The Dark Ages didn’t sound like much fun. Oppressive, dirty, sickly… no thanks.
I’d go with Beadalin’s notion as the best, maybe 1860s to the 1960s. Still get to see a purer time and place when migration to the west and open tracts of fenceless land were still available. Watch the tremendous advances in transportation from the horse to train, auto and plane. Learn the value of hard work and conservation by enduring the Depression. Benefit from Bell and Edison’s inventions, as well as those of Pasteur, Curie, and others. Be amazed by what Einstein had to offer and observe it end another terrible war. Do all this and end with the optimism of the 50s without having to go thru VietNam, Watergate, 9/11, etc. That’d be my ride right there.
I now see that AuntiePam would be there too. Hey, yet another reason!
Shall we go into business together? We could open a general store. We’d need a long counter with jars of hard candy for the kids. It’d have a pickle barrel, and benches outside where old coots could sit and whittle and tell stories about how they were there when Geronimo surrendered. We’d flip a coin to decide who empties the spittoons.
Or maybe we could start a newspaper? I love the florid style of 19th century “journalism”.
I think my own lifespan has covered some pretty spiffy years, but if I was going to pick a period of 50-100 years I’d like to experience in history, I’d go with being born in 27BC in the Roman Empire. Things were pretty sweet under Augustus, after all, and out of every time period I can think of that one catches my interest the most. If I could also bring along my modern knowledge, even better!
I would, of course, prefer not to be a plebian, slave or minority. It’d be best to be from a family of some moderate wealth and influence, without being too important, so political intrigue wouldn’t be threatening anyone’s lives.
Aside from technology and medical care, though, I prefer this current time period because of our advances in human rights. No matter how posh a lifestyle I might have had in a different time and culture, in anything too far back I’d still likely end up married off to some old guy I didn’t know.
Couldn’t almost any time (outside of really bad periods like Plague) be good times if you had enough money? Read books like “1215” by Danny Danziger or
“Medieval City” by Francis & Joseph Gies and you get the impression that the darkest of the dark ages weren’t all that bad if you had enough scratch.
Yeah, I was going to say the same thing. I’ve had two illnesses that would have killed me before I reached my mid-twenties in any pre-surgical era, so unless the distant future is available, I’ve got to go with “now.”
If the distant future is available, I’d probably go for a time with some sort of near-immortality available, so as to cheat the 50-100 year OP limit.
I wouldn’t trade today if for no other reason than I loathe doing laundry now. I can’t imagine doing laundry in a creek in the cold. Brrr! People spent weeks in the same clothes because clothes wouldn’t dry in the cold and damn. People must have really stank. I love electricity!!
And then there’s birth control. If i were born even 50 years ago, I would have probably had 15 children by now because Mr. Pundit is the horniest bastard on the planet. Statistically speaking, a lot of those babies wouldn’t have made it to adulthood. And there’d be no Prozac!
Now, I’ll take today, thankyouverymuch.
Worst time would have undoubtedly been the caveman days because nature posed an everyday threat. If it wasn’t floods or drought, you had to worry that a saber tooth tiger would get you. And I’m sure there were some nasty tribal wars back then.
The worst time in the modern world might be in certain parts of Africa or the Middle East today. People are still starving there today, they are still experiencing tribal wars where entire generations are being slaughtered. I can’t imagine growing up fearing my government. It’s incredible and sad what a difference where you are born makes. It’s a crap shoot and we hit the jack pot.
As much as I would have liked to have lived in Paris in the 1920s and early 1930s, it wouldn’t have been worth the nightmare of the occupation. My own life seemed to have been so well-scheduled that I would agree with Zeldar – 1940 to 2040. I was born in 1943. I especially wouldn’t have wanted to miss the 1960s with its multiple personalities. What a great time to be in my twenties!
I regret that the day of measurable snow in Nashville seems to have come and gone though. The Blizzard of '51 is still talked about and gray heads nod.
Only one condom?
On a more serious note, who you are/what position you might be in is probably a more important factor than time period you live in. A nobleman in the High Middle Ages will be far better off than a war orphan in Sudan in 2007.
Still, even if I get to be a “have” in any time period, living right now sounds pretty good. (Then again, the future will likely be better, so what do I know?)
I would pick 1750-1800, living in England or the northern English colonies. High rates of property ownership, low taxes, expanding world trade, bold new philosophical ideas coming into circulation, the beginnings of science and the growth of universities. Also, it was before the factory system forced the working poor into hellish urban areas. I wouldn’t mind the lack of modern medicine. As I see it, modern medicine delays suffering but does not reduce it.
When ever I think about this type of question I always come back to the question of labor and birth. I would not want to give birth without access to modern medicine…and the epidural.
Oh and the everyday miracle of as much clean, hot water as I want coming out of the wall, any time I desire it.
Life in the Garden of Eden might have been pretty sweet. Walking around naked, friendly neighbors, eat whatever you like. I imagine things might have gotten awkward though.
For the worst time ever, I wouldnt want to have been an Aztec when what’s-his-face came… Cortez.
I’ve often thought that pre-contact North American Indians, particularly those in New England, had in most respects a comfortable, easy life. A little agriculture, a little gathering, a little hunting and fishing gave them an extremely varied, nutritious diet, with no real onerous work involved. They lived in stable societies, were not particularly troubled by disease, and had generally peaceable relations with other tribes.
Other than that, I’m halfway in agreement with those who think here is now is the best of all possible worlds. My one reservation is that I feel like we don’t make the best use of the here and now. We make ourselves too anxious over trivialities, and let too many petty concerns devour our time. We’re too frantic, in a word.
The worst of times? I don’t know, maybe Stalingrad in 1942? Unfortunately, there are lots of times and places vying for the honor of worst ever.
When Charles Dickets opened “A Tale of Two Cities” with the words that give this thread its title, he was making the observation that almost every era has positive and negative aspects. I think I would have loved to live during the Rennaissance, but there’s no guarantee I’d have been able to participate in the explosion of art, literature and music; the Restoration and Victorian eras would have been loads of fun, if I could have escaped simple infections, impacted teeth and influenza. I’m enjoying good health, a communications bonanza and technological advances unequalled in history; but the threat of terror? Not so much, really.
And there’d be no Prozac!