Is the present time shittier than the past, or has the world always been shit?

Is the present time shittier than the past, or has the world always been shit?

The world gets better with each passing year, but people get more miserable with each passing day.

In the distant past, a soft bread cookie would have been absolute ecstasy and a privilege of a few. Think about the delight of foods we have now and apply that comparison to everything from public services, entertainment, luxuries, etc.

tl;dr shit's way better now.

oooooo

In some aspects it's better, in others it's worse. History ain't linear.

I'd rather enjoy a soft bread cookie in ecstacy than have a constant barrage of everything I could wish for (and more than that)

>im so deep

to put it in more simple terms: dysentery
children dont die of dysentery anymore, except in backwater shitholes

Life was really great for hunter gatherers, they were basically at the peak of humanity because they lived exactly as man was intended to live: small tribes, intimate connections, communion with nature. Multiple studies show that hunter gatherers are very healthy, happy, and fulfilled.

Once the agricultural revolution occurs, things take a turn for the worse. Inequality rises, social stratification becomes codified, diseases and epidemics skyrocket due to poor hygiene, livestock and population density, famine is common, malnutrition is an every day occurrence. However, the people at this time were very tough, and they had strong connections with family. Religion held the social fabric together well. So, while people at this time lived in abject destitution, they were actually fairly happy and mentally stable people.
The nobles and upper classes at this time were doing quite well for themselves, of course. They had the finest luxuries, massive power, and they basically did whatever they wanted. Life was good.
Sometime past the industrial revolution is where things took a turn for the worse. The social fabric starts to break apart. There is no meaning anymore. And without meaning, what is the point of suffering and struggling? Depression is a relatively recent invention in human history. People in the modern world become overwhelmed by the banality and mindlessness of it all. There are individuals who possess unimaginable wealth, there are wonderous technologies being invented every day, medicine, telecommunications, robots... And yet, the vast majority of people are unhappy. They lead unfulfilled lives, barren lives, they are empty automatons. How can this be? How can a man who dwells in a desert and wears a loincloth be happier and feel more fulfilled than a man who lives in the greatest age of technological progress the world has ever seen?

People will often compare the world we have today and the world of the past in material terms: does so. But I think this is more of a reflection on our own modern obsession with materialism and a sense of 'progress'. Yes we have 3d movies and internet porn and robots that build cars, but that is not what a human needs. Those things are placeholders for real human necessities: love, relationships, a sense of place and identity, and a feeling of knowing and understanding the universe. These are all things that the primitive tribesman had, but they are slipping away from the modern man.
We are building a machine- and the machines only purpose is to perpetuate itself.

Both

>We are building a machine- and the machines only purpose is to perpetuate itself.

life only purpose is to perpetuate itself - biology

at molecular scale, we are the machines - molecular biology

yeah, call me a materialist again, whatever

Cave paintings by firelight > movies anyway

if I offered someone the choice to spend an evening under the stars with their loved ones, warm, well fed, or to go to the cinema, i would hope most would choose the former. Sadly, I fear the general populace tends to the latter, enthralled with novelty as we are lately

Some times I think of that and the stunning parallelism to the story of the Garden of Eden.

Humans had happy, healthy, comfortable lives, but lost it and were forced to work hard for their sustenance. And how did this come to happen? Overpopulation. Agriculture was means to an end, not done just because.
The large (and growing) population was above the carrying capacity of the environment, in that situation normal species are faced with hunger, which lowers their number until ecological balance is achieved.
But humans set themselves aside from the rest of the living creatures by using technology to artificially expand available food supply, and so beat the ecological balance and be able to have a larger population than otherwise possible.

Of course that had a cost, and we could even ask if it was even worth it. But then we have to remember that not all humans did follow the path of agriculture. Many peoples, remained hunter gatherers, never developing agriculture, and, dare I say, never truly separating themselves from the rest of the animals, and these were easily conquered by more advanced, civilized peoples. So maybe the cost was actually worth it. Maybe one day we make contact with aliens, and we sure as hell don't want to be the less technologically developed.

>healthy, happy, and fulfilled.
they didn't have the concepts of happy and fulfilled, these are recent.

They weren't healthy either. 9/10 people died in childhood or at birth, they lived rough, harsh lives. Most didn't live past 20, very few lived past 30. Their bodies were ripe with health issues that health care and softer lifestyles alleviates. Their entire bodies were dirty, calloused, scarred, rough messes of flesh. Life was suffering , violence, constant danger and very hard incessant work. You perceiving it as quaint and comfortably simple from your external view has no bearing on it.

>life only purpose is to perpetuate itself - biology
No. "purpose" is not a concept in nature, that's a human thing, stop projecting. Things simply exist and do what they do. There is no purpose, goal, foresight, or anything. Propagation is an unavoidable process implicit in organisms, not a purpose.

>>healthy, happy, and fulfilled.
>they didn't have the concepts of happy and fulfilled, these are recent.
>They weren't healthy either. 9/10 people died in childhood or at birth, they lived rough, harsh lives. Most didn't live past 20, very few lived past 30. Their bodies were ripe with health issues that health care and softer lifestyles alleviates. Their entire bodies were dirty, calloused, scarred, rough messes of flesh. Life was suffering , violence, constant danger and very hard incessant work. You perceiving it as quaint and comfortably simple from your external view has no bearing on it.
Also, that's not to say it's bad or good, I just meant "healthy, happy, and fulfilled" is retarded and false.

Also there is no such thing as, "as man was intended to live".

>agricultural revolution = man's fall from grace

This is a theory that Juris Zarins, among others, has propogated for years, if you would like a starting point for further exploration.

You say that type of reflection is just materialism, yet yours is wholly based on materialism as well, just its counterpart. You're a reactionist to materialism and so you think the past was more spiritual, in a desperate attempt to get away from the present.

Spiritually, not much has changed over the course of the entirety of human history. Rituals and rites of passage may change in nature and execution, but they still exist and are performed. What has definitely changed, however, is our technology.

>And yet, the vast majority of people are unhappy.
Provide a valid source that illustrates this. Better yet, tell me a bit about this "happiness" you speak of.

Why can't someone be happy today? There are people who are very happy. They are having the time of their lives, even. This is independent of technology and society.

If anything, there is an increase in depression because it's become less likely to die at birth. The ones who were genetically disposed to lead a sickly or feeble existence, one that might result in becoming a depressed maladjusted adult who can't properly adapt to his surroundings, would have had a much higher chance of just dying at birth or at a young age. But technological progress and social reforms rendered in order to adapt to that progress has made it so even if you're not fit to survive you most likely will. Hence, the increase in depressed people. So really, the world past wasn't happier and healthier; it was harsher, and made healthier by a more relentless process of natural selection.

but m-muh noble savage!

>they didn't have the concepts of happy
happiness is a social construct lmao
>and fulfilled
do you realize that it matches his point, right?

>No. "purpose" is not a concept in nature
Evolution can create things with purpose. The concept humans have of purpose comes from evolution.

Don't take me for a creationist, or "intelligent design" supporter, evolution is a process that is not intelligent or conscious, but it does create things that have a purpose.
Eyes for seeing, that are only useful for seeing.
Animals had eyes before humans existed, those eyes were used to see. The eyes had a purpose.
The reproduction of the living organisms has a purpose, which is the perpetuation of the living organisms.

savage

>Also there is no such thing as, "as man was intended to live".
this concept is hard to dismiss, since most people would at least agree that technological advancement occurs faster than biological evolution

Where did you get the number for 9/10 dying young or in childbirth? And the lifespan of 20-30? As far as I'm aware, it was not at all uncommon for people to live into their sixties and seventies at this time, but perhaps you're looking at a different source than I am.
>very hard incessant work
Talking about hunter gatherers here, I know that some tribes do not work much at all, only 4-6 hours a week in some cases.
>there is no such thing as, "as man was intended to live".
Maybe not, but humans evolved in a specific environment with specific needs and wants. If you lock a person in a room by themself, they will eventually go insane.

You were kind of raising a few good points until the part where you ramble about eugenics. The vast majority of people are born without genetic disorders, there is no reason to believe that there are people who are 'predisposed to lead a sickly or feeble existence.' not sure what you even mean here.
I'm just discussing facts

>The vast majority of people are born without genetic disorders
Can you quote a source on that?
Because evolutionary mechanics predict that without a genetic filter (which doesn't exist anymore) genetic defects just pile up on the population.

The farther we run from the light of God, the more prone to withering we become. God will reveal himself to us before we reach space travel; Fermi's Paradox will finally be solved and what a wretched several months it will be for the heathen in the days of revelation. Also, what an even more wretched day will it be for the majority of those who genuinely fooled themselves into believing they were "Christian," but were not, and could not overcome the human ego.

>We are building a machine- and the machines only purpose is to perpetuate itself.

>life only purpose is to perpetuate itself - biology

>at molecular scale, we are the machines - molecular biology

Is Japan full of prophets or something?

>God will reveal himself to us
>we kill it
>brag about it for centuries
>ayy lmaos super jelly

seriously, god ran out mana long ago

>The vast majority of people are born without genetic disorders
But if what you said before is true, that the vast majority of people are unhappy, then this is false. Consistent lack of happiness might as well be a genetic disorder.

what if these are the same we are building god

>healthy, happy, and fulfilled.
>they didn't have the concepts of happy and fulfilled, these are recent.
Have you read any of the works of the stoics? It's pretty much the only thing they talk about.

You need to chuckle at something because your days are trodden with long sighs. Tell jokes, sure, but do not blaspheme against the Lord. You can joke about many things but do not do this single one above all else.

Lack of happiness is definitely not a disorder. Life have to be mostly unenjoyable to make you toil extra hard for that short glimmer of happiness.

From a genetic point of view can a whole life of suffering be worth it for 5 minutes of togetherness and orgasmic bliss.

I fucked your Lord's mom last night.

you are denying that for which society has produced empirical proof because of what is essentially cultural tradition
what makes you so sure you are right?

I think there is a difference between not always having a raging boner, and having a consistent lack of happiness though.

What I mean by the latter is more like someone who is simply, by nature, unable to adapt, unwilling to do so, bitter and resentful and agitated 90%+ of his/her waking hours. Someone who truly, from the top of their heads to their toes, prefers sleeping to being awake. That's a genetic disorder.

And, maybe it's not a genetic disorder by current medical definition. But to me, that type of life is a result of your genetic makeup, whether it be direct or indirect, so it SHOULD constitute as a genetic disorder.

There is no such thing as, "as man was intended to live", but man had a much longer period of adapting to the hunter gatherer lifestyle than he has had to society life. Maybe in a few thousand years we'll be more comfortable living socially, but right now we're like giraffes in a world without trees, still capable of surviving by eating the foliage closer to the ground, but there will be a lot of neck problems until natural selection does its thing.

>Maybe in a few thousand years we'll be more comfortable living socially

that depends on whether more comfortable people actually have more children, and the opposite seems to be the case

also it is to be noted that smarter people tend to chose not to have children, while stupid people have children by accident

Natural selection can be counterintuitive with something that seems like an obvious benefit like intelligence. Maybe the existence of smart people contributes to social disparity and they're actually maladaptive to humans living in a society despite what they contribute. Maybe we'll be like bees where the productive class doesn't reproduce but still manages to perpetuate through some genetic voodoo. Maybe smart people simply aren't as necessary now that so much knowledge is readily accessible, or maybe all that readily accessible knowledge is like a mosquito zapper that smart people can't help but fly into. I haven't studied enough biology to do much more than throw out a few half baked hypotheticals, but my point is that the environment doesn't have to continually favor more intelligence and it might even favor less.

s t o p v a r g p o s t i n g

>humans had happy, healthy lives but were forced to work hard for their sustenance
Could you explain this more? I've always gathered that hunter gatherer times were one of the hardest.

We have antibiotics now. That alone makes life today better than any other point in human history.

>The past
All 13.8 billion years of it? There's probably been worse times, yeah.

Barzun is great on this topic.

Quality of living increases while culture and aesthetics (everything that requires a soul) is dwindling immensely. We sold our humanity for efficiency.

Fuck god, that guy is lame

Dont fuck with me man.. I dont like this

>he believes in a soul

>he doesnt understand figurative language

My great grandfather (dead 9 yrs, lived to 96) once told me how excited he and his sister had been getting oranges in their stockings one Christmas....

>tfw I don't know that joy
Abundance can be a real curse and scarcity a blessing.