176
What job do people take way too seriously?
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2023
176 points (97.3% liked)
Asklemmy
43944 readers
655 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Go back to being an illiterate, muck raking peasant or die young in a workhouse then, I guess. Fucking hell.
People in all the past golden ages did just fine without having the teaching system we have currently.
You know who the "Golden Age" was golden for? The relatively few educated people.
And for general relative prosperity and trade.
And you somehow genuinely feel that the average person's prosperity was, relatively, better in that period?
Working 7 days a week, morning to night, producing that prosperity and trade for the educated class in exchange for a pittance. Whilst eating your table scraps in the dark, you can hope you don't die of a disease you have no idea how to prevent contracting.
You can measure the prosperity of an era by contemporary descriptions of their health, including how tall people were. So we definitely have proof people fared better then.
Would you want to factor in life expectancy at all?
Did I not?
It feels like it might impact your view a bit if you did.
As good as it is to be marginally taller for 30-40 years, or be a super tall person who died an infant. Not that the article you linked has any description of heights related to whichever "golden age" you might refer to, but whatever.
Is it not implied when they mentioned economists research height (if not there's more I can provide)? It's also why North Koreans are famously shorter than South Koreans.
Pick your golden era and then show me an article that indicates the average height was greater in that period than it is now, if this is the point you really want to focus on.
Here yo go.