That’s life expectancy at birth. So you’d be better off being born when society is closer to the apex, i.e. during the decline.
For an individual that can avoid social pressures and think independently for their own intellectual enrichment, a period of decline would offer more social achievements for individual examination, use and enjoyment.
Understand. But it (along with infant mortality) is used to quantify the general quality of life and health care. You don’t see a difference between being born in 2011 and living backwards, if you will, back to 1940 vs being born in 1940 and living to now?
The decline. Ascendancy is hard work. Decline has wonderful parties.
It could easily be much faster going down than going up, depending on why the collapse is happening.
Really for me the answer is “it depends”. How advanced is the decline compared to the ascent? For many low tech cultures, technology and living conditions didn’t change much for most people over the centuries. How rapid is the descent, and what’s causing it? If, say, the ultimate decline and fall of America is caused by the eruption of the Yellowstone supervolcano, I think I’ll take living with lower technology while not starving & choking on ash, thanks.
As a man of means, the ascendancy. As a peon, the decline.
Takes awhile for the rewards of Golden Ages to trickle down, if they ever do.
I feel as though I am watching the decline of America and it depresses me.
I would much rather have lived during its ascendancy.
As a rail track layer? Cotton picker? Child mill worker? Coal miner? Housewife? What turn of the century lifestyle in particular do you think you missed out on?
We could easily be doing what we used to do. We just don’t, becuase most of the stuff we did wasn’t useful except to prove we could, and what did serve a purpose is done now, and its lasting existence means we don’t have to do it again.
The ascendancy is usually marked by everybody rolling up their sleeves and building barns like the Amish. The decline is marked by drugs, orgies and Kurt Weil-inspired Jazz. Really, it’s not that easy a choice.
Peak ascendency or early decline. A selfish choice but hypothetically absent offspring, the most free and powerful time to live.
I never said “turn of the century”, and all of the jobs or lifestyles that you mention are still in existence today.
This was my thinking.
Peak ascendancy, so my kids can enjoy the early decline before things get too fucked up. Though I would say we are in the very early ascendancy of global civilization. Things will get very nice if we can keep it together and solve that whole one percent problem on a global scale.
Decline, definitely. Decadence is where it’s at.
Depends. Ascendancy could mean hard work, while decline may mean ill-advised decadency. The latter could certainly be more enjoyable.
Moved Cafe Society --> IMHO.
I always select the wrong forum. I thought that since it was a quote from Revenge of the Nerds, the Cafe was appropriate. My apologies.
Would I want to be amongst the first piss-poor Latin tribes warring with the neighbors all day, or in a fully formed Rome getting separated from Byzantium in a haze of orgies and chariot races?
Is there even a question here?
Well, of course the ascendancy. Did you prefer the late 90s where there was more work to do than there was people who could do it? Jobs were plentiful and it seemed like you were doing something wrong if you WEREN’T getting rich.
Or do you prefer the past few years where everyone is just waiting for their turn to get laid off while the whole fabric of the economy seems to be unravelling?
I suppose it doesn’t matter much if you are a multi-millionare. But for most people the decline of a modern civilization would be a painful world of unemployment, rising crime, and reduced services and infrastructure without even the hope of things getting better.
Even if you are wealthy, you probably spend most of your life living behind fortified walls
Dot-com millionare. Investment banker. Crooked hedge fund guy.