Best and worst times to live in history

[iain]

When was the best and worst time to live in the Western world? Is today the best? Has life become consistently better over time?

I've generally thought that life has tended to get better over time (with the occasional blip) but now I'm not so sure.

For example :
- The move from hunter-gatherer to farming seems to have made life harder for people; though it was probably necessary for survival in the long term, that might not have been much consolation for an individual living at the time.

- Serfs living in the middle ages paid lower taxes than we do today and had a lot more holidays.

- In the 1840s in England, only the richest working class families had a room to themselves. I've read an account of housing in Leeds with up to 4 families sharing one room, children as young as four working with women in the mines etc. etc. - generally grim.

- In periods of history where slavery has been common, the lives of slaves are presumably not that great.

I think the early days of the industrial revolution might really have been the worst time to live in human history, from the point of view of the quality of life of the average person. I think that overall, at least in the West, the second half of the 20th century has probably been the best.

[DanishDynamite]

iain:When was the best and worst time to live in the Western world? Is today the best? Has life become consistently better over time?The best time is now. Life has become consistently better over time. I don't really understand how this could be questioned? Have you seen the various statistics for average life-span, early child death, etc, etc.?

[Ipecac]

Christians are fond of going on about how bad things are in the present. I have to ask them what planet they're living on.

Things are demonstrably better now than they ever have been. While this certainly doesn't apply to everyone alive now, there is no time in history where people were better fed, healthier, more free, and had a better chance to live happy, healthy lives than today.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by iain
For example :
- The move from hunter-gatherer to farming seems to have made life harder for people; though it was probably necessary for survival in the long term, that might not have been much consolation for an individual living at the time.

- Serfs living in the middle ages paid lower taxes than we do today and had a lot more holidays.



The move from hunter-gatherer to farming was also a big improvement for individuals, because

a) farming is less dangerous than hunting and gathering

b) the food supply is more secure

c) permanent, more comfortable house could eventually be built

d) people had some spare time in which to think up further improvements


Serfs in the middle ages effectively paid 100% taxes.
Maybe they indeed had more holidays, but if with longer workdays, and 7-day working weeks, you will find they worked at least twice as much - and back-breaking physical labor, at that - as people today - no 40-hour-weeks or so, rather 80- or 100-hour-weeks.


The best time to live was quite recently: the last few years up to, and including, September the 10th, 2001.

[El Greco]

I wouldn't go anywhere in the past. I'd happily go anywhere in the future, even if it is risky.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by iain
When was the best and worst time to live in the Western world? Is today the best? Has life become consistently better over time?


I would instantly exclude any time/place were flush toilets and hot water were not common.

[CJW]

Originally posted by Chaos



a) farming is less dangerous than hunting and gathering



Not that I advocate a return to hunting & gathering, but agriculture was not without its costs...specifically, the domestication of wild animals led to the cross-species jumping of several nasty diseases.

Chris

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Mycroft


I would instantly exclude any time/place were flush toilets and hot water were not common.


I remember my first winter backpacking trip. It gives you a whole new appreciation for things like this that we normally take for granted.

I was born in 51--I wouldn't have it any other other way. No time like the present.



Worst---Europe--1300's during the plague years.

[iain]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
iain:The best time is now. Life has become consistently better over time. I don't really understand how this could be questioned? Have you seen the various statistics for average life-span, early child death, etc, etc.? I think I would agree with you; but my caution is about to what extent happiness can be linked to these sorts of advances.

For example, ask most kids today (probably most people) and they would say life would be terrible without TV. But TV hasn't existed for well over 99% of human existance. Ask our kids and many probably couldn't imagine life without the Internet.

Does that mean that we were less happy before TV and the Internet were invented; that we were morosely sitting around waiting for something to fill that void? Probably not.

[iain]

Originally posted by Chaos
Serfs in the middle ages effectively paid 100% taxes.
Maybe they indeed had more holidays, but if with longer workdays, and 7-day working weeks, you will find they worked at least twice as much - and back-breaking physical labor, at that - as people today - no 40-hour-weeks or so, rather 80- or 100-hour-weeks. I'm pretty certain this is just untrue. Serfs spent some time working for their Lords, but most of the time they worked for themselves. And where is the evidence for these 7-day, 100-hour weeks?

[Chaos]

Originally posted by CJW


Not that I advocate a return to hunting & gathering, but agriculture was not without its costs...specifically, the domestication of wild animals led to the cross-species jumping of several nasty diseases.

Chris

I still think this is better than "working" is an enviroment with lots of predators. Also, farm crops don´t bite back or try to skewer or trample you - some of the hunted animals do that. Also, evidence found in Europe suggests that these hunters also hunted predators - and that is really risky business.

Iain
I'm pretty certain this is just untrue. Serfs spent some time working for their Lords, but most of the time they worked for themselves. And where is the evidence for these 7-day, 100-hour weeks?

Serfs, as such, were property attached to the land they lived on. They had to work for their lords, pay taxes on the produces of the work they did for themselves, pay the tithe (10% - literally "the tenth" part) to the church. They generally had just enough to survive. After all, they were at the bottom of the feudal society and had to work for the luxury of all those above them. They didn´t have much of a choice working for dawn to dusk, seven days a week, to make ends meet.

[ingoa]

The time when I was 17 or 18 was really good. That was late 70's before AIDS was known. ;)

[Ed]

Originally posted by iain
- I've read an account of housing in Leeds with up to 4 families sharing one room, children as young as four working with women in the Royal Armouries etc. etc. - generally grim.



Yes, and they moved the Armouries there:(

Remind me to visit.

[richardm]

[i]Originally posted by Chaos


Serfs, as such, were property attached to the land they lived on. They had to work for their lords, pay taxes on the produces of the work they did for themselves, pay the tithe (10% - literally "the tenth" part) to the church. They generally had just enough to survive. After all, they were at the bottom of the feudal society and had to work for the luxury of all those above them. They didn´t have much of a choice working for dawn to dusk, seven days a week, to make ends meet.

How much of your income do you pay in taxes?

The peasants weren't all that downtrodden, really. Or if they were by today's standards, they could see clear benefits to the system as can readily be seen by the remarkably organised revolt they had when the Poll Tax was introduced. Once they saw something they didn't like, they were up in arms.

[Giz]

Originally posted by iain


- Serfs living in the middle ages paid lower taxes than we do today and had a lot more holidays.



And yet I've heard they were repressed:D

RichardM "The peasants weren't all that downtrodden, really. Or if they were by today's standards, they could see clear benefits to the system as can readily be seen by the remarkably organised revolt they had when the Poll Tax was introduced. Once they saw something they didn't like, they were up in arms."

- Seriously guys, take a petition to the Palace. I'm sure the Royal Family would graciously consider your application for feudalism to be re-introduced!

[iain]

Originally posted by Giz


And yet I've heard they were repressed:D

RichardM "The peasants weren't all that downtrodden, really. Or if they were by today's standards, they could see clear benefits to the system as can readily be seen by the remarkably organised revolt they had when the Poll Tax was introduced. Once they saw something they didn't like, they were up in arms."

- Seriously guys, take a petition to the Palace. I'm sure the Royal Family would graciously consider your application for feudalism to be re-introduced! I'm not asking whether feudalism was better or worse. I'm suggesting that the peasant's life, from the perspective of a peasant at the time, may have been more pleasant than the life of a factory or mine worker in the late 18th/early 19th centuries.

Interestingly, most of the comments people have made about serfs also apply to the poor working class in the days of the Industrial Revolution. Low pay, appalling living conditions, few rights, at the bottom of the pile. They might not have been called serfs, but I don't see much difference.

[richardm]

Originally posted by iain
IInterestingly, most of the comments people have made about serfs also apply to the poor working class in the days of the Industrial Revolution. Low pay, appalling living conditions, few rights, at the bottom of the pile. They might not have been called serfs, but I don't see much difference.

There's one important difference, in England at least. If you were a serf the lord who owned* the land you lived and worked on was legally obliged to look after you, to an extent at least - ensure you didn't starve, make sure that housing was available and of a reasonable quality, offer protection from brigands, and so on. Sometime after the peasant's revolution everyone decided that the system was no good, and the whole thing broke down.

Consequently, during the Industrial Revolution the majority of the guys in charge couldn't care less about the people who lived and worked for them, and were certainly under no obligation to make any effort towards their welfare. Some of the tales of hardship would have shocked the peasants of old.


* Actually, the King owned the land you lived and worked on, and the Lords only lorded themselves over it.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Giz

- Seriously guys, take a petition to the Palace. I'm sure the Royal Family would graciously consider your application for feudalism to be re-introduced!

Meh. I live in Scotland. If it hasn't been abolished since the last time I checked we've still got a feudal system!

[ceo_esq]

Anytime post-penecillin is pretty good.

[bjornart]

Originally posted by richardm


How much of your income do you pay in taxes?

The peasants weren't all that downtrodden, really. Or if they were by today's standards, they could see clear benefits to the system as can readily be seen by the remarkably organised revolt they had when the Poll Tax was introduced. Once they saw something they didn't like, they were up in arms.

They didn't exactly get much back for any taxes they payed either, now did they?

[Shane Costello]

Terry Jones of Monthy Python fame is presenting a series of documentaries on the Middle Ages on BBC1. Last night he focused on the lives of peasants. Some of the stuff was rather surprising. For instance peasants enjoyed better health than we might imagine, many of them living into their 60's. Dental health wasn't too bad either, due to a lack of sugar in the medieval diet, although one peasant skull examined had mineralized plaque! Nor did life consist of ceaseless drudgery, since there were more public holidays than today.

[Peter Jenkins]

I appreciate central heating, air conditioning and vaccination to go back to far.
I'd like to go back to yesterday morning.............preferably with todays 'Sporting Life'
Peter

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Terry Jones of Monthy Python fame is presenting a series of documentaries on the Middle Ages on BBC1. Last night he focused on the lives of peasants. Some of the stuff was rather surprising. For instance peasants enjoyed better health than we might imagine, many of them living into their 60's. Dental health wasn't too bad either, due to a lack of sugar in the medieval diet, although one peasant skull examined had mineralized plaque! Nor did life consist of ceaseless drudgery, since there were more public holidays than today.

Sure, as long as they didn't catch nasty diseases or where too poor to buy food, or starved during the winter or after a bad year, they were healthy. And the drudgery wasn't ceasless. What people should learn is that life wasn't awful in the middle ages in general (as long as you didn't get sick or injured), what they shouldn't forget is that it sucked big time for the unfortunates. And in addition there's that fact that whatever the level of luxuries in an age, people always want all that their neighbours have, and then some.

[El Greco]

Many people have replied that they wouldn't go back to times where flush toilets, heating, hot water, etc were not available. With all the technological advances of the last decades, it is remarkable that we still value high things that have been available since the beginning of the previous century...

Do you think that there will be certain advances in the future that will make people say "no, I wouldn't go back to 2004 because I'd miss x and y" ? What could these advances be ?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by iain
When was the best and worst time to live in the Western world? Is today the best? Has life become consistently better over time?


The 'western world' is too wide a net for a meaningful answer.

For the USA I'd say the worst was during the Civil War (both sides), and the best was the 1950s if you were a white man.

In general, I think life has become better over time, but that's in the very long run. As George Orwell once wrote, (something like, this is from memory) not only do we no longer practise cannibalism, we don't even want to.

[iain]

Just reading a book which has an interesting take on life in medieval times.

In the book "Montaillou: Cathars and Cathlolics in a French Village, 1294-1324", La Roy Ladurie writes

The people on Montaillou were not afraid of hard work and could make an effort if necessary. But they did not think in terms of a fixed and continuous timetable...For them the working day was punctuated with long, irregular pauses, during which one would chat with a friend, perhaps at the same time enjoying a glass of wine.

(I'm not reading that book, but another which quotes it).

Given that modern medicine and conditions hadn't arrived; whilst the working life was probably harder and crowded slums may have made disease even worse, I'm sticking with my theory that the early industrial revolution was the worst time for most people in the countries where it took place.

[Hutch]

According to the historian Barbara Tuchman, it was the 14th Century; the time of the Black Death, the Hundred Years War, Papal Schisms, brigands......

The book is A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century. I'll have to reread it sometime (when I have time to read a 600 page book again).

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Hutch
According to the historian Barbara Tuchman, it was the 14th Century; the time of the Black Death, the Hundred Years War, Papal Schisms, brigands......

The book is A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century. I'll have to reread it sometime (when I have time to read a 600 page book again).

I've read it. I wouldn't want to live then if I had to be a peasant. If I could be a noble, it would be almost as good as being an unemployed scientist in AD 2004, as long as I didn't get sick and there wasn't a war on (which there is now, in case you haven't noticed).

I'd say 1946 through 8-2001. Not that all was perfect or that people weren't suffering. But the comparison is with the rest of history, not some ideal.

[seayakin]

Now is definitely better than any time in history (defining now as the last 50 years). However, in choosing between the industrial revolution (especially during time of the worst abuses) and the medieval period. I'll take being a serf any day. You have to remember serf labor wasn't constant but seasonal. It was agrarian labor. During planting and harvesting they might work quite long hours but early or mid summer before harvesting lighter work would be possible. Whereas factory work in early nineteenth century America and England might involve 16-18 hour days 7 days a week. If there was a slow down in business, you might get laid off for a month or two and have to fend for yourself. Most serfs were allowed a small plot of land that they could grow their own foods and farmed common plots for the lord.

[seayakin]

One other thing, I'm not sure about England but in America many companies got local towns to pass laws to prevent anyone in debt from leaving town. A steel and woolen mills would do this and set up the company store. The workers would buy their goods from the company store and go into debt and be obliged to keep working for the mill. This is called debt peonage, similar to serfdom, and was common in America before workers started organizing.

[headscratcher4]

We, in the West and today, have no idea how really bad life could be. Just talk to someone who lived through WWII -- not the American war, but the war on the ground in Eastern Europe or in a camp (Nazi or Soviet).

That point aside, people -- in the West at least -- live longer, generally healthier lives. We don't die from things that a 100 years ago would kill millions. Materially we are better off, education-wide we are better off, opportunity to be something other than a peasant or war-fodder, we are better off.\

The Terry Jones program that Shaun mentioned was interesting. Another interesting show -- just dealing with the last 100 years -- are the BBC series 1900 House, Manor House, 1920's House and 1940's House. In each of these series the world is "recognizable", and yet I can't imagine willingly trading "down" to live under the conditions that just 60 years ago were "modern".

Today, my grandfather would have survived the heart attack that killed him Today, my father in law is living with a prostate cancer that 20 years ago would have killed him. There is something about pining for the simple life that many see in the past, however, I think the reality of the sanitation, smells, disease opportunity, etc. is such that it is foolishness.

I'll take my chances in the here and now, and in the future.

[seayakin]

We, in the West and today, have no idea how really bad life could be. Just talk to someone who lived through WWII -- not the American war, but the war on the ground in Eastern Europe or in a camp (Nazi or Soviet).

This is an interesting aspect of the original question because throughout history the quality of life depended largely on the geographic area you lived. For instance, I have read some anthropology studies that before European contact, some of the natives of the Northwestern United States like the Klamath probably only had to work about 30 hours a week to feed themselves because there was an abundance of food for hunter gatherers. Also with a climate that varies in temperature between 40-70 deg. F, you never have to deal with any severe weather. While at the same time, the Inuit on the Arctic Circle continue to eek out an existence in extremely harsh conditions.

Even today, living in Western Europe or North America is so much better than many places on earth. Imagine living in North Korea for instance.