Is the present moment in time the best ever to be alive in so far?
Or have there been other times in history better than this?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Dobsdobs · 46-50, M
@SW-User I think it can be measured if we can set some parameters for all of history and then calibrate each age according to those parameters.
The 'developed' countries now were once under developed while the 'developing' countries now were world leaders. While conditions have improved in one part of the world, they have fallen in another.
Bitterness will be a constant throughout time. Maybe if we could measure its historical level, that would be an answer to this question?
The 'developed' countries now were once under developed while the 'developing' countries now were world leaders. While conditions have improved in one part of the world, they have fallen in another.
Bitterness will be a constant throughout time. Maybe if we could measure its historical level, that would be an answer to this question?
SW-User
@Dobsdobs Maybe.
There could be something said how the world has become better in one place, and not another. Yet, the quality is measured by subjectivity.
And about the meter? (metric) It can be said, affluence is recognized by the ability to buy an Apple Iphone now: last I checked material value doesn't resemble happiness and may even lead one astray from happiness.
I'm not arguing we are living easier lives than who predated us.
There could be something said how the world has become better in one place, and not another. Yet, the quality is measured by subjectivity.
And about the meter? (metric) It can be said, affluence is recognized by the ability to buy an Apple Iphone now: last I checked material value doesn't resemble happiness and may even lead one astray from happiness.
I'm not arguing we are living easier lives than who predated us.
Dobsdobs · 46-50, M
@SW-User While affluence itself is not an indicator of happiness, no happiness is possible without a basic level of affluence. Nothing in excess is good - nether affluence nor the lack of it.
While on one side of the world some people have an excess of affluence, on the other some people have an excess of the lack of it. And usually, both of these can be found on the same side of the world.
My thought is, can we measure when, historically, this perpetual natural imbalance was at its least level of variance?
While on one side of the world some people have an excess of affluence, on the other some people have an excess of the lack of it. And usually, both of these can be found on the same side of the world.
My thought is, can we measure when, historically, this perpetual natural imbalance was at its least level of variance?
SW-User
@Dobsdobs Why the measure of the 'least'? If 'we' have 'affluence' and have a culture of people (likely, good - I'm trying to leave out the moral pejorative) doing 'good' towards who they feel need do so because it makes themselves feel good about themselves?
It does display some level of compassion there in that they do see recognize hardship.
I don't understand why this question is not asked more of this time and social media.
It does display some level of compassion there in that they do see recognize hardship.
I don't understand why this question is not asked more of this time and social media.