Materially no; socially yes.
Materially, our ancestors would murder to have days off every week and limited work hours in exchange for sufficient food and nutrition, and they did so in constant, careful, worried concert with their entire community. And that has an emotional burden far in excess of what we endure, make no mistake.
Socially, the ascendency of industrialism and labor mobility during the Cold War - in both ideologically capitalist and communist states - has splintered communal ties and atomized families, making many emotional and social endeavors much more taxing than they once were. Combine that with the slow death of ‘third places’ in the post-Cold War era, and you have a recipe for some… arduous emotional ordeals.
Also, please remember that pre-modern societies are often immensely repressive themselves, and that ‘closeness’ is often at the expense of individual expression and self-actualization.
Materially, our ancestors would murder to have days off every week and limited work hours in exchange for sufficient food and nutrition, and they did so in constant, careful, worried concert with their entire community.
It’s not a fair comparison cause you’re not going back far enough. There is not much debate comparing being poor today to being poor during the Middle Ages.
If you compare modern life to pre agricultural times, then it gets tricky, they worked a lot less and weren’t constantly starving. They were athletes by today’s standards, with their own challenges and hardships. Life was harder but it matched the human needs/desires better than modern life. Hopefully we can reach a society that is better than all of history, not just cherry picked bad parts.
To add to your point, in those times nature was seen as equal to humanity and sustainability was therefore paramount. This is very different from our modern worldview of sustainability, which has us currently marching towards our own extinction.
I’m firmly in the camp that modern Western culture has taken individualism too far and this worldview has seeped into a dominant global worldview of prioritizing self over others.
Its a common trope in individualistic cultures that people living in collective societies lack personal development. But this ignores that much of personal development comes from how we relate to others. Often it is within the collective that we find ourselves and our purpose.
I find present day Western society to also be obsessed with the idea of an individual saviour, whether it’s in the form of a demogogue, a superhero or a religious figure. The creep towards far right authoritarianism throughout the West attests to this. Often the collective power of likeminded and strong willed people is diminished, which in turn suppresses overall social development.
Communities whither as people become more isolated allowing mental health challenges and drug addiction (which is often a response to these challenges) flourish.
I work in a profession that deals with many people. I meet perhaps 15 to 20 new people every week. The overall arc of what I see is a profound loneliness. I don’t see anyone truly actualizating themselves or finding their unique expression in that sea of despair.
I find present day Western society to also be obsessed with the idea of an individual saviour, whether it’s in the form of a demogogue, a superhero or a religious figure. The creep towards far right authoritarianism throughout the West attests to this.
… do you think far-right authoritarianism was weaker in the more collective past?
Communities whither as people become more isolated allowing mental health challenges and drug addiction (which is often a response to these challenges) flourish.
Mental health challenges and drug addiction are extremely widespread before the ‘modern West’, and outside of the West today as well.
I think the Western world, particularly America, has taken Enlightenment values and misused them to justify hyperindividualism. Everyone is their own hero who had to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. We shouldn’t lift each other up because that will disincentivize them from working for themselves. Its nonsense and it gradually pushes us towards a type of authoritarianism.
I’m not trying to say dynastic or heriditary authoritarianism didn’t exist in the past but its different in my view. The people didn’t have a choice then. Now they’re choosing authoritarianism.
Isolation absolutely increases the incidence of mental health issues and drug addiction, irrespective of region or era. Modern Westerners (especially in the US) are about as isolated as people can be.
I’m thinking of dishwashers, clothes washers, automobiles, and grocery stores. I consider those my “support” network since I don’t have to grow my own food, raise horses, or wash everything down by the river. Think you’re tired now? Imagine having to do that.
Its true that there’s a lot of labor saving devices now (especially clothes washers), but in a lot of cases we didn’t reduce the amount of work we did, we just increased productivity.
For some other things I think its true that we really have gone backwards. Consider how sleep deprived new parents can be, with one or both people not getting a good nights sleep for sometimes weeks at a time. And (depending on where they live), having to go to work like that. I just don’t think humans evolved to live that way. Historically new parents would have had a lot more help from their extended families (since not everyone would have children at the same time that would help spread the load).
My grandmother had no clothes washer or anything similar, not even running hot water (at first not even any sort of running water). She told me how doing laundry actually got a lot harder after washing machines came around because with them came the expectation from other people to always have a neat new outfit on every day when before most people had like two pairs of outfits, one for normal days and one for church. The church one hardly got dirty so it didn’t have to be washed much, and the other one got washed like once a week.
Yeah, the massive increase in the number of things we have and the effort involved in keeping them clean/maintained has been a massive increase even with automated processes. Laundry day is an undertaking because there is so much laundry.
This has been the root of a few arguments in my house. I support increased efficiency to enable more free time. My wife supports increased efficiency so she can get more done.
I guess in the context of the post it depends on the cards you were dealt in the first place. In a world that’s almost entirely commodified almost every aspect of human/animal labor into something that can be purchased and utilized with either money or personal ownership, the question is at what stage of independence does the tradeoff of our world seem better?
Granted, for people who are privileged enough to grow up in a modern urban environment who are not homeless, most of these are simply quality of life improvements. However, for those who are not privileged enough to have these opportunities (grow up in an area without reliable electricity or food supply, accessing the internet through their phone exclusively, started out their independent lives homeless or indebted, etc…), it can feel like you are having it worse than people in an era where you exchanged your physical labor for the resources and outcomes you desired.
To bring an analogy, a middle class or wealthy person of our modern day would be unlikely to desire to go back to an era of having to live off a natural landscape devoid of much of the technology we enjoy today. They are beneficiaries of our current system, so that makes rational sense. On the other hand, the working poor or the precarious working class would feel betrayed by the promises of modern day society and would be much more interested in living in a world where they felt rewarded for their work directly, because they don’t have the opportunities to enjoy it today.
On the other hand, the working poor or the precarious working class would feel betrayed by the promises of modern day society and would be much more interested in living in a world where they felt rewarded for their work directly, because they don’t have the opportunities to enjoy it today.
Bruh, I live under the poverty line. Most of the people I grew up with lived under the poverty line. I grew up in one of the poorest regions of America.
There is still no comparison between the living standards of today and those of, say, 200+ years ago.
I come from a family where coming home to see all the lights off because the electricity couldn’t be paid on time was not an abnormal sight, wherein I, the child, had to be shuffled through family members to whomever had their lights on at that particular moment. Where meals had to be skipped 'til payday. Where we lived in crumbling apartment complexes in high-crime areas. Where single-parent families working two jobs was not an abnormal setup. Where my mother lived in constant fear of losing her job due to declining economic conditions in the region.
It still had nothing on the crushing poverty of working-class existence in the past.
“Figure it out”
“Just do it”
“It’s your responsibility”
This 1000 times. Not to sound like a tankie but it’s part of the propaganda machine.
Divide, isolate, conquer. Add to that, consume. Boom, perfect profitable complacent public.
If that makes you sound like a tankie then “tankie” has no meaning anymore
Yeah I total can confirm this - source: My exhausted ass
Posted this several times because I think it’s profound and certainly fits here:
“OK, now let’s have some fun. Let’s talk about sex. Let’s talk about women. Freud said he didn’t know what women wanted. I know what women want. They want a whole lot of people to talk to. What do they want to talk about? They want to talk about everything.
What do men want? They want a lot of pals, and they wish people wouldn’t get so mad at them.
Why are so many people getting divorced today? It’s because most of us don’t have extended families anymore. It used to be that when a man and a woman got married, the bride got a lot more people to talk to about everything. The groom got a lot more pals to tell dumb jokes to.
A few Americans, but very few, still have extended families. The Navahos. The Kennedys.
But most of us, if we get married nowadays, are just one more person for the other person. The groom gets one more pal, but it’s a woman. The woman gets one more person to talk to about everything, but it’s a man.
When a couple has an argument, they may think it’s about money or power or sex, or how to raise the kids, or whatever. What they’re really saying to each other, though, without realizing it, is this: “You are not enough people!”
I met a man in Nigeria one time, an Ibo who has six hundred relatives he knew quite well. His wife had just had a baby, the best possible news in any extended family.
They were going to take it to meet all its relatives, Ibos of all ages and sizes and shapes. It would even meet other babies, cousins not much older than it was. Everybody who was big enough and steady enough was going to get to hold it, cuddle it, gurgle to it, and say how pretty it was, or handsome.
Wouldn’t you have loved to be that baby?”
Sort of?
it takes a village to raise a child
Now it’s just the parents and maybe a close friend/relative.
People are a lot less close with their neighbours given they can get that companionship online.
If you have a bad harvest (or more modernly lose your job) your neighbours aren’t likely to feed you/keep you in your home.
As far as I can tell, society consists of 8 billion negligent idiots mostly concerned about avoiding liability, so the only way to get anything done is by yourself, from scratch.
signed, a man who checked his pickup truck into the dealership for a 7:30 AM appointment on Monday, and they still haven’t looked at it by Wednesday.
Independent repair shops FTW
I need a building I can put a vehicle hoist in.
No. People for centuries had to fend for themselves. Its why we had the Salvation Army, Red Cross, Churches and other places of worship were so popular. The reason is is so bloody difficult today compared to 20+ years ago is the explosion in wealth for a minority. They’re literally making a killing.
Churches were certainly part of the support structure, or the congregations. Neo liberalism has fought to break down the wider support structure for years. The billionaire class is obviously not good, but are you really suggesting that’s a new thing? Kings and nobility have been around for a lot longer than the salvation army.
