Regardless, most people in the westen world dont eat like you. Most of their calories come from ultraprocessed garbage (look up the nova food system)

Sure, having a general idea of where you want things to go is fine, and everyone already does that; but when a government starts thinking that they should set a concrete goal X and they should do Y to achieve it, it's just akin to trying to predict the future, and we all know how well that always works out, because theyre under the faulty premise of thinkin Y will be constant forever, or that even the goal itself (X) should remain constant in a world that is anything but constant

So, this is a terrible argument for not having elections, or bigger election cycles. I'm sure someone could potentially put forward a better argument, but this one is not it

I don't know if you've experienced not working without having to worry about money, but I have and it has a unique feeling of emptiness to it.

This is not me praising 9-5 office jobs, or work from home jobs, or any other specific job. They can all be hell in and of themselves, but the idea of abolishing work is just so laughable to me.

The moment that happens, a collective neurosis will overtake humanity the likes of which has never been seen before. We can only hope work will continue to be around as long as we are around, for our own sake.

You can occasionally find a torrent out there of some channels entire video log

Other than that, no

If you come across a video that you really want to save, just use ytdlp to download it

I don't think you realize just how weak central states were back in the day. To even call them states in the same vein as how we would today call a state a state is a bit of a misnomer

Cromwell lived in the 17th century, a time when there was no instant access to information between large (or small) spans of geography. A time when commands couldn't be given and executed right away

>you live a life free of strife or serious concern for bodily harm

Like in Cromwell's time, for the majority of even his opponents. Good luck finding your enemy who has no phone or any other device that emits signals. And if you do find him, good luck getting that information to your superiors before he can escape again

And to go a bit off-topic:

I don't understand why there is a tendency here where people think we live in these semi-perfect, vaguely utopian Times where life is so much better in every way compared to even 100, or god forbid, 500 years or more; and that these Times will only get better and better as the clock keeps spinning

People lived and flourished and did just fine back in the day. People weren't breaking down every day because they had no electricity, vaccines (im not anti vax before someone accuses me of being one), or any other things we have today that they didn't have back then

Sure, maybe life was shorter on average (mainly thanks to things like stillbirth), but I think we should question if our comparatively longer lives today (propped up artificially for the vast majority) are any more meaningful or better in quality just because they're quantitatively bigger

- just think of how many people rely on things like blood pressure medication to squeeze out another day instead of making meaningful changes to their lives (and most people could; exceptions exist, though very few) which would actually make their lives much better and more enjoyable

I don't think you realize just how funny of a source that is

I will just leave this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Natur...

and this: https://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/violencenobelsymposium.pd...

And the following is from Pinker himself(https://web.archive.org/web/20201026010157/https://stevenpin...): "The upshot is that each of the following two assertions can be true: (1) the chances of war are lower than they were before, and (2) the damage caused by the most severe imaginable war is greater than it was before. That makes it meaningless—an issue of semantics—to speculate about whether the world is “safer” overall; in one sense it may be safer, in another sense, less safe. That is exactly why Better Angels does not claim, contra Taleb, that the world is “safer” across the board"

Do you think people just dropped dead? Humans are not that fragile. The reason the average Roman age was relatively low is because of high mortality at childbirth. If you got to 20, chances were in your favor that you'd get to at least 60. This applies to non-roman, pre-vaccine societies too.

>Basically everyone suffered trauma we'd call fairly extreme, these days.

Eh, maybe. But at the same time, I don't agree that they would be "traumatized."

Heck, I bet if you could place a modern human who has lived his entire life in a developed Western country even a couple of thousand years back, I think he'd get pretty acquainted with that way of life in no time. If there's one thing we're good at it's probably adapting to our environment.

Life is a collection of habits. If you're used to death and destruction (though I am not saying that death and destruction were as common as you make it out to be), it won't phase you. Montaigne talks about this when comparing European society and moral norms to New World (Indian) societies and moral norms.

>The world also tended to be far more violent in the past than it is now.

No data proving this to be true, whatsoever.

Plus it's a vast overgeneralization. More violent where? In what today we would call France? China? Canada? Turkey? Chad? Argentina? Was there even a single event nearly as violent as World War 2 pre-vaccines, which happened 80 years ago? Your postulation is on very shaky legs, at best.

I am not in the 5-7 year old territory

How do you know this?

And does the average person today really think someone living in the year 1200 to be all that different from them living in 2025? If so, in what way does this person think people 800 years ago are different from us? (I'm asking because I don't share your assumptions if this hypothetical person were to think on this matter for more than 5 seconds)