Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: » I would say that people of the past in general more readily accepted their lot than people of today and just wanted to keep their heads above water.
ScumLord wrote: » Which is ironic seeing as housing and job security just didn't exist in the past. At any point you could lose your job or your house and there would have been zero you could do about it, if your boss decided to take he's bad mood out on your that day, you'd just have to live with it. If your landlord decided to raise your rent 200% or kick you out because he liked someone better, he could. Living in built up towns and cities means housing is always going to be an issue in one way or another. The fact Ireland can put roofs over the heads of just about everyone in the country whether they can afford it or not is a huge improvement, it's probably a huge improvement on how it was when the state stated less than a hundred years ago.
FizzleSticks wrote: » This post has been deleted.
Permabear wrote: » This post had been deleted.
Samaris wrote: » I dunno if you can really just take a generation at a sweep and measure the lot of them as "happier" or "unhappier". You can learn a lot about outlooks on life from reading books written in different times and mostly they seem to show happiness and unhappiness at much the same levels as ours. Even those written in what we would consider grinding poverty - Call the Midwife, hell, Under the Hawthorn Tree - generally there are scenes where characters are absolutely happy and contented with their lot, even if said lot seems unimaginably hard to us today. Other generations lived with the fear of losing the main breadwinner, of having too many children, of epidemic illnesses that took several family members at a go, of the workhouse if things went wrong. But they had certain benefits too; ignorance of anything else, a very small world to compare their own lives to, and religion and the faith in a heavenly reward. We don't have to fear losing the main breadwinner, but we have trouble with finding jobs. We don't have to fear epidemic illnesses (unless the anti-vaxxers have their way), we can control our own fertility and have smaller families, but we have a much bigger world to compare our own lots to and the knowledge that we will never see or do all we want to. We also have less in the way of religious faith and, whatever one's own feelings on the matter, it -did- make up a major part of peoples' lives and it doesn't really have a replacement nowadays. It's a gap where we tend to need something. I think there's a lot more to it than that, and that at best I'm only scraping the barest surface. But overall, I think we are still only identifying the struggles and worries of our own generations and comparing them to past generations is more of academic interest than real use.
Dughorm wrote: » Lot of sense in this post but I disagree with the comment above that non-religious people haven't really found a replacement for religion in their lives. It can't be that hard for them surely?
ancapailldorcha wrote: » There is a Batman story where staff of Arkham Asylum attempt to treat the villain Two-Face (who can only make binary choices with his signature coin by flipping it) by replacing his coin with a dice and eventually a pack of playing cards. Overwhelmed by this dazzling array of options, he becomes unable to make even the simplest of choices such as going to the bathroom.