Frank Hovis Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 When would have been the best time to have lived them? I know that through the vast majority of history 90%+ of people were slave / near-slave status so let's assume that you are moderately well off and middle class. I would go for 1830 - 1900; when Britain went from a European power to the ruler of the world and new achievements and tech were happening all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chronyx Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 I'd like to have lived in 50's/60's AmericaAlthough I have no interest in it at all, if that makes sense. No point thinking about what you can't have. (I don't listen to Elvis for example as it's not of my time, but it would be if I had) All in all (Tech, lifestyle, personal freedom, etc etc) the 1990s was probably a good a time as any to be on this particular damp little rock. 1925 to 1995 for me then, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
council dweller Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 I`ll take this time thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 In hindsight - its looking very like the 90's were the high point for the UK. Imo anyway. Not that I can say much about the 70's or before to be fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 How about Athens, born around 500 BC? Golden era of Greek Theatre (contemporary with Σοφοκλῆς, though he lived well over 90 years), and your 70 years end a little before the main Peloponnesian War leaves Athens in trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHERWICK Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 How about Athens, born around 500 BC? Golden era of Greek Theatre (contemporary with Σοφοκλῆς, though he lived well over 90 years), and your 70 years end a little before the main Peloponnesian War leaves Athens in trouble. Nah, I prefer the 90s with Blur vs Oasis, Rave, the Spice Girls and Fat Boy Slim! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Hovis Posted January 13, 2016 Author Share Posted January 13, 2016 I`ll take this time thanks. You've never had much imagination Dougal, have you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
council dweller Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 All to much imagination I`m afraid. Life has been brutish and short for centuries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Bear Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 How about Athens, born around 500 BC? Golden era of Greek Theatre (contemporary with Σοφοκλῆς, though he lived well over 90 years), and your 70 years end a little before the main Peloponnesian War leaves Athens in trouble. Well, as long as you were a male citizen, and not a slave, or, God forbid, a woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Well, as long as you were a male citizen, and not a slave, or, God forbid, a woman. Hmm, OK, I guess this was a little pre-Λυσιστράτη. On the other hand, it would make your mother a contemporary of Σαπφώ. [edit] Damn, slipped a century there. Σαπφώ of Ερεσός was already ancient history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 I would go for 1830 - 1900; when Britain went from a European power to the ruler of the world and new achievements and tech were happening all the time. You are Flashman AICMFP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Hah, three score years and ten. My grandad was convinced that was it when he reached seventy ("I've done my three score years and ten"). In the end he live until he was ninety-three. Best time to be alive (I'm assuming in the UK)? If I had wealth perhaps late eighteenth century, or just maybe Roman. Less wealth might've been OK then if you were (very) lucky. For a more ordinary position, and if you can somehow ignore factors like world wars, the 30s don't seem too bad and a fair number of the real hardship issues had been sorted for most people by then. By the 60s they pretty much all had been and most improvements since have been fairly superficial and the fundamentals largely crapper, so no point in being around later than that (although the stuff they were building then was even worse than now so it may have looked worse at the time). So, with the benefit of hindsight I'd possibly take my chances with the wars and go for being born around 1900. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Tulip Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 When would have been the best time to have lived them? Professor Mick Aston was asked this question by Tony Robinson on a Time Team Special and, quick as a flash, he answered: "Now! Now is always the best time to be alive!". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Professor Mick Aston was asked this question by Tony Robinson on a Time Team Special and, quick as a flash, he answered: "Now! Now is always the best time to be alive!". Too much of now is too busy, noisy, superficial and characterlessly depressing, so I can't help thinking anyone who says that is a bit gaga, and is why I'd shove it back as far as I can before general living conditions get too unpleasant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Professor Mick Aston was asked this question by Tony Robinson on a Time Team Special and, quick as a flash, he answered: "Now! Now is always the best time to be alive." Yeah. But right now I know I'd much rather be my nephew's age. To have the 'net throughout one's adult life .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Tulip Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 I would go for 1830 - 1900; when Britain went from a European power to the ruler of the world and new achievements and tech were happening all the time. You would probably die from typhus or one of the three global cholera pandemics in the 19th century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Too much of now is too busy, noisy, superficial and characterlessly depressing, so I can't help thinking anyone who says that is a bit gaga, and is why I'd shove it back as far as I can before general living conditions get too unpleasant. I take it you don't, for example, try to heat your house as warm as 10 degrees? And you wouldn't consider going out anywhere more exciting than a greasy spoon, and that only on special occasions? Or are you looking back with rose-tinted spectacles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Oh how original, the tired old "rose-tinted specs" drivel. Some people need to stop looking a the current world through them, and the past through crap-coloured ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turned Out Nice Again Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19 year mortgage 8itch Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Yeah. But right now I know I'd much rather be my nephew's age. To have the 'net throughout one's adult life ....I bet you would, fnar, fnar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19 year mortgage 8itch Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Oh how original, the tired old "rose-tinted specs" drivel. Some people need to stop looking a the current world through them, and the past through crap-coloured ones.But don't you appreciate the irony of moaning on the internet about how shit modern life is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freeholder Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Now is better. People live much longer. https://www.google.co.uk/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=b&strail=false&nselm=s&met_x=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_x=lin&ind_x=false&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&met_s=sp_pop_totl&scale_s=lin&ind_s=false&dimp_c=country:region&ifdim=country&hl=en&dl=en&iconSize=0.5&uniSize=0.035#!ctype=b&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=s&met_x=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_x=lin&ind_x=false&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&met_s=sp_pop_totl&scale_s=lin&ind_s=false&dimp_c=country:region&ifdim=country&pit=1358121600000&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig_ Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Yeah. But right now I know I'd much rather be my nephew's age. To have the 'net throughout one's adult life .... Think I'd have hospitalised myself if I'd had the 'net when I was a teenager! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Up until the first world war.....or up until today, but being born 70 years ago will mean I will be dying today.....I don't want to die today so I will not be tempting fate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rxe Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Throughout pretty much all of human history, life has been brutish and short. The current model where we expect not to feel too much pain and live a long and possibly productive life is an aberration rather than the norm. As an example, I would have died at the age of 21 of appendicitis. Things were even worse if you were poor - and in those days poor meant 'destitute' rather than 'unable to afford Sky'. For 99% of people it was a case of 'work, then die', nothing else. So unless the question is 'if you were one of the 0.1%, would you like to have lived in another time', then my answer is no. For the rich, any time during or after the industrial revolution would be interesting. Massive rate of change, empire approaching, then staggering prosperity up to the 1930s. As others have said, post war USA would be been a very good time to live. I think it is a little disingenuous to say that more happen in the past, and that it was somehow more interesting. We get the impression that (say) the 1800s were fast paced and interesting because we cover them in 2 history lessons or by reading a book in an evening. 'Now' definitely has lot more going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.