, regulates what you can and cannot do with it, and will use deadly force against you if you fail to comply.
I once added up the total calorie content of all the yearly hunting it is legal to do where I live, if a hunter were maximally successful, and it would get one person through May.
All the land one could reasonably sustain a living on has long since been claimed, those claims being backed up by (you guessed it) the power of the state. The only land left that one can just walk off into is the land nobody wanted during the settlement period, because they could not find any way to live on it.
There are no taxes to pay if you aren't earning anything. It is legal, if inadvisable, to raise children this way in much of the US. There is a "live and let live" ethos around it, especially in the western US. The true nomads are probably most common in the mountain West of the US in my experience. While the rule is two weeks in one location, in many remote areas there is no enforcement and no one really cares. They sometimes have mutually beneficial arrangements with ranchers in the area. These groups tend to be relatively small.
Alaska is famously popular for groups of families disappearing into the remote wilderness to create villages far from modern civilization. It is broadly tolerated there. Often many years will pass between sightings of people that disappeared into the wilderness.
I always wondered what a high-resolution satellite survey of the Inside Passage of Alaska and the north coast of British Columbia would find in that vast and impenetrable wilderness. Anecdotally there should be dozens of villages hidden in there that have been operating for decades.
It’s usually around a cult or similar; we don’t have much in the way of hereditary nomadic but even those do exist.
The US is large and if you keep your head down and homeschool to some level of competence I bet you could go many generations- especially if you were willing to blend in as necessary.
The village kids would get up, take the cows out to the road where the other cows also came, then together, a big group of kids and cows would head to a pasture and spend most of their day watching cows, playing games and messing about.
It was great.
Realistically the cows and goats took more care of the kids than the other way around.
I'm sorry but this strikes me as incredibly wrong and misleading. Herding cattle is anything but "a very chilled job" unless your frame of reference is "hunting Mammoths" and "facing Sable-tooth tigers". Sure, at moments it can be pretty straightforward, but as most jobs, the hassle comes from the situations that aren't straightforward, and they can get back-braking, hairy, dirty and outright taxing on you.
I don't know if you mean "office work" as "modern stressful average job" or "food delivery as a freelancer and barely getting paid", but almost any physical job would be more taxing both mentally and physically than sitting in an office all day. Maybe my experience of only becoming a office worker after ~50% of my working life and before that doing other things, but I think most people (especially here on HN) don't realize how taxing physical labor is, even for the brain and the head.
(but sure, native tribes also did this a bit, but were much more limited in range. So winter time in general did meant being cold and hungry often and the weak ones died. Might be the reason, why humanity started in africa and not scandinavia)
I forget which chapter it is, but Caro takes a detour where he describes the life of women during Johnson's childhood in the dirt-poor valley he was from: no electricity, no waterpower, everything in the house was done by women's hands, 24/7. There's a passage that stuck to me about how women in their 30s in that area looked like other area's women in their 70s, just a brutal life.
> Transplanted, moreover, to a world in which women had to work, and work hard. On washdays, clothes had to be lifted out of the big soaking vats of boiling water on the ends of long poles, the clothes dripping and heavy; the farm filth had to be scrubbed out in hours of kneeling over rough rub-boards, hours in which the lye in homemade soap burned the skin off women’s hands; the heavy flatirons had to be continually carried back and forth to the stove for reheating, and the stove had to be continually fed with new supplies of wood—decades later, even strong, sturdy farm wives would remember how their backs had ached on washday.
On the plus side, they also didn't have to do the hard dangerous jobs like mining coal, building houses, and the like, nor did they have to go to the army, fight to defend their country (at least not as soldiers), and many other things.
Running the house was hardly "brutal", neither did it consume "all waking hours until the day she died".
Beside the fact that duties were shared among extended family members, it was really not that brutal, and that's including "heavier" chores like bringing water from the well and firewood.
Another common misconception is that what they did "back then" is something ancient or medieval. People in the country did pretty much all the same chores with the same tools well into the 20th century. x
> army, fight to defend their country (at least not as soldiers), and many other things.
In most places and times, didn't all men just get conscripted into war frequently?
> Running the house was hardly "brutal", neither did it consume "all waking hours until the day she died".
Why do you think it didn't consume all waking hours?
The men. Again, I'm writing there about what women didn't have to do.
>In most places and times, didn't all men just get conscripted into war frequently?
Yes, and thus what I wrote is that women didn't have to do it.
(My point was: "yes, women did the house tasks, but on the plus side, they didn't have to do those other far more dangerous and hard things").
>Why do you think it didn't consume all waking hours?
I don't think it didn't, I know it didn't. For starters it was shared among larger family units (including several kids). And even when it wasn't, like some people living on their own, it hardly took a few hours each day, and that's including maintaining a fire, cooking, some cleaning, feeding some nearby hens, bringing water, and things like that. Modern people over-dependent on modern conveniences overestimate how hard all those things were, as if it was some horror survival movie.
In these here parts, people in the country did all the same things people did in the 19th century or the 15th century well into the 20th century (with cars and electricity not reaching many places until the late 1950s), all with plenty of time to spare and socialize.
> Woodburn offers this “very rough approximation” of subsistence-labor requirements: “Over the year as a whole, probably an average of less than two hours a day is spent obtaining food.”
> Reports on hunters and gatherers of the ethnological present--specifically on those in marginal environments--suggest a mean of three to five hours per adult worker per day in food production.
[0] https://fifthestate.anarchistlibraries.net/library/370-fall-...
https://kk.org/mt-files/reCCearch-mt/kaplan-darker.pdf
There are so many things wrong with those time estimates.
- the estimates of how much time hunter-gatherers spent "working" were based on studies that either (a) watched hunter-gatherers in extremely atypical situations (no children, tiny band, few weeks during the most plentiful time of the year, and they were cajoled into traditional living from their usual mission-based lifestyle) or (b) didn't count all the work processing the food so it could even be cooked as time spent providing for subsistence, and when those hours are included, it's 35-60 hours a week of work even including times of enforced idleness pulling down the average
- the time estimates also counted enforced idleness from heat making it dangerous to work, or from lack of availability of food, or from diminishing returns, or from various "egalitarian" cultural cul de sacs, as "leisure" but at the same time...
- ... even the hunter gatherers themselves considered their diet insufficiently nutritious and often complained of being underfed, let alone the objective metrics showing that the were
Also idealization of rural life and past rural life tends to come almost exclusively from city dwellers, basically people who never set foot in a rural area let alone grow or live there.
I grew up in rural Romania and even though the conditions were (and are) exponentially better than what the non-industrial non-mechanized non-chemical (herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers) past offered, all I thought growing up was get the funk out of there. Agriculture (and it's relatives, animal husbandry) sucks and I hate it! :)
And without mechanization it's incredibly labor intensive to tend to a farm. Just to keep the animals alive over winter you have to dry and deposit a lot of hay, but before that you gotta scythe it. Scything is no walk in the park and basically you gotta do a lot of that every day to cover enough area to keep the cattle fed. Then plowing without a tractor and using animals: not just dangerous but backbreaking work. Then hoeing the weeds, funking need to do it all the time because without herbicides, the weeds grow everywhere and by the time you "finished" going once over all crops, they've grown back where you first started. At some point my father had this fantasy of what is now called "organic" crops, in fact cheapskating at paying the price for herbicides, so I did so much hoeing that it got out of my nose. I don't recall me saying it but my mother told me that at some point in a middle of a potatoes hoeing session I said that I'd rather solve 1000 math problems than do even just another row of potatoes. Definitive moment in my career choice, which is a lot closer to solving math problems now than hoeing organic potatoes :)
It looks like they work only a little if you count only pure hunting attempts, the most food rich seasons and ignore the rest.
https://kk.org/mt-files/reCCearch-mt/kaplan-darker.pdf
Also they're almost universally malnourished and their access to the food they are able to get is inconsistent at best.
It does appear that the median hunter gatherer life was better than the median farmer life. But I'd wager that to be true in most areas.
The modal human experience was a farmer, far and away. Not the mean, not the median, but the mode. We have the numbers to easily back it up.
One could debate what leads to a better quality of life. Is it more downtime and community, like we see with hunter gatherers. Is it the modern conveniences we end up with through larger societies and more work effort?
I watched a video of a polyglot who learned the language of a hunter gatherer tribe to spend some time with them. It was amazing to see how well adapted they were to the environment, both in terms of their bodies and skills. The outsider was getting eaten up by bugs and cut by every little branch or thorn, while the locals had thicker skin and seemed completely unaffected by all of this. They were running through the forest at night and it seemed effortless. While hunting they needed a bag at one point, so someone grabbed some stuff off a tree and quickly wove one together like it was nothing. What ends up being a survival realty show for us ends up looking quite convenient for them. If I need a bag I need to work to earn money, then depend on a whole supply chain to grow/manufacture the raw materials, weave the fabric, cut and assemble the fabric into a bag, and a retailer to sell it to me, as well as all of the shipping on trucks, boats, and planes along the way. It’s actually pretty crazy how much work goes into everything we buy.
I think it is about organization and population density. A hunter gatherer society is not going to be able to field an army of tens of thousands of people, as an agricultural society can. Hunter gatherers are also limited in their technology by their continual movement.
The Mongols were a nomadic society and very successful militarily (for a while). But they kept large numbers of animals and weren't hunter gatherers.
Marshall Salhins Stone Age Economics is the most popular work that is academically serious on this topic
If agricultural life and cities were such a raw deal: why would people all over the world adopt it against their own self interest when humans were basically as intelligent (if not at all educated) as we are today?
There was no easy going back. Once agricultural societies had settled there would be little if any free land to hunt/gather on. Also, much of the traditional knowledge would be lost in a few generations. Plus, peasants were often kept on their land by force.
See also the 'If books could kill' podcast's take:
> [A] series ... looking at the structures of life for pre-modern peasant farmers and showing how historical modeling can help us explore the experiences of people who rarely leave much evidence of their day-to-day personal lives.
The era in which humans chose whether to continue with a hunter gatherer life or join the new farming communities also seems to have influenced the stories of Adam and Eve ("cursed is the ground because of you; through toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it will yield for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your bread") and Cain and Abel.
Some have also suggested that archaic prohibitions against eating the food of fairies were a taboo designed to warn off young people from leaving farming or herding groups and joining hunter gatherer communities. They would be 'enchanted' by the easy going lifestyle but then end up hungry and sick.
The need to spend hours every day working a field, in a season when food was plentiful, in order to prepare for another season 6 or 9 months away, must have been a huge cultural crossroads, possibly a bigger break from our close animal ancestors than tool making, and its influence is still with us. Rules around not eating animals who are needed to supply milk and to reproduce the herd similarly cast a long shadow.
- The Birth of the Gods and the Origins of Agriculture by Jacques Cauvin (1994/2000)
- Inside the Neolithic Mind: Consciousness, Cosmos and the Realm of the Gods by David Lewis‑Williams & David Pearce (2005)
- Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth by Walter Burkert (1972/1983)
- Hunter-Gatherers and the Origins of Religion by HC Peoples et al. (2016)
- Subsistence: Models and Metaphors for the Transition to Agriculture by H. Starr (2005)
—————————————
Myths didn’t juts reflect the shift, they were also one of the cultural tools that made the shift psychologically possible.
For instance, the H&G worldview is cyclical (time repeats) but the agricultural worldview is linear. H&G myths emphasize eternal returns, cycles of creation and destruction, spirits of rivers, trees, animals. Agricultural myths introduce beginning of time, progress, destiny, apocalypse.
As animals became domesticated, their spiritual status from H&G mythology declines, while the status of plants and land rises under agriculture. There’s agricultural symbolism in Christ’s body being bread and his blood being wine.
The shift the agriculture produces surplus, property, inheritance, kings, priests, and so myth arise to justify social structures that don’t make sense in nomadic foraging bands.
Sacrifice is an agricultural logic. Classic pattern: god dies, god’s body becomes food, eating is communion. It is directly agricultural: plant dies when harvested, seed is buried (like a corpse), resurrection in spring. Sacrifice becomes cosmic agriculture.
The Garden -> Exile story is a pattern we see in Genesis (“By the sweat of your brow you shall eat bread”) but also in Greek mythology; Kronos’ Golden Age changes when Zeus forces humans to work.
In H&G, the trickster gods (Coyote, Raven, Loki, Anansi) are central, but with damaging they become dangerous, marginalized, punished because agriculture requires law, calendar, taboo, not chaos.
Another pattern might be that, whereas oral culture matched the 'sufficient unto the day' ethos of hunter gatherers, writing reflected the new agricultural process of carefully building up and storing for the future. Rather than a neutral technological innovation, it embodied the psychological shift.
It was easier to make your numbers go up, raise more kids which made you stronger.
Agriculture began from a convergence of climate stability, resource abundance, sedentary living, population pressure, and co-evolution with useful plants and animals.
Hunting and gathering alone cannot feed everyone. Farming is harder, less healthy, more labor-intensive but yields more calories per acre.
As a population grows, farming becomes the least bad option.
Hunter-gathering doesn't scale. What is fine when it's one person, collapses the whole society when it gets too large.
It is actually the plants (barley, grain, grapes, millet, potatoes, taro, maize, rice, sorghum, manioc) that tricked the humans into cultivating (reproduce) them/
Such nonsense the idea that farming was a trap. I think it was Sapiens that propagated this myth in recent times.
Is there a ceiling in the industrial revolution era? Famously the 1972 book Limits to Growth says yes for that question.
why do you say that?
The old, pre-harber-bosch world was a grim dark all against all where empires (themselves devices to keep civilization afloat in a few centralized places, while extracing at great missery elsewhere) fought wars of fertilizer and used one sided trading and food-exports to starve colonies out like vampires.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chincha_Islands_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bengal_famine_of_1770
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Nama_genocide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maji_Maji_Rebellion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_Mount_Lebanon
the whole all against all, no free-trade madness culminated in the two new comer empires copy-pasting the concept dialed up to eleven in their "new colonies". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Japan
Most human societies were much more interconnected until relatively recently(last 80-100 years)
Orphanes did struggle but most families were not just two person, families were big and supported by community.
I think if the theory goes that from a evolutionary standpoint we psychologically are still better equipped to be hunter gatherers, we should assume that our feelings towards homicide and child mortality are comparable. So how happy can a people be, when 40% of their children die and another 20% die by homicide?
If we follow that thread I would argue that it's very unlikely that people were happier back when or would be happier today, unless some other component of being hunter gatherers makes us fantastically ecstatic.
Could a life radically and willfully different in many ways turn out to be better for most of us (which is critically what you claimed before)? It's certainly possible, given how few people take this route, but an appeal to nature is just not super convincing, unless you can back it up with data.
I can't help but notice you did not engage with how 40% of kids dieing and another 20% of us getting killed by some member of the cherished tribe could possible lead to high levels of life satisfaction. As far I can tell, on the whole, the good old days were cruel and rosy retrospection is just that.
And no cheating by bringing antibiotics with you.
There are still a number of uncontacted peoples and international groups that advocate for them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontacted_peoples
He wasn't talking about going back, he was talking about staying.
> And no cheating by bringing antibiotics with you.
I don't recall where I read this, but (probably hundreds of years ago) some explorer in Africa was on a boat with some hunter-gatherers. A bloated, rotting dead rat floated by, they picked it up, said "yum" and dug in. They didn't get sick. I've also read some speculation that (initially) fire wasn't needed so much for cooking meat, because hunter-gatherers can (and did) accomplish the same effect by letting meat rot a little. Fire was more useful for vegetables.
So actual hunter gatherers probably had less need for antibiotics than a modern person thrust into a similar situation.
Some can't imagine life without antibiotics, others can't fathom living with everything else that comes with it.
Anyone who is of a modern industrialized society who is waxing poetically about becoming a hunter gatherer is both, looking at history thru very rose colored goggles and welcome to go find a place to do just that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gmCX7R-W4c
Many people that have lived side by side with indigenous people across northern australia, the islands, PNG, et al have a clear idea of exactly what living off the land entails.
A good many have done exactly that for extended periods, dropping in and out from one to the other.
They would have done this sans any condescending permission from those wishing them well - such opinions count for naught.
Of course some of these adaptations happened by force or coercion. But many didn't. So many groups have wanted to participate in technological progress, even at the cost of giving up their previous way of life, that in fact extreme degrees of control and/or hostility have often been needed just to keep parallel societies uncontacted.
But?
> you've selected one particular group.
I used as examples some specific individuals of one named group, yes. I also had in mind other specific individuals of a few other families - all these groups share the same major language group.
There are other similar examples across the globe, of course, there's an entire island that famously prefers no contact- but I'm making a brief comment not writing a book.
> Of course some of these adaptations happened by force or coercion. But many didn't.
If I were to pursue this I'd likely argue that a majority of adaptions happened with more force, less willingness, and at a pace faster than desired by the less technologically advanced side.
> So many groups have wanted to participate in technological progress,
Indeed. Many are curious about water but didn't expect a hose shoved down their throats with a bucket load funnelled in endlessly with no off tap.
> that in fact extreme degrees of control and/or hostility have often been needed just to keep parallel societies uncontacted.
I'm assuming this refers to those groups that want to retain autonomy but have difficulty doing so.
In many such cases that I'm aware of the problem stems less from former group members wanting to bring the outside in, more from outsiders (eg: loggers) wanting to clearfell habitat, miners wanting pits, etc.
eg: The entire West of PNG not wanting rule by Indonesia, various "Indonesians" not wanting their dense jungle homes cleared for palm oil plantations, various groups in Brazil, Native American Indians not wanting pipes to cross ther lands, giant copper mines on sacred grounds, etc.
You are focusing on the 0.01% of humanity which isn't part of mainstream modernity rather than the 99.99% which is. And you're discussing cases of extreme differential in technological knowledge and worldview (Amazon jungle, Papua New Guinea), rather than the vastly more common smaller gaps and asymmetries.
If a majority of adaptations happened with force, how do you explain the ones that didn't? Don't they suggest that even without any force there would have been convergence, just more slowly?
European settlers committed genocide against the native peoples of North America. I'm not denying that. But that happened in a context of a 400 year process of cultural exchanges and mergers in both directions. Arguably North Americans could not have ignored the written word or manufactured textiles in perpetuity, just as their societies adapted and mutated to accept the horse and steel tools.
Are you stating that no hunter gathers ever turned their backs on modern society despite antibiotics, dishwashers, and iPhones?
The claim I made in my comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46179508 that prompted your response was a simple documented fact:
Antibiotics were not a sufficient factor to stop some people from rejecting technological society.
I'm not seeing the two errors there you claim.
> European settlers committed genocide against the native peoples of North America. I'm not denying that.
Cool. I mean that's not something I said, but hey, if you want to chuck that in, sure.
> But that happened in a context of a 400 year process of cultural exchanges and mergers in both directions.
I'm not sure 400 years of war, conflict and asymetric resource exchange makes up for the genocide part.
The Javanese subjugation of West Papua was a lot faster and equally or more brutal, the Europeans were largely hands off for that one, although they did quietly nod along and ignored the severed tonges and familial violence that accompanied the staged plebiscite :
Cute Name though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Free_Choice
Blackwater: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrciT3lXtwE
Antibiotics and Insulin - those two things have saves untold lives.
Before about 1920, the difference between rich and poor and the likelihood to recover from disease had more to do with ability to rest and diet.
The rich and poor alike died to tuberculosis (which was often a death sentence until antibiotics), simple cysts, all sorts of very basic bacterial infections killed in droves.
At the risk of sidetracking this further - it was only after insulin where the idea that healthcare could be somewhat that could be a right became somewhat reasonable (before the late gilded age, doctors often did as much harm as good) - every lifesaving innovation we have made sense, were often very modest amounts of money is the difference between life and death make that argument stronger.
Type 1 is about 0.5% prevalence. Type 1 diabetes was a rapid death sentence before insulin discovery in the 1920s.
Type 2 is more common (maybe 10% but highly dependent on country) and it is a relatively modern problem
Infant mortality has dropped to 0.5% from 7% 100 years ago - so that's more significant.
Regarding your reference to how brutal and never-ending work was; As far as we know, many European medieval farmers had 1500-1800 working hours per year. It’s also a bit gloomy to assume the household was run by two parents and their kids - often, grandparents were colocated and helped until they couldn’t. What you‘ve described was certainly the case during famines and war, but not a permanent state.
There’s plenty of bacteria hanging out in the dirt, water, the animals you eat, and on your own skin. Add in the parasites, and zoonotic viruses and it’s not very hard at all to catch a disease even as a solitary hermit in the wild.
>factory farms
Didn’t need factory farms for smallpox. Many animals live in large herds, which were larger in the past. If you read accounts from the 18th and early 19th century there are many reports of squirrel migrations involving hundreds of millions of squirrels in relatively small areas.
We also know that there are viral epidemics in animals that live in solitary animals and animals that live in groups smaller than the size of hunter gatherer tribes.
An hunter-gathers were probably a lot more robust to that than modern people.
Think about it: if what you say were that big of an issue, hunter-gathers would have been sickly and died out before getting to us.
>Think about it: if what you say were that big of an issue, hunter-gathers would have been sickly and died out before getting to us.
Most wild animals are riddled with parasites and it’s common for for animals in captivity to have 2x the lifespan of their wild counterparts.
You don’t need to make it to 70 to raise children. If 50% of people make it to 30 and each person has an average of 5 kids the math works out fine for population growth.
The human immune system has both innate and acquired components. The innate systems are functionally the same between you and I or a hunter gatherer.
A hunter gatherer may have acquired immunity to viruses and bacteria that you or I haven’t been exposed to, but in most cases they would have become sick in the first place before they got that immunity. The majority of diseases don’t produce long lasting immunity. There’s a reason you get tetanus vaccines every 5-10 years.
We are also exposed to more pathogens than hunter gatherers not fewer because of the way we live. Plus we have vaccines, so if anything we have a more robust acquired immune system.
> introduction of those drugs drastically accelerated the evolution of the bacteria, viruses, etc.
Antibiotics accelerated the evolution of bacteria towards antibiotic resistance. Not towards greater virulence. Antibiotic resistance generally has a fitness penalty as well, so if anything modern bacteria would tend to be slightly less dangerous.
>antibacterial soap
Antibacterial soap can result in resistant bacteria and it also alters your bodies microbiome. Theres some evidence that it can make you more prone to autoimmune diseases, but no good evidence of a strong impact on your bodies ability to fight off diseases.
Certainly not to a level noticeable by an individual.
>look at Covid
The reason influenza infections went up was because people weren’t exposed to influenza, not because of lack of exposure to generic germs.
There weren’t more overall infections, they were just concentrated in time. If Covid hadn’t happened, those extra people who got the flu would have just gotten the flu earlier.
* Produce 5 kids in the first place.
* Take care of the kids that they were able to produce, making survival of even half them much less likely.
But in actuality, best we are able to determine hunter-gathers who made it into adulthood lived longer, healthier lives than those in agrarian lifestyles.
I admit they probably had a stronger immunologic system on average, by virtue of relying on it and "exercising" more often. Alternatively, people prone to getting sick just died early.
The comparison was with agrarian societies that were found in parallel, not "us", which presumably implies something about modern medicine. Have I misinterpreted you?
> There's no contradiction.
Was there reason to think that there was...? It is not clear what you are trying to add here.
H-G societies tend to be smaller groups where everyone in the village helps with childcare, so if a parent was out of action for a while the children could still be gathered.
This is covered in the book Hunt, Gather, Parent by Michaeleen Doucleff, specifically with the Hadzabe people (Tanzania).
I believe the modern world creates a lot of mental health problems, loneliness, and unhappines, but it's absolutely physically safer and more survivable (and more comfortable) for a huge percentage of the developed world. (It creates those mental problems unnecessarily, given the level of technology we have, but deeply baked into our fairly-antisocial individualistic culture)
Yes, average life span was shorter back then because of child mortality. But the vast majority of surviving adults never reached age 80. Old age was 60-70 and many of these diseases only occur at 70+ in significant numbers.
Traded neolithic goods regularly crossed continents. If an axe head can cross the continent then so can a microscopic disease.
And also, even antiseptic treatment was in shorter supply than it is today, so it’s still a moot point.
I had what was most likely poison ivy. Covered both arms. And was spreading. What do you propose my nurse practitioner to do? Not prescribe any antibiotics? To what end? I should continue to suffer because of what reason?
In the case of poison ivy, all antibiotics would do is lower the already slim odds of a secondary infection. They wouldn't prevent the contact dermatitis/inflammation from urishiol.
Should I be dying before you grant me antibiotics? What kind of nonsense is this?
But yes, I think you should have developed some kind of infection, and being showing trouble of fighting it off, before you're given antibiotics.
When skin barrier gets broken like this, you are now vulnerable to bacterial infection.
I can't believe someone gave you anti biotics for poison ivy.
At this point I genuinely consider the medical system about as bad as the service department at a car dealership. They'll sell you anything technically legal just to keep their stats high.
No, the service department has a bad reputation for a reason. They tried to tell me a wiper blade would cost me USD 80 with a straight face. Not even the whole set, a single wiper blade. It costs under USD 15 anywhere else other than the dealership.
My guess is they are counting on people not looking at the itemized bill.
You may not have had symptoms, but that's a very different thing.
And I assume you've been vaccinated against all the usuals.
The sliver lining is: you'll suffer in an entirely different way!
Buuut you can do that in the modern world too. Just go homeless.
"While the !Kung way of life is far from one of uniform drudgery—there is a great deal of leisure in the !Kung camp, even in the worst time of the year—it is also true that the !Kung are very thin and complain often of hunger, at all times of the year. It is likely that hunger is a contributing cause to many deaths which are immediately caused by infectious and parasitic diseases, even though it is rare for anyone simply to starve to death."
"The give and take of tangibles and intangibles goes on in the midst of a high level of bickering. Until one learns the cultural meaning of this continual verbal assault, the outsider wonders how the !Kung can stand to live with each other …. People continually dun the Europeans and especially the European anthropologists since unlike most Europeans, the anthropologists speak !Kung. In the early months of my own field work I despaired of ever getting away from continual harassment. As my knowledge of !Kung increased, I learned that the !Kung are equally merciless in dunning each other."
"In reciprocal relations, one means that a person uses to prevent being exploited in a relationship … is to prevent him or herself from becoming a “have”…. As mentioned earlier, men who have killed a number of larger animals sit back for a pause to enjoy reciprocation. Women gather enough for their families for a few days, but rarely more …. And so, in deciding whether or not to work on a certain day, a !Kung may assess debts and debtors, decide how much wild food harvest will go to family, close relatives and others to whom he or she really wants to reciprocate, versus how much will be claimed by freeloaders."
"The !Kung, we are told, spend a great deal of time talking about who has what and who gave what to whom or failed to give it to whom (Wiessner 1982:68). A lot of the exchange and sharing that goes on seems to be as much motivated by jealousy and envy as it is by any value of generosity or a “liberal custom of sharing.” In his survey of foraging societies, Kelly (1995:164-65) notes that “Sharing … strains relations between people. Consequently, many foragers try to find ways to avoid its demands … Students new to anthropology … are often disappointed to learn that these acts of sharing come no more naturally to hunter-gatherers than to members of industrial societies.”"
Farming provided the calories necessary for a population that hunting and gathering could not support (so no going back) but required basically working all day to make it work and survive less than ideal conditions. But prior to farming people often had significant more free time.
Some unsung heroes: - the person that discovered how to fix nitrogen in the soil saved more lives than every other people in history, combined. - Norman Borlaug, father of the green revolution, saved more than 1 billion people from starvation.
Millions of probably do owe their very existence to these men though, agree with that.
However part of me (maybe a slightly misanthropic part?) wonders if it might be a bit like feeding stray cats, and now we have a huge herd of cats that are rapidly outstripping the ultimate carrying capacity of their environment and it doesn't end well. But since I'm one of the cats, I say we just go with it and see what happens.
This was not true in the society my grandparents grew up in between 1900 and 1970. Both of my grandmothers and great grandmothers helped out tremendously on the farms, and my grandmother and mother were part of the new businesses when they immigrated to the US.
Based on all the women I have personally seen working in farms, and in videos, and in written accounts, I suspect your quote is only true for a very small slice of the world in a very small slice of time that was developed enough to have large farms with large machinery and scale such that the farm was earning enough profit to use automation to not need the women and allow them to only focus on the home, or hire poorer women so the farm owner could solely focus on the home.
Hell, I bet even today, even in the US, a good portion of farms need the labor of both spouses.
And left-wing movements that followed industrial revolution.
Wait a minute, didn’t you just assume Western countries are not democracies?
I’ve noticed how fashionable it is in the US in particular, to distrust the government — not just this government, but on principle. This idea that a government never acts on behalf of the people, unless forced to. I wouldn’t disagree to be honest. But then we need to follow this up to its logical conclusion: governance by elected officials is not democratic.
Then we need to decide if we actually want democracy or not. Personally, I’d like this decision to be… err… you know, it would be nice if everyone had a say?
Correct. In a (representative) democracy, one does not elect officials. They elect representatives. The representative is not an authority like an official is. They are merely messengers who take the constituent direction established at the local level and travel with that message to deliver it in a country/state/etc.'s central gathering place.
> Then we need to decide if we actually want democracy or not.
We (meaning most people) do not. Democracy is a lot of work. An incredible amount of work. It requires active participation on a near-daily basis. Most people would rather do things like go to their job to put food on the table or spend time with their hobbies or other pleasure activities. Which is why most people seek — by your own admission — officials to lord over them instead.
> Personally, I’d like this decision to be… err… you know, it would be nice if everyone had a say?
It is nice when you are independently wealthy and no longer have to worry about things like giving up an enormous amount of your day to keep a roof over your head. But most people are not so fortunate, so they do not find it fair that, for all realistic purposes, only some people get to participate in democracy to their own advantage. Hence why democracies devolve into a system of officials instead, with most people believing it offers a better balance for all involved, albeit at the cost of losing say.
Aside from being more compassionate than the Terminator movies, it might simply be the cheapest way to handle humans in a world where we've become a liability.
Because we outnumber them a million to one, and history is littered with examples of what happens to leaders who squeeze their population a little too far
And then they make a point out of terrorizing the people who don't support them. Just so the others have no trouble discerning whether believing them is a good idea or not.
Governments are routinely replaced in western democracies.
Look at what happened to the USA in Afganistan recently. What really threatens the chances of popular revolution are the systems of surveillance and inter-dependence that we are building up, and the existence of killer drones that can compete with armed peasants at scale.
These are powers that are actually, technically, plausibly be granted to a single or several individual in the future.
The future where human is obsolete is scary. Just reread that sentence again. Humans are obsolete.
Tanks and drones, don’t stand on street corners and enforce non-assembly and curfews.
The tanks and drones argument and later Biden’s “we have F15s” claim are wildly devoid of reality. You do not understand what a “modern military” is. Each MRAP takes multiple people to keep it running, and it’s just a diesel truck.
You think tanks and drones don’t take teams of people to keep running?
Tanks and drones don’t stand on street corners and enforce curfews.
Our “modern military” in handicapped in multiple ways, primarily that society does not have the stomach to win wars anymore. And, beyond that, it takes TEAMS of people to keep the simplest vehicle or weapon system running. It’s all logistics and fuel.
In a civil conflict it was dissolve quickly without a unified force and a ton of fuel.
Traditionally these motte and bailey fiefdoms were laid siege to and undermined.
People like being served by human beings, rich people especially. So that work will still be around and all the brightest and most diligent people will compete to be the one who brings Jeff Bezos's grandson his dinner.
Billionaires, on the other hand, are not elected and have a vested interest in maintaining the inequalities. If anything, they are UBI enemies.
Oof, that one hits hard. My dad was an executive, mom was a housewife/socialite, we lived in Mexico. Had our own live-in maid, gardeners/handymen for outside chores. I saw them more than my parents. I can totally see them hiring robots instead of humans. Once technology gets cheap enough, the masses adopt it (in the 60's TV was an electronic babysitter)
Not to mention the opinions and beliefs that people hold “as the right side of history” without realizing these things change and no doubt some view they hold will be seen as “barbaric” in the future.
Past performance future results yadda yadda. I hope you’re right, though!
No matter what the future looks like, the present won't look like that, relative to it, than the past does to the present. The average developed country inhabitant objectively lives in decent material conditions.
I remember the early years when they didn't have running water or indoor plumbing, which my Mother hated, but I thought was fun. As the years went by and the price of the main crops that were grown increased, the "shack" was updated more to Mother's liking.
When I reached my tween years, I was asked if I wanted to earn a little money by working in the fields, I was thrilled. My first assignment was to work hoeing cotton, a semi-brutal job performed on endless rows in scorching heat. I was working with a black family who, I was told, worked on that particular piece of land for generations. They took care of me and, after a few days, I began to understand their accented speech. As a kid from a middle-class white family who lived in a city hundreds of miles away, it was my first time to experience a culture shock. It was a lot to process being so young, but I do have fond memories, especially of the Mother of the family. I didn't have any contact with the family except in the fields, so I can't pretend to know how they felt about their lives, I do know they worked very hard in the summer and found whatever work they could in the winter. This all took place in the seventies.
Such aesthetics have a long history, well illustrated by bucolic visions of "simple" peasant life from the classical Greek and Roman era , e.g. Theocritus in 300 BC [0], to the 19th century paintings by John Constable.
It has little to do with the actual realities of living a rural agrarian life. Let alone a pre-industrial one.
So the tone of much of the discussion in this thread (technology vs simplicity) a little curious, to say the least.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocritus#Bucolics_and_mimes
Theres a lake I visit in the summer that I’ve been visiting since the 80’s, and the houses used to all be wood cottages with no fences, now they’re all mansions, many walled off. Sure the houses weren’t insulated, and you would be crammed in there together, but it felt way more…. Human? Communal?
I would argue that the reverence for real wood and craft you espoused (and I share) is in part possible due to living in a consumerist society. For what it’s worth it is still possible to buy those same quality goods today, and certainly at lower cost . However, I would balk at paying the historical fraction of my income (or multiple if we go back to the 1700s), for a new bed.
In short cheap dishonest crap is what we ultimately want. It lets us focus our time and resources elsewhere
This reminds me of being a kid excitedly repeating the trope I’d just learned: “Back in your day it was nice because you didn’t need to lock your doors!”
To which she responded “Because none of us had anything worth stealing.”
It’s probably fine if you are going to use it for the rest of your life. Or you can pay just for the nails, and do the rest yourself.
I don't want cheap crap, but I suddenly appreciated why we've moved away from tables that can support a car.
Whiteware and kitchen appliances are the same - you can absolutely buy a fridge, or a stand mixer or whatever that will work well and last forever. It's just the value proposition compared to cheap crap that will still likely last for a few years but at a 1/5th of the price is not great unless you're going to use it really heavily.
What I wanted was a refrigerator with a reliable compressor. That's where it really seemed like the only options are cheap and astronomical.
Instead, try to find a refrigerator with access to the cooling pipes. Last fridge I threw away had a leak that couldn't be patched because the pipes were all embedded in the plastic walls of the fridge.
Reviews, specs, teardowns, brand name.
https://www.geappliances.com/appliance/GE-Profile-ENERGY-STA...
Poor people always decorated and still do. There is basically no larger human culture where decorations dont take a place. The only ones I can think of are small religious orders that dont decorate to deprieve themselves.
You go to any poor area and see dirt, mess, issues and people showing off decorations in their houses or on themselves.
> to decorate intentionally in the way we do today
Most people not so long ago did not have the luxury of saying “that shirt is so last last year” , or “that living room set is a relic of the 90s!”.
Of course people always find ways to decorate and show off, but that’s different than what OP talked about WRT quality furniture. In the past that stuff was so expensive you bought it and lived with it, possibly across multiple generations. If the style changed you probably couldn’t afford to just swap it out.
The 1950s - 2000s post war boom was a tailwind very few countries get to experience. It's funny how we look back at it as the norm, because that's not what the rest of the world experienced.
There's a reason everything in America was super sized for so long.
Things have averaged out a bit now, but if you look at the trendline, we're still doing remarkably well. The fact that our relatively small population supports the GDP it does is wild.
Yes and no. It is very impressive what humans can do and the US is a remarkable country for managing to achieve what they have. On the other hand, if we're talking GDP it is basically just a trendline [0] of whether you let people better their own lives or not.
The main reason for US success on the GDP front is that the median administrator chooses to make people fail and the US does the best job of resisting that tendency. To me the mystery is less why the US succeeds but more why polities are so committed to failing. It isn't even like there is a political ideology that genuinely wants to make it hard to do business [1]. It mostly happens by accident, foolishness and ignorance.
[0] https://www.grumpy-economist.com/p/the-cost-of-regulation - see the figure, note the logarithmic axis
[1] I suppose the environmentalists, maybe.
In fact, creating good policy in a modern economy might be so dynamically complex that no mind alive today can simultaneously comprehend an adaptive solution and act in such a way as to bring it about.
Perhaps, given this, we are simply spoiled by the effectiveness of certain economic actors (e.g. the Federal Reserve) in maintaining an monetary thermostat. Their success is not the norm so much as it is extraordinary.
0: which is humorous given this, because the Seinfeld Isn't Funny effect applies to things that become mainstream - insight and humor both disappear as the spark or joke become common knowledge
Every component here is ill-defined and doubtful, especially the claim that lower regulation is the "main" reason.
That acknowledged, I did link to a profession economist's blog and he goes in to excruciating detail of what all his terms mean and what he is saying. I'm basically just echoing all that, so if you want the details you can spend a few hours reading what he wrote.
Focusing on GDP handwaves away so much around externalities that it's hard to know where to start with it.
How much worse off would people be if the US GDP was 20% lower but FB/Instagram/Google/everybody-else weren't vacuuming up ad dollars by pushing as-addictive-as-possible mental-junk-food in people's faces to make them feel bad about themselves? How much of that GDP is giving anyone optimism for improving their own individual condition?
How much of the nostalgia for the olden days is about agency and independence and perceived trajectory vs purely material wealth (from a material standpoint, many people today have more and better stuff than boomers did as kids, when a single black and white TV may have been shared by a whole family)?
Would regulation preventing the heads of big-tech advertising firms from keeping as much of that profit for themselves really be a net drain? Some suggestions for that regulation, harkening back to US history:
1) bring back super-high marginal tax rates to re-encourage more deductions and spread of salaries vs concentration in the top CEOs and execs. worked for the booming 50s! preventing the already-powerful, already-well-off from having another avenue to purely focus on "better their own lives" seemed wise there. seems like there were mega-wealthy super-tycoons both before the "soak the rich" era in US history and after it, but fewer minted during it?
2) instead of pushing more and more people into overtime or second jobs, go the other way and revitalize the earlier 20th-century trends towards limited work hours. get rid of overtime-exempt classifications while at it. Preventing people from working 100 hours a week to "better their own lives" and preventing them from sending their kids to work as early to "better their own lives" seems to have worked out ok.
3) crack down on pollution, don't let people "better their own lives" by forcing others to breathe, eat, and walk through their shit
4) crack down on surveillance, don't let people "better their own lives" by monetizing the private lives of others; focus on letting others enjoy their own lives in peace instead
3+ catastrophic major wars
3+ other minor ones.
2+ great depressions (each of which was as large as ever financial panic 1951-current combined)
3+ financial panic events
At least one pandemic - plus local epidemics were pretty common.
When I tell people "its never been better than it is today" they dont believe me, but its the honest to god truth.
>The 1950s - 2000s post war boom was a tailwind very few countries get to experience. It's funny how we look back at it as the norm, because that's not what the rest of the world experienced.
Especially ironic when perpetrated by youth from countries outside of America - like mine. I'm not a boomer, but my parents generation had it rough and my life was much easier in comparison. Importing "boomer" memes is a bit stupid in this context. Hell, even the name makes no sense here, because our "baby boom" happened later, in 1980-1990s.
All countries who had participated in WWII experienced it, winners and losers.
What you said is the compete opposite of the truth.
They also got more and more educated. From the lowest education to ever higher education degrees, one more step in each new generation. My grandfather tried many new tech hobbies as theY appeared, from (actual, original) tape recorders over mechanical calculators to at the time modern cameras and color slides, to growing hundreds of cactuses in a glasshouse, maybe as a substitute for being unable to travel to those places. I still have lots of quality 1950s and 60s color slides of people and places in East Germany.
Looking around. even the GDR until the end experienced significant improvements over what existed before, at least for the masses. Except for the environment especially near industry.
We blame boomers not for what happened in the 50s or 60s, we blame them for voting in and supporting Ronald fckng Reagan and all the bullshit his policies have affected since his presidency.
See: https://thelinknewspaper.ca/article/why-almost-everything-is...
I’m very aware that a healthy minority opposed him and his policies.
Thank you for your work on ARPANET and remaining a proud socialist! Computer networking is what drew me in to the technology space (not programming like most folks here, I presume), and socialism just might finally be having its due time here in the US (e.g., Mamdani, Katie Wilson).
Coincidentally, it was only a couple of days ago that I was thinking about this[0] when I thought about how the microfibre fleece my daughter was lying on was the cheap microfiber fleece I'd bought when I encountered my first American winter. A student's cheap blanket has lasted me over a decade and still keeps me warm and cleans easily.
My wife and I have had Caspers and Tuft & Needles and Tempurpedics and we sleep now on an Ikea foam mattress. It's fantastic. Modern manufacturing and materials are incredible. I feel like I'm living in a golden age.
0: https://wiki.roshangeorge.dev/w/Blog/2025-11-29/Things_Do_La...
I love a good petrochemical, but sometimes it would be nice if the cheap thing store wasn't so callously targeting veneers and pleathers that last just long enough to loose the receipt.
I’m not wealthy, not by HN standards, but my kids are healthy and lack for nothing. I doordash them takeout sushi when I don’t feel like cooking them dinner. I’ve been to several of the world’s great museums, gone to great plays and concerts, and love a round of Epoisses with a plump Meursault.
Things that last have always been expensive, out of reach for many. And every time I think nostalgically about life on the prairie in a dugout, I think about winter, it being -10 outside and windy, and 45 degrees inside and damp and smoky.
PlasticWorld is designed to empty your wallet over time. In a hundred dollar product, what breaks is the two cent piece of plastic that replaced a six-cent piece of metal.
Another part of this process of the enshittification of the tangible world of consumer goods is the process of (1) acquisition of a quality brand (typically by private capital), (2) extraction of the value of the brand (via substitution of inferior products & services, and self-serving management "bonuses"), and finally, (3) brand liquidation (by bankruptcy or absorption).
Today you have the option, everyone can have the cheap thing, and the wealthy can still have the honest thing.
Much better this way, in my opinion.
Every era has warts. Even if we lived in heaven, you'd still have substack posts complaining about it. It's just the way humans are. Ever restless, always looking beyond.
you would be crammed in there together, but it felt way more…. Human? Communal?
Life of a medieval peasant was quite different. Productivity was basically static, literacy was low, the economy would have been local and mostly based on barter or paying with labour. You would likely be growing your own linen to spin and weave and make into clothes for your own family. I think there was a little more specialisation and a little less subsistence agriculture by 1700.
You might also note that the inhabitants of Hawaii had to have got there somehow and its 2000 odd miles to what is now the US mainland and still quite a long way from anywhere else, eg Tahiti.
Classical antiquity had the notion of a lost golden age and a heroic age in past, while later times considered the classical antiquity as the lost golden age. Victorians romanticized the middle ages, while we romantisize the victorians.
It is just easier to see the flaws and imperfections in the present. And there is the survivorship bias: Quality products and buildings survive, while low quality crap is destroyed and lost. The swords survive but the pointy sticks are lost. The good music survive but the crap is forgotten.
So you just used to use real materials out of necessity
The past was not more "real" than present day reality.
So were people in 1910. You could say the printing press set up the following industrial revolution and things have been accelerating ever since. People talk that in the future there will be a technological singularity that things will go so fast people won't be able to keep up, but really in many ways we've been in it for a while already and it's still accelerating.
Unless we make some major breakthroughs, I don't think there will ever be another generation of change like that one.
Case in point, this notion that the past as "more real" and the present "more fake"... the amount of fake doctors, fake medicine, religious revivals that were actually fleecing entire towns into destitution was out of control. The "wild west" it truly was, and the law was owning a gun because everyone was desperate.
We are a propaganda nation, far better at it than any other on Earth.
Even the so-called "history makers" are the product of imagination, of myth, and of hagiography. If you met these people today, you wouldn't recognize them if you went by the expectations built up by the images we're fed. The same holds of so-called celebrities.
Anyone older than about 30 who takes a few minutes to reflect on all the little details of daily life could probably come up with a surprisingly long list of annoying little inconveniences they no longer have to deal with. Beyond that we've had decades worth of casually raising the bar for what is considered common sense and polite. These are the "real" things we take for granted.
I think there is a lot of shady and dishonest business that happens now that would get you killed in the past
> Feed sack dresses, flour sack dresses, or feedsack dresses were a common article of clothing in rural US and Canadian communities from the late 19th century through the mid-20th century. They were made at home, usually by women, using the cotton sacks in which flour, sugar, animal feed, seeds, and other commodities were packaged, shipped, and sold. They became an iconic part of rural life from the 1920s through the Great Depression, World War II, and post-World War II years.
Good, Honest, Old-Fashioned Clothing was Consumerism, too, bucko.
> During World War II it was estimated that 3 million women and children in the United States were wearing feed sack clothing at any given point in time.[7][14] One participant in an oral history project stated that "everything on the clothesline was from feed sacks."[2] The US Department of Agriculture reported in 1951 that 75% of mothers living in urban areas and 97% of those living in rural areas had heard of making garments from feed sacks.[15]
Did Granny make clothes from scratch? Did she, Hell! She bought cloth from a Large Evil Corporation what with the Dark Satanic Mills and Finance Capitalism and she was mainly unhappy she couldn't spend more:
> There was an element of shame experienced by those dressed in flour sack clothing, as it was seen as a mark of poverty, so efforts were often made to hide the fact the clothing was made from feed sacks, such as soaking off logos, dying the fabric, or adding trim.
Our ancestors would be appalled at people wanting to go back to The Good Old Days. They fought and struggled mightily against what the Cottagecore Losers on their Laptops and iPods want.
Part of what was driving feedsack dresses was the agricultural depression from 1918-1939/40
Like, so much of what I do today happens online instead of the real world, so I do think you can describe ways in which life or the world really has gotten more “fake”.
Though some of this is funny too? I remember things from the say 50’s to the 80’w as being more “real” and that’s also the like rise of TV dinners and everything eaten out of a can, rather than “real” ingredients.
Yea, people really are out of touch with what was going on around them. Naugahyde, for example was invented in 1914. Fake wood on cars started in the 1940s! It is very likely people remembering the 'real' stuff were quite often talking about objects that were far older.
It is easier to approach the "mental singularity" of a free spirit if you are at the edge of survival that in the convenient, warm western style.
However, in general, most of the past really was terrible. More than half of the people who ever lived were subsistence farmers who, if they were lucky, grew enough food to live on and a little bit more.
Less than half of their children lived to adulthood. To make up for staggering mortality rates, women had to have roughly six live births for the population to replace itself.
And in peasant households, everyone has to work if they're able to, including children as soon as they were able.
More here:
https://acoup.blog/2025/07/18/collections-life-work-death-an...
You can read more about the drop in child mortality rates here:
https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality-big-problem-in-br...
Then, suddenly, a decade later, the men who are actors are all strapping young guys, fit and healthy.
It reminds of me of WWII era japanese, who, a decade or three earlier, had also been protein-starved. Their height and frames reflected this.
All this to say that while we see the downsides, the green revolution also had its health upsides, I guess.
I used to think this way, but if you actually start reading first hand accounts, stories from long ago, etc you start to question this narrative. And then I contrast that with my current situation:
I wake up, spend 30 minutes with my child before sending him off to daycare so I can work, and then I get about an hour with him in the evening before he goes to bed. I’d give up a lot if it meant more time with my family. Especially if we were working together to provide for our family directly, as opposed to making some billionaire richer.
Modern society is deeply inhuman compared to the past, and I think the whole “the past is terrible” narrative - that I grew up believing - is pushed by the wealthy today to continue the absurd wealth inequality. If they can point to the past and say “that was awful, you should appreciate what you have today” people are much less likely to get angry about the wealth gap and general parasitism of elites today.
How are you and everybody else here so sure about that? Maybe you are forgetting parts of the population with different lifestyles and conditions? And I don't mean only the rich.
When people are though, they don't suffer from a though life as much as somebody who is soft. You can notice that with yourself if you do uncomfortable things, like going on outdoor adventures or staying in a more primitive cottage.
Old people have a tendency to only talk about the hard times, and paint themselves as hard working martyrs. And of course it is in their interest to convince the younger generations that the system the olds are in control of is a vanguard against endless suffering, starvation and disease. Hmm, now it starts to sound familiar. Don't we need to sacrifice an oxen or a virgin to keep away that suffering from the past? Don't we need the young generations to obey and pay us juicy, juicy monetary tributes so that we keep the blight from the past away from them? The horror we have had to tell them about, because they weren't alive to verify if it was lies or truth.
For example, read the series on peasants that I linked to an acoup.blog. It’s largely a demographic model because peasants don’t write to us and the elites were not very interested in them. But it’s based on things like child mortality rates and I don’t think there is anyone claiming that there were any societies with modern child mortality rates in ancient times?
Also, exploitation by the elites is part of the model.
There are charts which show the cratering of nutritional content of fresh produce over time so maybe not all goods and services of the past were total crap.
I am utterly confused by this statement. Karen as in... "let me speak with your manager" meme Karen? What are you trying to say here?
Deeper connectedness? Yeah, conform to the small town or gossip ruins your life. "Harper Valley PTA" ain't that long ago. Shared public spaces ruled by the biggest jerks--hope you're willing to take on a sociopath on the hill. My father had an entire garage of junk to repair those "quality goods" (cars, in particular were terrible). The only reason why "services" were good is that you could get a bad reputation and then you were doomed as nobody would buy from you--of course the flip side is that you could be shaken down, too. Ritual? Hey, girl, you're 18--why aren't you married and pregnant already like your sisters were?
At this point, most of the people on HN have never lived in the world where being smart was a HUGE negative stigma ("Revenge of the Nerds" was an exaggeration--but not by as much as you'd think). If we wound the clock back to the 1960s or 1970s, 95% of the smart people on HN would be profoundly unhappy--just like all the rest of the functionally alcoholic men working in the mills, mines, or factories.
You chose "Bladerunner" as the maximal negative while my grandfathers would have viewed it as a step up.
They can go right now to Karen societies like the middle east and asia but they don't, its clear why.
Imagine if the USA’s founding legend wasn’t the honorable Founding Fathers, Declaration of Independence, and all that jazz, but instead how our ancestors kidnapped and raped the women of the neighboring tribe. The psychology of such a people to remember and retell this story is pretty incredible
Was it this, or was it that your mother/grandmother was a great cook? I hear a lot of older people talk about how awful their food was, limited ingredients, everything was boiled...
Food also probably tastes better when you're actually hungry, and not able to Doordash whatever you want to eat at any time of day.
>everything was fresh from the garden
And this just goes to show that the writer doesn't understand how gardens work. For the vast majority of the year any particular plant in the garden ain't producing a damned thing. You can get some things like fresh tomatoes that produce from late spring through summer. And some herbs will produce all growing season. But fresh peas, well, they all pod out at around the same time. You better start canning them, oh and trying to freeze any amount of them in the past would cost you an absolute fortune in electricity.
Simply put, the amount and quality of vegetables you can get at your local store would stun most cooks of the early 1900s. They would walk in the store and be unable to move for a moment, stunned, at the vast selection of non-rotten, non ate up by bugs, large vegetables and ones they'd never seen before.
I'm not sure why, but I've noticed that smaller vegetables taste better. Small cucumbers are tastier and sweeter than the big ones (that taste like water), cherry tomatoes are more flavorful than large ones.
We have very large ones like Vidalias, small ones like pearl onions, and then everything in between. Most common are probably the size of an apple (how big is an apple, you ask?)
Also, most of the chickens she cooked came from a can- that is, whole hen, pressure canned and sold that way. There weren't any chicken farmers for miles and that was the safest and most convenient way to get chicken to cook with.
Spices, fresh fruit and vegetables were all luxuries for most of the year. Most dishes were variations on stew, casserole or pot roast since everything was already soft already, and gravy was the most accessible seasoning / condiment.
Food was cooked fresh because the refrigerator was tiny and restaurants weren't cheap enough for anything other than special occasions, but "fresh" is definitely an optimistic interpretation of the ingredients.
If I get red cherries in winter from Chile, they are not as good as the ones from eastern Washington in the summer. Local seasonal fruit in WA is amazing (cherries, peaches, apples, now is pear season)
You don't spend half of the year remembering the previous season's cherries waiting for the next time you can taste them.
I mean foodies notice the difference today. But a lot what made the various foods great in old times for /everyone/ was having to wait for it.
Like half of the fun of vacations is waiting for them. If you can live at The beach around the year it stops being special.
I do that, I miss them
That’s not to say you cannot get really good food that’s not “farm fresh” but food right out of the ground absolutely on average is better.
...so people just made their ice cream on that day. It required a little planning, is all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk_sickness
> Milk sickness, also known as tremetol vomiting, is a kind of poisoning characterized by trembling, vomiting, and severe intestinal pain that affects individuals who ingest milk, other dairy products, or meat from a cow that has fed on white snakeroot plant, which contains the poison tremetol. In animals it is known as trembles.
> Although very rare today, milk sickness claimed thousands of lives among migrants to the Midwestern United States in the early 19th century, especially in frontier areas along the Ohio River Valley and its tributaries where white snakeroot was prevalent. New settlers were unfamiliar with the plant and its properties. Nancy Hanks Lincoln, the mother of Abraham Lincoln, is said to have been a victim of the poison. Nursing calves and lambs may have also died from their mothers' milk contaminated with snakeroot even when the adult cows and sheep showed no signs of poisoning. Cattle, horses, and sheep are the animals most often poisoned.
Nice, Fresh, Honest Milk.
I'm thinking also of one set of great-great grandparents. He was from a very poor farming family, who had decided to look for work in the city instead of emigrating to the US. She was from a considerably wealthier farming family (which owned their own farm, his didn't), and also had decided to move to the city, probably more out of a desire to see the world (and the wonders of fin de siecle city life) than necessity. They did well for themselves in the city, but in their old age they moved to a rural cottage near the farm she grew up on. (I think actually she inherited the land, and considerably more, but that they sold off the rest).
I think that with money, cottage core can be a desirable life. A big part of the reason life was hard for life-on-the-prairie people was that they had debts, and need for a good deal of things they couldn't grow themselves. With a little money, like both my great-great grandparents and the stereotypical Beatles retirees had, cottage life can be fine.
There's a reason it's among the most deprived areas in England. It's badly isolated, with a crazily-expensive ferry the only connection to the mainland. The jobs are working in tourism, agriculture, or at the prison. Housing is totally unaffordable, because of all the second-homeowners, holiday cottages and – yes – retirees. The story is the same in many tourism areas.
We'll stick with our quiet little apartment and our free time and our growing savings accounts, thank you very much.
Retirees in the 1960s were not aspiring to a rural way of life, or giving up plumbing or electricity. They were just buying a small house suitable for two older people to live in together.
This was a middle class goal with very little overlap to today's 'cottagecore' other than the word 'cottage'.
I’m not saying that the overall point isn’t true, just that juxtaposing photos propagates an already deeply-embedded and mistaken intuition that the past was somehow less colorful, less vibrant than the present.
To try to combat this, I had ChatGPT colorize the “actual farmer” photo: https://ibb.co/1tkcLKmY
But actually I do admit this is the best part of living today, if you want it, you can have some level of that aesthetic and lifestyle with some of the efficiencies of modern technology (not having to worry about dying of starvation if a harvest doesn’t work out)
It's important to have some nuance. Different places had different living standards. The French village life depicted in Peasants into Frenchmen sounds grim; English village life around 1900 was nice enough to generate nostalgic books like Lark Rise to Candleford after the rise of the motor car. The peasants in Brueghel paintings are having a lot of rough, unsophisticated fun.
That doesn't mean we should not be grateful for (say) modern dentistry! Of course we should. But if you paint an entirely black picture of premodern life, you may subtly dehumanize the people who lived it.
https://kottke.org/25/12/an-astonishing-graph
For most of human history, around 50% of children used to die before they reached the end of puberty. In 2020, that number is 4.3%. It’s 0.3% in countries like Japan & Norway.
Related recent HN thread on the Bills of Mortality from early modern London: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46045061
The tldr of my post there is that life before the mass availability of antibiotics after WWII was pretty terrifying.
Everybody had tons of parasites and smelled horribly including royalty, think working out hard daily and wearing the same cloth, bathing once a year (maybe). Freedom we consider a basic human right was basically unheard of, everybody was a prisoner of some form of somebody else.
To the list I would add: a group of horrible diseases (smallpox above all, which killed about a billion people throughout history) that vaccines largely pushed to the margins, at least until recently.
https://theonion.com/grueling-household-tasks-of-19th-centur...
I also think that you should not rely on (or overuse) modern technology too much, even though it can sometimes be beneficial (so it is not the reason to avoid it unconditionally, nor necessarily to avoid it generally).
Many things now are excessively artificially, including (but not limited to): light, music, communication, food, transportation, and now even also creativity. (Some of these (such as food and music) are mentioned in that article but some are they do not seem to mention it) This is not the only problem (there are many other problems too), but it is one aspect of it.
I'd say it a bit different....
We can't afford it, or at least don't want to pay for it. And quite often, attempting to give a significant fraction of the 9 billionish people on earth something authentic of the past would be an ecological disaster.
I don't disagree, but at the same time, building the same cars we did in 1960 now would ensure the atmosphere would be incandescent in the next few years.
If you look at things like US energy consumption per capita it leveled off in the 1970s and has decreased since, so it is possible, but we're not getting those thing we had during the days of insane energy usage.
Most people shouldn't own personal automobiles, because most people live in cities and cities shouldn't be built around the personal automobile in the first place.
The jackets look nice but they are heavy, don't breath well, and are usually expensive for quality, and they are more water resistant than waterproof.
Compared to modern ultra-light synthetic jackets (down etc) that are legitimately water/windpoof which feels much nicer and warmed doing high activity stuff in poor weather. The only downside is they aren't as rugged, like getting a scratch walking through a bush or cuts from tools/dogs.
Old stuff always lasts longer but the IRL experience doesn't always outweigh the cons.
Sure sure my great grandma was “stay-at-home”. That meant feeding an army of ~8 kids and any additional farm workers every day for 60+ years. She wasn’t stay at home, she ran a cantine. And worked the farm during peak harvest season.
I’ll never forget a quote from a BBC documentary (Ruth Goodman I think): ”While victorian science cautioned that weight lifting is bad for women, the women working their kitchens tossed around 100lb pots every day”
The earthy workers existed to toil, not be beautiful. That wasn’t their station in life.
Also, is that actually a claim that "victorian science" made? That weight lifting is bad for women? I'm just taking for granted that the person quoted in this BBC documentary is accurately characterizing a commonly-held view among Anglophone scientists of the victorian era - but I haven't looked into this myself. Maybe this was not in fact scientific consensus of the time. Maybe Ruth Goodman is uncritically repeating a myth about what the past thought, rather than what the past actually thought.
However, I could be misremembering so I went digging. The internet suggests weight lifting was strongly discouraged for women. Here’s a pubmed paper:
> Medical experts of that era believed that intense exercise and competition could cause women to become masculine, threaten their ability to bear children, and create other reproductive health complications. Consequently, sport for women was reserved for upper-class women until the mid-twentieth century.
What would the modern day iteration of that quote be like?
A woman on a brisk walk through the park mid-afternoon staying on top of the tracked metrics stored on her Apple Watch to offset the time spent sitting at her desk job while another woman lives relatively stationery sitting in traffic at the off-ramp waiting to pull into Erewhon to fulfill the walking woman’s Instacart order.
Something I would add is that when we look back at how _rich_ people lived, looking at the lavish parties with fancy clothes, we miss the huge amount of labour that was needed to make that happen (and thus why only the billionaires of the day could afford to ponce about in new clothes and have fine food like ice cream on demand in summer.)
However we don't have those constraints of requiring a team of 40, plus 90 hectares of land, an ice house and town of artisans to hold a house party with a four course meal, chocolate, fresh fruit, the best cuts of meat and fresh lettuce in winter.
_we_ can have that luxury, to the point where it is mundane.
look at the kitchens needed to service henry the 8th:
https://www.nakedkitchens.com/blog/henry-viiis-55-room-kitch...
and compare that to the kitchens needed to service something like an office block (for example Meta's london office serves 3 meals a day for ~2k people, fits in 100m2)
But they said it imagining some contemporary lifestyle that was not "servitude". That's not what your current life is. If they had a chance to look at your life now and compare it with their servitude life, they would probably not say that.
The reason is, modern life has lost core abilities of innate resilience and community. The comforts such as the oven-baking came at the cost of losing some other things, which you ignore. So it all depends on what you value.
When I go back to my rural hometown, the people working the earth, growing the food, and managing the livestock don’t look as… prim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayao_Miyazaki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sh%C5%8Djo_manga
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isekai
“Representations of Europe in Japanese Anime: An Overview of Case Studies and Theoretical Frameworks”. Mutual Images Journal, no. 8, June 2020, pp. 47-84, https://doi.org/10.32926/2020.8.ara.europ .
An especially interesting quote from the above:
> According to Frederik Schodt, Jaqueline Berndt, and Deborah Shamoon, the European settings, depicted in the 1970s shōjo series took the role of a remote idealised elsewhere with a strong exotic appeal, radically different from Japanese society and reality, where the recurrent conventions of the shōjo narratives were developed. Some of these themes, like the deconstruction of the feminine subject and the development of transgressive romantic stories (which contain incests, infidelities, idyllic and allusive sexual scenes or homosexual relationships), were hard to conceive in the Japanese society of that moment, which enabled the European setting with a range of creative possibilities due to the depiction of foreign cultures (Schodt, 2012 [1983]: 88-93; Berndt, 1996: 93-4, Shamoon, 2007, 2008). Such a use and depiction of Europe fits with what Pellitteri has coined as the “mimecultural” scenario of anime, a mode of representation present in those anime series that adopt contents, settings, and other visual elements from different cultural backgrounds to develop their original narratives and plots (2010: 396). [italics added for emphasis]
The concept of “mimecultral” aspects of anime and manga is not new to me, but that phrasing itself is, and it reminds me of Dawkins’ conception of memes.
I was this years old when I realized it.
I'm old enough to remember houses without any form of central heating - mostly farms and cottages but even modernish town houses of the 70s/80s might be a bit remiss on the modern touches. I'm 55 so born 1970. My family lived in at least one house with an out-house bog (toilet) - it got a bit nippy (cold) in winter. If you had to use it then piss first to break the ice and then go in for a dump!
My mum was a Devonshire (Stoke Fleming, nr Dartmouth) farm girl and one anecdote she had was visiting another farm that even her parents considered a bit old school. The bog in the other farm was situated above a shippon - ie where cows are kept. The house adjoined the shippon and a fancy modern "indoor" bog had been built by bashing a hole through an exterior wall and an extension added over the shippon. It even had a sink to wash your hands - which was from a rain capture tank ... . The floorboards were a bit sketchy and apparently you could end up nearly eye to eye with the bull, whilst sat on the throne.
OK, back to fuel poverty and the old days not being cute. My mum's anecdote would probably be considered laughable to an Elizabethan (not QEII - QEI).
The world spins and we move on. I can remember being seriously cold in a house and basically wearing a lot more clothing and having a lot of blankets and later a hefty TOG rated duvet on my bed.
I think I prefer progress but don't think of the past as somehow regressive.
(1) https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/fuel-poverty-stati...
Like, what were you expecting? Breaking out of the EU (a primarily economic union) results in economic problems. Import controls requires stopping incoming trucks (sorry, incoming lorries) and that requires building major truck stop to avoid backups, and it increases shipping costs on everything. You(r govt) didn't build the truck stops, didn't set up any sort of plan until after the import controls went into effect, and were somehow surprised that putting up a trade barrier resulted in less trade, and a resulting economic slowdown.
Our social herd immunity weakens as we lose a critical mass of people who were there and experienced the horror.
Counterpoint: some lessons deserve to be forgotten. Like there are many old people in my country that hate Germany and Germans for the things that happened in 2nd world war. Yes, nazis were bad and Holocaust was a nightmare. But modern day Germany moved past it. In fact, in Europe almost every country both did and was a victim on many atrocities. Dwelling on that forever would make peace or things like EU impossible. We would still be angry at things that happened 500 years ago.
Unfortunately we forget more than we should, but maybe it's the price we have to pay to evolve as a society.
The definition of "normal" has drastically changed, even over the last few decades. A hundred years ago much of the societal structures still revolved around farming (which it had for thousands of years before that), something which now only involves a small minority of people.
People love to look at the past, not as it existed, but superpositioned over reality as it exists now.
The other nitpick of the post is, yes, of course, people in work clothes of any generation do not look particularly elegant. People didn't wear their work clothes all day and would have had nicer sets for special functions like church or weddings.
It's likely they would have one set of church clothes at least, but if you ever look at 'old' houses, closets are tiny because even modestly wealthy people didn't have that many clothes.
In 1900 you've have spend something like 15% of your yearly income on clothes, now it's around 3%.
Plus, clothes were a considerable portion of the household budget. People couldn't afford them if they didn't last.
While I like some bits, some tech, some ascetics from yesteryear - I know one thing for certain - the world today is better for basically everyone than it has every been, by virtually every measurable standard, even the poorest of the poor are better off in 2025 than they ever have been at any point in history.
So while I might want to go visit the past if I had a time machine, I know I would never want to live there.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/problem-wi...
What is "problematic" a code word for?
> Folk music is mostly dialectic materialist conspiracy theorists singing hymns to their oppressors.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35274237
Especially towards the end of it.
The past was not “cute” and neither is the present. But in spite of its edges the past afforded one a greater sense of whatever abstract phenomena is related to the word “cute” that escapes the present.
It’s always important to repeat the PSA that this is always survivorship bias and mythologizing. The past was very often much harder and worse than the present. When it wasn’t worse, it was just different. People back then faced existential angst, fear about the future, depression, and alienation just like we do. There were wars, crazy or idiotic politicians, popular delusions, plagues, depressions, atrocities, and all the rest.
That’s not to say that all things always get better, or that they get better in a straight line or in an orderly fashion. History is a mess. I’m talking about romanticizing the past to the point of imagining a lost golden age. That is bullshit.
It would be better to understand _why_ rather than _who_. Since this same sentiment has arrived in previous eras it seems like a human phenomenon rather than a political one.
> I’m talking about romanticizing the past to the point of imagining a lost golden age.
Or perhaps they're just attempting to avoid thinking about their bleak future.
Where would I find formal definitions of that scatterfest of terminologies?
I'd like to engage but I'm not up to speed on the lingo. I think PSA means Public Service Announcement - am I on track there at least?
Neo-monarchist: wants a dictator to replace democratic rule, where that dictator is a tech CEO like Elon Musk or Sam Altman (used to be Zuckerberg).
Greens: environmentalists.
Anarcho-primitivist: wants to end all technological advance and return to hunter gatherer society while miraculously somehow maintaining all the benefits of technology (medicine, relatively comfortable lifestyle).
This is simply incorrect. Any historian versed in this area will point to the fact that the version of "trad-lifestyle" being pushed by its supporters simply did not exist in feudal Europe. In fact, I don't think the form they push really existed for any length of time in the USA, either. Maybe there was a form of it somewhere in the world but I strongly doubt the people pushing this lifestyle would even know.
I remember the first time I encountered the former view from a person, they were an artist living in London and a communist. I nearly spat out my beer when he told me that hunter gathering was a better life for humans.
It seems to be some kind of desire to rage against progress, because industrialisation brings many downsides e.g, pollution climate change etc. Maybe because they hate the rich and powerful capitalists that rule the world.
But what they always miss from their arguments is a clear conception of just how incredibly privileged and fortunate they are to be born into an industrialised society. People are very very bad at appreciating what they are given, it seems to be an innate human trait to exhibit breathtaking ingratitude for what already is. We’re pretty good at anticipating and appreciating the new, but if it’s already there then, like a spoilt child living in a luxury home, we take it for granted.
I think one solution to this problem is to remove as many comforts from your life, temporarily. For example, for a week in winter don’t use your heating or hot water. For me, it was travelling to poor countries and living without potable or warm water, decent transport, good food, etc. that made me grateful (at least for a while).
But when we compare by other metrics, such as mental and physical health, it becomes more complicated. The problem is that out brains and bodies aren't well adapted to the modern world. In the past there were stresses (predators, hunger, conflict), but they were more acute, big spike of stress, but you usually had a lot of time to recover. For example, predator appears, huge spike in stress, run/fight, either you die or it's over. But afterwards (if you survived) you usually had a lot of rest. Also you more or less directly saw the results of your actions. For example, you hunt means you eat, you build shelter means stay dry, etc.
Meanwhile, modern people tend to have chronic low-level stress caused by the complicated and fast paced society: money worries, grind, bureaucracy, deadlines, school / college / university, burnout, job insecurity, notifications, news doomscrolling. Our stress systems are constantly activated which is devastating for long-term mental health. It's no wonder that we have higher rates of depression, anxiety and suicidality. Today's stress is more akin to death by thousands of small cuts. The same is for our physical health.
I'm not claiming hunter gatherers' lives were not challenging. There were a lot risks, physical hardship, famines, etc. But evolutionary speaking, our bodies / minds were more equipped to deal with those types stresses. Here is a good video that talks about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo1A45ShcMo
It's slightly surprising to me how many people think this. Like they think that boomers are selfish because that generation are more selfish people. No, people are inherently selfish.
Or old people think young people are lazier than their generation. No, pretty much everyone is and always has been lazy.
The notion of Incentives in human nature to drive innovation, with efficient allocation via prices and value, plus competition, all leading to capital accumulation that just then be efficiently allocated to generate further value was amazing.
If you think about the current situation in Venezuela, China or Russia on useless missions that led to famine or to killing of millions of people, we cannot argue that capitalism wasn’t a huge influence in the impact in humans lives
I was looking at AOC’s comments about capitalism somewhere and could not believe my ears. Then Thomas Sowell gave a masterclass rebuttal to each of AOC’s ignorant points.
Everyone should listen to it: https://x.com/cubaortografia/status/1997272611269525985
In the same vein, a racist meme shared around the internet is that supposedly some black people, while remembering their shattered ancestry, say "We were kings" [in Africa]. But a lot of white people will genuinely believe they were kings or at least related to kings.
And these erroneous class beliefs are very very common.
It even goes so far as to be used to widely support racism in the "my people" argument. Sir, sit down, statistically you were a illiterate or barely-literate peasant like the rest of us!
This is what happens when you use history as a political tool. This is how the powers that be erase class consciousness from peoples brains. They keep showing us a flawed history that almost always sides with the rulers and we adopt it. They make us forget what we are and where we come from so we side with the oppressors.
Almost every European-descended person has ancestry from Kings and peasants alike. Even the very recent Oliver Cromwell has way more than 20k living descendants in the UK. If you have any substantial English ancestry, there is a Plantagenet somewhere in your family tree to a mathematical certainty.
On the continent, and in other aristocratic societies like Dynastic-era China, things are much the same. If Qin Shihuang's progeny weren't all put to the sword, just about every Han Chinese person is descended from Qin Shihuang.
Read about the "identical ancestors point". Past that point, every individual alive is either: (1) ancestor of everyone alive today, or (2) ancestor of no one alive today.
This is a very very far stretch from saying your family was royalty. Though i do guess you are technically correct. Forgive me, your highness. lol
Let me add that you've delineated a technicality with no real consequence to my argument. If anything supporting my argument by suggesting that makes anyone proper royalty.
This could potentially be a good argument for more democratic systems.
My grandmother was very proud of the fact that we were descendants of King James (one of them, I couldn't tell you which one, probably the one that abdicated!)
What she didn't understand is that something similar was true of almost everyone she knew.
A good friend of mine had an awakening when he realized that his civil war ancestor suffered and sacrificed so that rich men could own other humans, and use those people to suppress his wages.
Reality is people are people and those before us had the same struggles we have about different things. We’re no smarter, but have access to the worlds information.
This is not a coincidence, but is the result of consuming media from people who engage in this same act of romanticizing their history, or this media comes from people who were themselves actually related to these oppressors.
I'm gonna stick with "What?!"
The owners of said media often prefer to fund historical content from the perspective of rulers, as this reflects their class character and aspirations. Meaning they have an infatuation with royalty because they do not think of themselves as lowly.
The people then adopt similar mechanisms of reflection to how they view their ancestors in the past.
I say this mechanism of reflection is a political tool designed to entice average people to think of themselves as above average in the past. And thus eliminate any consciousness of historical class continuation.
If you say "what?!" again, I'm just gonna have to assume you disagree but are too afraid to do so out loud.
In fantasy literature, a hero is almost certainly either a prince or at least of royal blood; in sci-fi, he's at least a progeny of a war hero or great inventor. Even in romance slice-of-life, you'll get mysterious amnesiacs, rich CEOs children, shrewd nerds with underworld connections, etc. much more often than statistically possible - nobody wants to read about "normal people", not really (when we think we do, it's just the author writing so well that he convinced us his "normal people" are different!)
I can't rule out the possibility that this natural tendency is being exploited and manipulated in some cases, but the stories have always been about heroes, long before anyone thought of erasing anyone else's class consciousness.
There are pieces of media that present the real struggles of the average worker. But not that many. Many films are instead invested in the ephemeral (and ever lasting) questions of reality, fiction(fantasy/action/drama), or inane or politically convenient biopics (if not totally altered).
You will occasionally see a nod to "struggling to pay bills" or some mundane romanticized struggle, stuff like that, but almost never a picture of what its actually like.
For the few popular films that do show it, and this is my critique of most media, they never compel the viewer to ANSWER the question of why this happens. This is because to present the real working class life is also to critique it and the conditions that create it.
The working class life reveals it's own critique. And that critique is not something that media owners like because it puts into question the whole status quo. It is INHERENTLY politically charged content.
So they avoid painting a real picture of average people. This lack of real exposure is a heavy influence on our ideas of reality. And essentially the viewers take this image and runs with it. The viewers ends up not learning HOW the world works, they start to see themselves as "temporarily embarrassed millionaires", and end up seeing society as a pool of ever-permanent social mobility, its just not their turn yet.
This is, essentially, the same thing they do with the past.
And I do not have anything against "special people" in media. This can be helpful, even, if done appropriately, by being sure to present kids with the REAL AND RELEVANT paths on how to attain this specialty (if it isn't real and relevant its just escapism). What I critique is the role that medias self-reflection plays in the world and in the past that is problematic.
To come back to the actual post: Who originally started to view cottage living or working class farm life as cute and WHY? Was it truly our grandmas and grandpas? Or was it people compelled and organized to sell historical-fantasy books?