# The 1913 World v. the 2013 World. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 25, 2013, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1913-world-v-the-2013-world/669628 "2013-09-25T06:07:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2013, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1913-world-v-the-2013-world/669628/41 "2013-09-26T02:46:58Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Keep in mind that antibiotics hadn’t even been developed yet in 1913. It was entirely possible for routine surgery to lead to gangrene and amputation or death. Beat me to it, I already knew that the allies had Penicillin and it was an advantage for the Allies over the Axis in WWII, I just learned how big that advantage was: > **[Kulturkampf: The German Quest for Penicillin | History Today](https://www.historytoday.com/archive/kulturkampf-german-quest-penicillin)** > [@](#): > > In the years following its discovery, penicillin was to gain a reputation as a useful laboratory tool, but it was the work of two Oxford scientists that was to reveal the drug’s true potential. In 1938 Howard Florey and Ernst Chain set out to study natural antibacterial substances. Early in their investigations they chanced upon penicillin and in a short space of time made enormous progress with their research. Their first achievement was to purify it. This allowed them to show that penicillin could protect animals infected with large doses of normally fatal bacteria. It was these results that convinced the Oxford scientists that they were dealing with an extraordinary new drug. Following normal scientific practice, and the war notwithstanding, they published their results in the medical journal The Lancet. > > Florey’s results attracted world attention – including that of German scientists. The latter were only able to read The Lancet because it was sent to Germany from neutral countries such as Sweden and Switzerland. Scientific publications received through these channels were somewhat prized and went first to those with Nazi Party connections. Among them was Theodore Morell, Hitler’s personal physician, who was later to receive the Iron Cross for his discovery of antibiotics. Copies of Florey’s Lancet papers were also dispatched to Japan by submarine. > > On hearing of penicillin’s alleged efficacy, senior officials from the German pharmaceutical industry hatched a plan to obtain Fleming’s mould. A Swiss company agreed to act as proxy and approach Florey for it: once they had received it they would simply send it to Germany. However, Florey was tipped off and acted immediately to frustrate the attempt. He wrote to Fleming asking him not to send out cultures to persons or organisations who might then pass them on to Germany. > [@](#): > > Why did the German project fail? Firstly, research was too unco-ordinated. Those involved seemed to have had no difficulties collaborating with one another but what was lacking was a central body to co-ordinate research and eliminate duplication of effort. Prior to the discovery of penicillin the best antibacterial drugs available were the sulphonamides. These were a German discovery and although far less effective than penicillin, had earned the pharmace-utical industry there a great deal of money. While these companies now came to dominate penicillin research, their experience in manu-facturing the sulphonamides proved of little relevance in the quest for penicillin. What was needed was industrial experience of cultivating microbes – such experience existed in Germany, but it lay outside the pharmaceutical sector and was never exploited. In the USA, by contrast, firms with industrial microbiology experience played a key role, while a central body co-ordinated research and production. Ironically some participants, such as Merck, were the American subsidiaries of German companies. Merck was to become one of the biggest producers of penicillin in the USA, while its parent company, E. Merck of Darmstadt, was years behind, still experimenting with penicillin production in small metal flasks. Meanwhile, German frustration at not being able to get hold of Fleming’s mould led to allegations in some quarters that the drug was no more than an Allied propaganda weapon. It is impossible to assess to what extent such claims influenced research, but they would certainly not have helped. > > Prior to the Allied invasion of Sicily in July 1943, British units in North Africa were severely depleted because of the number of troops suffering from sexually transmitted diseases (STD). After some debate as to its efficacy, penicillin was finally released to treat these men. The effects were miraculous: a single dose of penicillin was sufficient to eradicate STD in a single day in cases where, previously, huge doses of sulphon-amides administered over several days had virtually no effect. There can be no doubt that if penicillin had been widely available in Germany at this time, it would have transformed the treatment of battle casualties and resulted in fewer amputations and deaths. The German armed forces must have been afflicted with STD at comparable rates to those found in British troops – if penicillin has been used to treat such cases it might possibly have tipped the balance in Germany’s favour in some of the key engagements late in the war. As it was, the number of Germans given penicillin in some form or another probably did not amount to more than a few hundred. Interestingly, this number may have included Adolf Hitler who is reputed to have received some for an injured hand following the July 1944 bomb plot against him. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2013, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1913-world-v-the-2013-world/669628/42 "2013-09-26T03:05:12Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > The only places in the world that might have been better off in 1913 is North Korea (even though it was a Japanese colony) and Zimbabwe. Nah, even there, things are better off. Both were and still are well below average, but the kids are mostly vaccinated (in N Korea’s case, probably better than the US), life expectancy is higher, and there’s at least some access to clean water, electricity, etc. And Zimbabwe isn’t even close to being worse. It’s a political and economic hellhole but people still make out better in several ways than 100 years ago. You’re letting politics influence you if this even came up as a potential example. One place where things are not better off are probably the Andaman Islands and uncontacted tribes in the Amazon. Of course, things aren’t worse for them, either. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2013, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1913-world-v-the-2013-world/669628/43 "2013-09-26T03:44:39Z")
Yeah, **Great Antibob** is correct, lets go to the Gapminder from Hans Rosling The average Life Expectancy in Zimbabwe (Blue) was 34 years in 1913. In 2012, the last data recorded, the expectancy is 58: > **[Gapminder Tools](https://www.gapminder.org/tools/?from=world)** > > Animated global statistics that everyone can understand Warning: you need flash to see the results. You can see the catastrophic drop in the 90’s and early 00’s but it got better recently by 2013. North Korea is in red: back in 1913 the life expectancy was 25, nowadays it is 70. (link is not parsing fro some reason) ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2013, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1913-world-v-the-2013-world/669628/44 "2013-09-26T04:01:41Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > North Korea is in red: back in 1913 the life expectancy was 25, nowadays it is 70. I’d take any stats out of the DPRK with a block of salt, but it is almost certain that infant mortality is much better now, which would be the major source of low life expectancy pretty much anywhere. And exaggerated or not people are certainly living longer, as hitting 60 used to be considered an unusual event worthy of a massive celebration among friends and family (70 is the new mile stone in South Korea and it’s also much more commonly reached than even a generation ago). ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2013, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1913-world-v-the-2013-world/669628/45 "2013-09-26T06:37:42Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > Hats. Not familiar with hipsters, I take it? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2013, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1913-world-v-the-2013-world/669628/46 "2013-09-26T06:50:42Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > For hundreds of millions of Chinese and Indians, yes, things are much better. For AIDS-ravaged western Africa, maybe not so much. AIDS isn’t ravaging West Africa [quite as much](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HIV-AIDS_world_map_-_DALY_-_WHO2004.svg) as it is Southern and East Africa. Meanwhile, in 1913 West Africa was just five years away from [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_Free_State#Mutilation)… AIDS is survivable with treatment (which, yes, most poor Africans can’t afford), genocide, not so much. Of course, that sort of thing continues on today, so overall it’s a wash. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2013, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1913-world-v-the-2013-world/669628/47 "2013-09-26T07:46:08Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > I meant more in the way of art of literature (admittedly by 1913 the first strand of modernism had popped up, but even they are better than the stuff produced these days. _Most_ people were reading pulp magazines and enjoyed whatever the equivalent of velvet Elvises and Thomas Kinkade was - Hell, it probably _was_ [Dogs Playing Poker](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogs_Playing_Poker), actually. Believe me, what you think of as typical of the 1913s was as exceptional as good novels and art today (of which there are lots, if you know where to look - not all of it Modernist or Post-, either). Look at 2 nowadays critically-esteemed novels that came out in 1913 - _Sons and Lovers_ and _Swann’s Way_ - the former received quite a hostile reception, the latter “[a muted and generally bewildered response](http://modernism.research.yale.edu/wiki/index.php/Swann%27s_Way#The_novel.27s_reception)”. As for fine art, what was the response to [the Armory Show?](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armory_Show#History) > [@](#): > > News reports and reviews were filled with accusations of quackery, insanity, immorality, and anarchy, as well as parodies, caricatures, doggerels and mock exhibitions. About the modern works, former President Theodore Roosevelt declared, “That’s not art!” . And in other arts, we all know how [The Rite of Spring](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rite_of_Spring#Premiere) was received… ---
**Author:** ![Bozuit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/edb3f5/32.png) [@Bozuit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bozuit)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2013, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1913-world-v-the-2013-world/669628/48 "2013-09-26T11:22:54Z")
It’s a pet peeve of mine when people talk about “the good old days”. I wonder if it’s polio or racism that they miss more. But, having said that, I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that people in 1913 were generally happier than in 2013. How this is objectively measured is hard to say - if you took a thousand people from 1913 and transplanted them to 2013 they’d probably say they prefer things now - but I expect people are a lot less likely to feel content with what they have nowadays. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2013, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1913-world-v-the-2013-world/669628/49 "2013-09-26T14:55:50Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Seems easy enough to me. Do people live longer? Do they live better? Do they have access to more services, entertainment, higher standard of living? Do they have better access to essentials like clean water and wholesome food (hell, do they HAVE access to those things at all)? > > All of these things seem objective enough to me, and quantifiable. I agree with the general thrust of your argument. However, one could point to exceptions. Between 1929 and 1939, the standard of living probably improved for the average German. Nonetheless, Germany was not a better place in 1939. So while improved physical standards of living are usually a sign that life is better overall, there are a few solitary exceptions. ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2013, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1913-world-v-the-2013-world/669628/50 "2013-09-26T15:04:29Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Seems easy enough to me. Do people live longer? Sure. But every person who is born still ends up dying. Is indefinite prolonging of life a good measure of a better world? > [@](#): > > Do they have access to more services, entertainment, higher standard of living? Probably. > [@](#): > > Do they have better access to essentials like clean water and wholesome food (hell, do they HAVE access to those things at all)? I’m sure that in general they do. > [@](#): > > All of these things seem objective enough to me, and quantifiable. What do you disagree with? Yes, those are all, for the most part, objective, quantifiable things. My question is what any one or a group of those an indicator of a “better world”? I’m sure there’s a way to describe this kind of argument in Latin, but basically it sounds to me that people in general define “better” to mean whatever outcome of whatever measurement they’re chosen, and then point to that outcome as proof that things are better: “A better world is one that has more access to entertainment than people who lived in a worse world. Look at how many movies I can watch on Netflix; see, this is a better world!” I agree (well, I assume it to be true) that we are healthier and there are fewer vectors for illness and death than in 1913. I am glad for this, but I am not sure if it makes this world a “better” one. Who can say? I am inclined to feel that the world gets better as more people become happy and/or content. I’m not sure how one measures that, but I’m fairly sure that humanity hasn’t been increasing its happiness over the course of its existence with each medical advancement and each increase in GDP. ---
**Author:** ![vontsira](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/51bf81/32.png) [@vontsira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vontsira)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2013, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1913-world-v-the-2013-world/669628/51 "2013-09-26T15:43:03Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > I agree that by almost every measure we are better off now than we were back then. But there are a few areas in which we are worse off. > > 1. larger population and less untouched natural land. > [@Blakeyrat](#): > > There’s a larger percentage of “touched, but then left untouched” land now. National parks didn’t exist in their current form until 1916. The logging industry was at its height in 1913. I’m not 100% sure that’s true, at least not in the US. Re, I feel, somewhat frivolous things: I pretty much agree with Buck Godot – “mostly, better off – in a couple of ways, I’d like 1913 more”. Overall, globally, I see 1913 as having by a large factor, more wildlife and more wild places – with some locational “blips”, as Blakeyrat says. And admittedly, in 1913 far fewer people than now, would have been in a position to go to distant countries and experience those marvels first-hand. And, I’m a railway- and steam-locomotive-enthusiast. In 1913, the great majority of freight and passenger transport on land, in countries which had railways, was by rail – road motor transport was in its infancy. The more developed countries had huge, and well-used, rail networks – very few lines had closed down. And the enormous majority of the world’s rail traffic would have been hauled by steam locos. That aspect of 1913 would, for me, have been heaven. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2013, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1913-world-v-the-2013-world/669628/52 "2013-09-26T15:58:24Z")
Back in 1913 there were still thylacines. ☹ [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/odswge5onwY/hqdefault.jpg "Tasmanian Tiger/ thylacine combined footage") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odswge5onwY) Other than that 2013 is much better. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2013, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1913-world-v-the-2013-world/669628/53 "2013-09-26T16:10:01Z")
> [@Eonwe](#): > > Sure. But every person who is born still ends up dying. Is indefinite prolonging of life a good measure of a better world? That’s a nice philosophical attitude to take, especially when you are one of the ones who has the nice, long life, but ask the people in 1913 dying primarily in infancy, or if they survive, of various now-treatable diseases, war, or other horrible circumstance, and I like to think the vast majority would still say it’s a good measure of a better world. Even questioning it is saying that high infant mortality might actually be a good thing. That implication is pretty bad. Better yet, give the people of today the option of living the **average** life of a 1913 human being in their own region/country (not the upper class, which would actually not be too bad) or their current life, and I doubt you’d have any but a small minority take you up on that offer. Now, extend our lives to the point we aren’t getting any more usable years of good health, i.e. just more years of living bed-ridden and constantly sick, and you might have a point. But our improving lifespans have come hand-in-hand with more and better years in the primes of our lives. ETA: Heck, it doesn’t even require much brain-wrangling. It’s not 100 years, but my parents and grandparents have no doubt things are better now than when they were kids, complaints about “kids these days” notwithstanding. They wouldn’t trade out for anything. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2013, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1913-world-v-the-2013-world/669628/54 "2013-09-26T17:28:21Z")
> [@Eonwe](#): > > Sure. But every person who is born still ends up dying. Is indefinite prolonging of life a good measure of a better world? > > Probably. > > I’m sure that in general they do. > > Yes, those are all, for the most part, objective, quantifiable things. My question is what any one or a group of those an indicator of a “better world”? > > I’m sure there’s a way to describe this kind of argument in Latin, but basically it sounds to me that people in general define “better” to mean whatever outcome of whatever measurement they’re chosen, and then point to that outcome as proof that things are better: “A better world is one that has more access to entertainment than people who lived in a worse world. Look at how many movies I can watch on Netflix; see, this is a better world!” > > I agree (well, I assume it to be true) that we are healthier and there are fewer vectors for illness and death than in 1913. I am glad for this, but I am not sure if it makes this world a “better” one. Who can say? > > I am inclined to feel that the world gets better as more people become happy and/or content. I’m not sure how one measures that, but I’m fairly sure that humanity hasn’t been increasing its happiness over the course of its existence with each medical advancement and each increase in GDP. On the contrary, if anything can most definitely be linked to increased happiness for humanity as a whole, it is an increase in overall health. There have been numerous studies that show that by far the strongest correlation with unhappiness is ill health. ---
**Author:** ![vontsira](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/51bf81/32.png) [@vontsira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vontsira)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2013, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1913-world-v-the-2013-world/669628/55 "2013-09-26T18:02:24Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Back in 1913 there were still thylacines. ☹ > > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odswge5onwY](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odswge5onwY) > > Other than that 2013 is much better. Ah, yes, them too. If I’d been around in 1913, I’d have moved heaven and earth to get to Tasmania and throw in my lot with the in-advance-of-their time conservationists there and then (including Erroll Flynn’s father, a biology professor), who wished to capture a few of the creatures and establish a protected breeding population of them on an island off Tasmania. Tragically, that never happened. ---
**Author:** ![smithsb](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smithsb/32/12107_2.png) [@smithsb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smithsb)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2013, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1913-world-v-the-2013-world/669628/56 "2013-09-26T21:34:28Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > [Yes, we would.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Victorian_Internet) -… . - - . .-. / — …-. …-. / … -. / …— ----- .---- …– [http://morsecode.scphillips.com/cgi-bin/morse.cgi](http://morsecode.scphillips.com/cgi-bin/morse.cgi) ---
**Author:** ![vontsira](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/51bf81/32.png) [@vontsira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vontsira)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2013, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1913-world-v-the-2013-world/669628/57 "2013-09-27T12:58:22Z")
Further re “species on the brink” – 1913 would already have been too late for the passenger pigeon. If I have things rightly: by 1913, they were down to Martha in the Cincinnati Zoo; and she died the following year. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2013, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1913-world-v-the-2013-world/669628/58 "2013-09-28T07:37:28Z")
> [@smithsb](#): > > -… . - - . .-. / — …-. …-. / … -. / …— ----- .---- …– > > [http://morsecode.scphillips.com/cgi-bin/morse.cgi](http://morsecode.scphillips.com/cgi-bin/morse.cgi) .-… — .-… ---
**Author:** ![Knavette](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f07891/32.png) [@Knavette](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knavette)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2013, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1913-world-v-the-2013-world/669628/59 "2013-09-29T05:20:49Z")
In the medical improvement category: better dental care. People’s teeth did not last long. My own grandad (b. 1911) had lost all his teeth by age 30 due to poor dental hygiene. It was a rite of passage, getting one’s false teeth, and maybe a sign of wealth. I knew many old people when I was young in the 60s whose faces were sunk in bc they had no teeth. And they were not really old…40s, 50s etc. It was so prevalent among my family and in our community that I thought teeth just normally deteriorated, and that I would have false teeth by my 50s. I still have all my teeth, and just four cavities my entire life. My grandmother (and great grandmother) would have been unable to make that claim. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-1913-world-v-the-2013-world/669628.md?page=2)