Poll:- life better now or in 1959?
- Thread starter JLM
- Start date
The US uses what is know as the 'US customary system', not the British or Imperial system.
Many U.S. units are virtually identical to their Imperial counterparts, but the U.S. customary system developed from English units in use before the Imperial system was standardized in 1824, and there are several numerical differences from the Imperial system
"USA is still on the British (or Imperial) system, JLM. They use gallon, Fahrenheit, miles, pound etc. They still very much use the Imperial units. The British gave those up a long time ago, they these days use litre, Centigrade, kilogram etc. (they still use miles, though). They also decimalized thier currency in the 70s."
Nope, a gallon in the British system is 160 ounces, in the American 128 ounces.
Nope, a gallon in the British system is 160 ounces, in the American 128 ounces.
A stone (that is, 14 pounds) went the way of shilling, pence, foot and gallon. It is not used these days.
That's funny. I always thought the Brits (along with most men) were preoccupied with their stones!;-)
Last edited:
I was born in 1961 so can't hardly comment on the 50's - but liberalism is having a negative impact on social cohesion, the cult of the individual and instant grtification etc aren't helping any. On the whole I'd go with better '09 only because technology may yet save us from slipping into a new dark age - but I may be sliding into a different subject. Having said that Government was still small and cheap in the '50's and that can't be a bad thing.
2009.
People were still getting attacked by the KKK in 1959. The USA did not become intergrated for a long time thereafter. It's too bad chrisnorthern is too young to remember how government put a stop to segregation and other criminal activities by that terrorist organization.
People were still getting attacked by the KKK in 1959. The USA did not become intergrated for a long time thereafter. It's too bad chrisnorthern is too young to remember how government put a stop to segregation and other criminal activities by that terrorist organization.
I didn't see a poll to vote in so I'll just hand out my two bits worth.
Things are just different. Different problems, different benefits. Technology is way more advanced, but then that in itself has caused problems. Kids are smarter in some ways but they don't seem to have the emotional and social development. More people, fewer other species. There are lots of differences but the benefits of "progress" have been balanced by the difficulties inherent in the advancements.
Gopher, many people have a romanticized version of what the past was like. Those who lived through it, tend to forget the unpleasant parts, remember fondly the good times they had, the good points about the past. That gives rise to nostalgia.
As to posters like chrsinothern, to them the past is mysterious, unknown, charming. Who knows what treasures are hidden there? A landscape always appears charming, mysterious when shrouded by fog or by darkness. It cloaks all the hideous, repulsive aspects. It is the same with the past.
That is why it helps to look at solid facts, figures, numbers, statistics. One can’t argue with numbers. When we see that infant mortality was high in those days, life expectancy was low, per capita income was low (even allowing for inflation), discrimination of all kinds was rampant, sex abuse of children (like residential school abuse, abuse by the clergy etc.) was widespread but was never talked about, that settles the question. No amount of personal anecdotes, no amount of subjective well feeling about the past can overcome that.
Asimov had an interesting explanation as to why many people remember the past with fond nostalgia. He was also an optimist, he was of the opinion that humankind’s best days are still ahead.
Anyway, he had an opinion as to why some old timers pine so much for the past. These people were young in the past, they felt good about themselves, their life was still full of promise. That attitude of optimism, hope is reflected on how they feel about the old times.
But now they have grown old, life is not as full of promise as it was back then. Also, one doesn’t enjoy good health in the old age like one does in the youth. In other words, they don’t feel as good about themselves as they did in the past. This attitude of pessimism is reflected in hw they view the present times.
Anyway, he had an opinion as to why some old timers pine so much for the past. These people were young in the past, they felt good about themselves, their life was still full of promise. That attitude of optimism, hope is reflected on how they feel about the old times.
But now they have grown old, life is not as full of promise as it was back then. Also, one doesn’t enjoy good health in the old age like one does in the youth. In other words, they don’t feel as good about themselves as they did in the past. This attitude of pessimism is reflected in hw they view the present times.
"That is why it helps to look at solid facts, figures, numbers, statistics. One can’t argue with numbers. When we see that infant mortality was high in those days, life expectancy was low,"- THAT DOESN'T tell the whole story S.J. Infant mortality!!!! Some will argue that death isn't worse than a life of suffering with such conditions as celebral palsy, cystic fibrosis, Duchene's M.D. At the other end of the scale is life after age 80 hooked up to wires and tubes preferable to a moderately long healthy life NATURALLY terminated when the organs shut down?
While number don't lie, they don't provide the whole truth either and statistics are only a SELECT grouping of numbers generally chosen for the reason of "proving" a point.
While number don't lie, they don't provide the whole truth either and statistics are only a SELECT grouping of numbers generally chosen for the reason of "proving" a point.
How one interprets the numbers is up to the individual, JLM. To me, numbers such as lower infant morality, higher life expectancy, higher disposable income, more freedom for individuals to make the choices he/she wants (even if they turn out to be wrong choices), less widespread discrimination, etc. can be interpreted in only one way. It is that we are much better off today than 50 years ago.
Nope. First they get stoned. Then they measure.
or something.
Actually, still have a few relatives over 'ome, and some of them still calculate in stones, pounds, etc. As some of us ol'farts still think in miles and inches. Old habits die hard.
Last edited:
Wow, I think you're the first person to use the term, "social cohesion" around here. The symptoms of which are what a lot of what people have been discussing (e.g. lack of gratitude and so on). At this point it could almost be called, 'social disintegration,' where the social glue that keeps society functional ceases to exist; the only thing holding the collectivity together is a kind of mutual self-interest.
The ever increasing amount of free-riding at every level--not talking about welfare recipients here--is indicative that common interest without social inter-connectivity cannot work. The downward trend that already existed before the 1950s took a nose-dive in the latter half of the 20th century. By 2009, we're talking full-scale social meltdown. The trend is also definitely not limited to the western world. Isolation and alienation are absolutely rampant at every level in every society all over the world. Sometimes we miss this because it's clouded by our everyday experiences.
I suppose the effect could be simply described as an underlying lack of empathy. This is as real in Toronto as it is in Bombay. The cause is the defining principles by which these states function; basically a kind of survival-of-the-fittest mentality combined with an unprecedented amount of control over the population in the hands of a highly-disconnected elite, made possible in great part by certain technological advances.
Yeah, I'd say that people were better off in 1950 simply because they had options that they no longer have now in 2009.
(If you want a good social-economic example of this take a look at the progress of labour unions in North America over the past 70 years or so.)