TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Which era would you like to live in?
Pages (5): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »
1200BC so I could live in the time of Achilles and tons of hot Greek chicks.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by gazelles 1200BC so I could live in the time of Achilles and tons of hot Greek chicks. |
Late 60's also.
I'm pretty sure I'd be a rock legend right now.
I'd like to see how it all ends.
Craig,
I don't think anyone is really considering the hardships of individuals when they choose an era. Usually, when people answer this question - they think about the morals that they have and the type of lifestyle they prefer, thus choosing the era that most corresponds to their core needs. Since there is plenty of information about the lifestyles of individuals in the past, people are able to have something to reference to, which gives them a solid understanding as to which time frame would work best. However, as far as the "future" goes - no one is really sure what kind of moral standards individuals will have, or what the lifestyle will be, so it is less likely to have someone say "I'd like to live in 2050" because there is insufficient data about what that "life" will be like to utilize that as an answer to the question.
roarin' 20's baby fo sho
otherwise the 60's would be cool, or 100 years in the future. i'm pretty happy with the present though.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by squirrelly Craig, I don't think anyone is really considering the hardships of individuals when they choose an era. Usually, when people answer this question - they think about the morals that they have and the type of lifestyle they prefer, thus choosing the era that most corresponds to their core needs. Since there is plenty of information about the lifestyles of individuals in the past, people are able to have something to reference to, which gives them a solid understanding as to which time frame would work best. However, as far as the "future" goes - no one is really sure what kind of moral standards individuals will have, or what the lifestyle will be, so it is less likely to have someone say "I'd like to live in 2050" because there is insufficient data about what that "life" will be like to utilize that as an answer to the question. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Arbiter You know, when I lived in Africa I found it fascinating watching the people walk to work. For many of them, it was a few hours by foot but even then they were relatively lucky; after all, they had jobs. Those were people carrying real burdens. And yet, if you spend just a couple of hours watching them walk you will see more smiles than you would in a thousand rush hours in Washington, DC... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by secked "Morality"? "Core needs"??? Fuck right off. |
I really must insist. 
And what makes you think we truly have a firm understanding of how people lived in the past? Anthropology has always struggled to connect the artifacts of civilization with the folkways of a given time, and has surmised - at best - mere estimates as to what it was like to live in a certain time and place. Research conducted on current ethnic groups that have preserved otherwise "savage" traditions is threadbare. Do not forget that history is largely written by the elite and educated - a gross and often misrepresentative minority, I assure you. So no, I don't think anyone is in a good position to judge the "morality" or lifestyles of people living in past-times; those experiences are utterly irretrievable and we can but guess as to their extent.
And "core needs" sounds like a buzzword you use to sell geriatric people timeshares.
Didn't you ever read Miner's Body Ritual Among The Nacirema?!
Just where did I say we have a "firm" understanding? If you're implying that it's impossible to know what the lifestyles of individuals were in the 1900's I'd have to say you're incorrect due to the data that was collected by living individuals and data collected by now-passed individuals prior to their death. In no way, shape, or form did I imply that we have a "firm" understanding of ANYTHING B.C. or in the 1700's, etc. I was merely stating that most people are going to go with what they "know" (I put "know" in "" marks so you can get a "firm" understanding that when I say "know" I mean "what they THINK they know based off of history books, educational programs, etc") when they choose and era they would have liked to live in. The future hold the unknown, so for MOST people they are not going to respond with futuristic times based on the idea that they have no idea if they would LIKE to live in it (as the thread asks).
I can tell this is a strain on you, so let me break it down...
| quote: |
| Originally posted by squirrelly Usually, when people answer this question - they think about the morals that they have and the type of lifestyle they prefer, thus choosing the era that most corresponds to their core needs. |
| quote: |
| Since there is plenty of information about the lifestyles of individuals in the past |
| quote: |
| people are able to have something to reference to, which gives them a solid understanding |
So are you implying that we have no idea what the life was like for people 50 yeas ago? Really?
And I love how you pick apart my paragraph, and omit the fact that I was saying we have a more solid understanding of the past 100 years but not so much hundreds and hundreds of years ago. Very nice 
Go ahead and keeping quoting snippets vs entire sentences - that's fine, whatever makes you feel like your "argument" is more valid.
Also, go ahead and twist my paragraphs into implying that I meant humanity as a whole, vs the members of an internet forum - oh wait, you already did that! Silly me! 
You know exactly what I'm referring to. If someone finds themselves more alongside a hippy (and YES, the MORALS of a hippy - which are completely different than the MORALS of a woman, say, in the 1920s. Oh, and let me break it down for you: Women in the 1920s had finally gotten the right to vote and started attending schools and being "bolder" if they could [shorter skirts, etc]; although women were working, they generally gave up "work" when they got married, whereas feminism really took a hardcore place in the 1970s) they are going to more or less choose an era where hippies were popular (late 60s into the 70s) whereas if someone finds themselves (we'll say a woman to keep things simple since all of this is too complicated for you) more in the traditional role of a woman, they would generally say an earlier "era".
And by your logic, we can deduct that we "know" more about what life will be like in the future, correct?
Let me go hop in my transporter jet... Oh wait, we're not traveling by flying cars like what had been assumed we would by the time 2000 came around? Hmmm........ fancy that
Domesticated, would you please delete this thread for Squirrelly?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by squirrelly So are you implying that we have no idea what the life was like for people 50 yeas ago? Really? |
| quote: |
| And I love how you pick apart my paragraph, and omit the fact that I was saying we have a more solid understanding of the past 100 years but not so much hundreds and hundreds of years ago. Very nice Go ahead and keeping quoting snippets vs entire sentences - that's fine, whatever makes you feel like your "argument" is more valid. |
| quote: |
| Also, go ahead and twist my paragraphs into implying that I meant humanity as a whole, vs the members of an internet forum - oh wait, you already did that! Silly me! You know exactly what I'm referring to. If someone finds themselves more alongside a hippy (and YES, the MORALS of a hippy - which are completely different than the MORALS of a woman, say, in the 1920s. Oh, and let me break it down for you: Women in the 1920s had finally gotten the right to vote and started attending schools and being "bolder" if they could [shorter skirts, etc]; although women were working, they generally gave up "work" when they got married, whereas feminism really took a hardcore place in the 1970s) they are going to more or less choose an era where hippies were popular (late 60s into the 70s) whereas if someone finds themselves (we'll say a woman to keep things simple since all of this is too complicated for you) more in the traditional role of a woman, they would generally say an earlier "era". |
You make me laugh.
I must say, that is a good defense mechanism for somebody like yourself.
I must say, saying that I'm a "mess" versus providing an actual response, is a great defense mechanism for somebody like yourself
You're going to have to come up with something for me to actually respond to first, rather than submitting some muddled wall of text that says almost nothing whatsoever in some sort of condescending attempt to enlighten me about the relevance of women's suffrage.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Domesticated You have the worst avatar on this entire forum. |
I wanna be a friggin howling barbarian apelike man before there was written word, when we lived like the animals we were adaptd to be, where there was no governing of anything, just tribes natural instinct, drawing shit on cave walls, dragging whatever bitch you wanted into your cave against her will, eating weird roots that make you halucinate, drums, hunting for survival.
Has anybody else ever thought in the peak of an evening of dancing, that it just felt so friggin primitive and ancient that you wanted to be a howling barbarian? Perhaps all this civilization is overrated, I want to be a stone age animal.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Domesticated I feel that we're on the brink of another age which will rival the industrial revolution or the advent of computers. This will perhaps be related to nano technology. However, I also believe that we're fast reaching a tipping point where we will either completely fuck the planet or somehow manage to save it and return it to some kind of artificially induced homeostasis. Which way this battle swings will be very close. Therefore, I'd like to live perhaps 400-500 years into the future. Think back to what kind of technology we had in 1609, and then imagine that same level of advancement on top of what we have now. I envisage a world where nano technology reigns supreme. Self-cleaning clothes, self-powered, battery-free devices and tiny artificial organisms living in our blood and taking up the fight where our own body fails. Our physical bodies will last for huge amounts of time as a result. Quantum computers, matrix-style virtual reality (they already have video game controllers that work by sitting on your temples and 'reading' your thoughts). In the future, we will have a global network which will be to current day internet what the internet has been to telephones. It will be far more accessible, more useful and more widespread. I firmly believe that most technology will become thought-based and that we will mostly do away with physical buttons and controls. Just by thinking 'what is the capital of Congo?', this 'new internet' will call it up for us, and the sum total of humanity's general knowledge will be at the fingertips of Joe Average all day every day. I think this will be pretty cool and would like to experience it. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by paulandrews You were Alberto Falk, right? |
Are you a singularitarian, Domesticated?
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.