Social would you want to live 40 years in the past, future, or now ?

[filthybliss]

Would you say most women prefer to be alone and childless? Not sure what "kitchen" you're talking about, but that seems like a pretty bizarre and demeaning description of women raising their children. 40 years ago more women had the choice to work or raise a family, and now more of them have to work and don't have the choice anymore.

Yes, it's a great deal for the rich. You have twice as many people bidding down jobs, property values go up faster when more people rent separately for longer, taxing 2 incomes instead of 1, and 70% of women do marry across and up with marriage rates declining generally and single mothers increasing drastically, and as I mentioned, women reporting lower happiness every decade and more children being raised by single mothers who have to work all day. Hooray!

Also pretty odd that the same people who think women should have to do taxed labor are the same people who complain about work for themselves.

Would you say that most men prefer to be alone and childless?

Also, some would say your statement of turning "women into shitty versions of men" is pretty trashy when they choose to choose to pursue career goals instead of popping out kids the moment that they turn 18 instead of later in life.

Who would of thought that more people want to pursue a college education today when college graduates out earn non-college grads on average. Were you aware that women actually out perform men in college?

Yes, single mothers are totally responsible for being single mothers and working 24/7 /s. It has nothing to do with the deadbeat dad that impregnate them and dips....What do you expect them to do in the meantime to feed their kids? Also, you realize it goes both ways in the happiness thing right? Men are also experiencing greater rates of depression too....

Also, you don't think women should be taxed for their labor like men? Why is that, are you against capitalism or something...it seems like you are honing in on that. From prior comments, it seems that you prefer every woman to stay home and raise kids as young as they can instead of pursuing career goals?

Genuinely lost on what your blabbering about here....you are all over the place. Also, cunning way to fluff up that 70% by merging "marrying up and across rates". 35% "marry up" and 27% "marry down"....The majority marry across the same income level so you didn't really dispute anything. When did I complain about work either?

 

[filthybliss]

Except they're not twiddling their thumbs, they're contributing to the next generation of humans, raising humans correctly is probably the most important job to humanity......... Or haven't you seen how destructive those cunts can be???? If you don't do a good job???

don't see how getting education and working a job prevents someone from doing that. raising kids should be a two parent job anyways.....my whole point is if a woman wants to become a lawyer or doctor, she shouldn't be shamed for it if she wants to do it....the same way that if she wants to be a stay at home mom. i fail to see how women pursuing something outside of raising kids is the downfall for society. it just screams to me that you are bitter that that you are getting outearned by women at your workplace.

 

[Spounman]

Past. Life sounds good without smart phones and the internet

 

[eddymotto]

I agree with you in relation to technological advancement and resource conservation.

But you have to consider that there will be more people 40 years from now. More people equates to more problems, numerically.

You have the perpetual culture war between the rich vs the middle vs the poor, partisan politics, the patriarchy vs increasingly aggressive feminist waves, uninspired educational systems, radicals in both political parties usurping power, growing racial divides, across the board declining creativity, declining attention spans, AI writing reports for rich kids to ensure they have access to the best careers, reaffirmation of a perpetual east vs west conflict, higher inflation, surging crime in all metropolitan cities, more unchecked military spending, more nuclear powers, more nuclear weapons, more homeless, more drug addiction, more riots, more police brutality, more youth flash mobs, more looting, higher taxes, more religious fundamentalism, more oligarchs, more debt, more control over reproduction, more surveillance, more inhumane treatment of animals, more pollution in developing countries, more deregulation of industries, more overregulation of industries, and so on and so on and so forth.


The question is, will more people also equate to more people doing more good deeds, or will we just have better technology?

The global human population has been growing for centuries and during that time we have become more peaceful, wealthier, healthier, and longer living. I don't see any reason why population growth will suddenly become an impediment to humanity.

One of the defining challenges of this century is likely to be the fall in population. Global population growth has already peaked. Forecasts vary but global population could peak as early as 2080 and then decline. This decline will be proceeded by half a century of aging populations. We are already seeing it in some countries today.

Of course, the underlying thought experiment in this thread is fundamentally asymmetrical. We know what happened 1984 - present. We can only guess what will happen between now and 2064.

 

[Yorick]

You are not time traveling or anything, just living in the future or past but grew up in that time too

40? Sure.
I lived 60 years ago.
Good times.

 

[Batjester]

Past. Life sounds good without smart phones and the internet

It was.

 

[nostradumbass]

Would you say that most men prefer to be alone and childless?

Also, some would say your statement of turning "women into shitty versions of men" is pretty trashy when they choose to choose to pursue career goals instead of popping out kids the moment that they turn 18 instead of later in life.

Who would of thought that more people want to pursue a college education today when college graduates out earn non-college grads on average. Were you aware that women actually out perform men in college?

Yes, single mothers are totally responsible for being single mothers and working 24/7 /s. It has nothing to do with the deadbeat dad that impregnate them and dips....What do you expect them to do in the meantime to feed their kids? Also, you realize it goes both ways in the happiness thing right? Men are also experiencing greater rates of depression too....

Also, you don't think women should be taxed for their labor like men? Why is that, are you against capitalism or something...it seems like you are honing in on that. From prior comments, it seems that you prefer every woman to stay home and raise kids as young as they can instead of pursuing career goals?

Genuinely lost on what your blabbering about here....you are all over the place. Also, cunning way to fluff up that 70% by merging "marrying up and across rates". 35% "marry up" and 27% "marry down"....The majority marry across the same income level so you didn't really dispute anything. When did I complain about work either?

Lol, "you're all over the place", after a completely unhinged rant in 50 different directions.

No, it doesn't go both ways, it's specifically women who've gotten less happy, and white liberal women are the least happy and most medicated.

https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/Intellectual_Life/Stevenson_ParadoxDecliningFemaleHappiness_Dec08.pdf

Women in the United States have become less happy, both absolutely and relative to men

A recent group of studies has found that women’s happiness levels have been dropping steadily over the last few decades, to the point that women now report lower happiness levels than men, a role reversal from the 1970s.

 

[dc007]

I’m 50 and I would choose going back to 84

 

[Gene Tunney]

The global human population has been growing for centuries and during that time we have become more peaceful, wealthier, healthier, and longer living. I don't see any reason why population growth will suddenly become an impediment to humanity.

One of the defining challenges of this century is likely to be the fall in population. Global population growth has already peaked. Forecasts vary but global population could peak as early as 2080 and then decline. This decline will be proceeded by half a century of aging populations. We are already seeing it in some countries today.

Of course, the underlying thought experiment in this thread is fundamentally asymmetrical. We know what happened 1984 - present. We can only guess what will happen between now and 2064.

Perhaps I have not been following the news closely enough the past 40 years, but society does not appear particularly peaceful at the moment. If 2024 is more peaceful than 1984, it is by a margin. Wealth can have connotations beyond financial. Focusing on money, are there fewer poor people in 2024, overall, than in 1984? I agree that there are more rich people now than ever, which is good. We are healthier and live longer, primarily via technological advancement.

We live on a planet with billions of people and finite resources. However, if you lead a corporation, I recognize your train of thought.

Lurking variables aside, the short-term future is relatively predictable. More so if projected technological breakthroughs do not occur.

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

You are not time traveling or anything, just living in the future or past but grew up in that time too

Well obviously in the past 40 Y but then it means reliving my life?

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

Questions about living in the past are only posed by and for white males.

So the most important demographic in the most important countries? Yeah unimportant.

 

[Quadtavius Tuck]

I'm bored send me to the future boys

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

Lol at some people ITT implying that the world was so unfair 40 years ago. I was there, it wasn't lol.

 

[Jesus X]

That would mean going back to like 1984. We would all probably die of cancer or aids or cancer-aids.

 

[chardog]

Lol, you speak for all women eh?

Have you ever even talked to one before?
Personally, my wife would much rather be at home taking care of things than at her job she doesn't like.

Yep, i have a stay at home wife, some years back, she decided to work, and did it a few years even…… that was a miserable time for BOTH of us. She hasn’t had a job for like 8 to 10 years now. We have a side business, makes good money, and has a flexible schedule…… a 9-5 is less than ideal for her, folks that think women need to work are out of their minds, women are literally built different.

 

[chardog]

i don't see a problem with the workforce having both genders working the same jobs. not everyone wants to stay at home and cook/clean all day either with no career trajectory/income/status at work to climb up too....more people want to get an education too instead of settling down in their early 20s, its not a good or bad thing. people should be allowed to do whatever they want with their lives. you seem terribly cynical....

and most people marry within their social class too....

The problem is that for most, this isn’t an option anymore

Lol @ career trajectory, it’s not the only path that is fulfilling,

 

[Spounman]

It was.

It really was. Texting became a common thing when I was in college so my girlfriend would sit next to me (we took all the same classes) and we'd leave our phones on our desk and type to each other during tests. Like #9?

 

[UberHere]

I’m content right here right now. I’ll stick with the devil I know.

 

[Natural Order]

40 years ago. Times were much simpler then... probably because I was 5.

45er checking in!


Can confirm.

 

[My name is]

Skip me ahead