[agsdfgsd]

>Since modern states don't have an entrenched hereditary aristocracy

We absolutely do, but because we are bombarded with propaganda telling us they "earned it" by "working hard" and "pulling themselves up by their bootstraps" we pretend it is just a co-incidence that the people born into the top 1% almost always remain there, and people born in the bottom 99% almost always remain there.

>After public schooling became a things, suddenly just being able to read and write is not a distinguishing feature

It never was. The aristocracy were educated specifically on economics, justice, etc. It wasn't simply a matter of being able to read.

[fsloth]

Sure, I simplified a lot. The current western world order is still much more fair to the common folk than feudalism.

The education aspect was not as much about how much more educated the aristocracy was rather that the unwashed masses rose to their level, and it was not anymore sufficient to say that god has decreed duke X a distinguished gentleman and commoner Y a filthy peasant.

It is not easy to rise social ladders, but it's way easier with our figment of a fair society, rather than if we believed social status was a fixed quantity given by the creator of the universe.

The pithy armchair psychologist in me would claim modern society is much more facilitating towards a growth mindset than a feodal one.

[agsdfgsd]

>The current western world order is still much more fair to the common folk than feudalism.

That's the common perception, but there's little evidence that it is true. Modern peons have no more ability to control their governments than medieval peons did, we just have the illusion presented to us to keep us complacent. We work longer hours, have less nutritious and safe food, and have an epidemic of "mental illness" stemming from our lack of social bonds and community. But because we have medicine and electronic gadgets we declare ourselves to be much better off.

>The education aspect was not as much about how much more educated the aristocracy was

Well really that is exactly what aristocracy was, as originally conceived. Some places ended up with a corrupt form where it was rule by birth rather than rule by excellence (the literal definition of aristocracy), but mostly people just mistakenly refer to monarchies as aristocracies.

>but it's way easier with our figment of a fair society, rather than if we believed social status was a fixed quantity given by the creator of the universe.

Why? The modern myth that nobility was defined purely by birth is just that, a myth. If you believe that excellence is given by god, it does not also follow that you must believe god only gives excellence to the offspring of others he gave excellence. In reality it was seen as no different than with livestock. If a good specimen is born you make it part of your breeding stock, even if its parents were not.

[naasking]

> We work longer hours, have less nutritious and safe food, and have an epidemic of "mental illness" stemming from our lack of social bonds and community. But because we have medicine and electronic gadgets we declare ourselves to be much better off.

This smacks of rosy retrospective bias. Even if we have less nutritious food, which is debatable, we have an abundance of it, sufficient to feed us all and we don't suffer famines and shortages, or nutritional deficiencies.

We have an "epidemic" of mental illness because most of our day is no longer solely focused on scrounging for survival. Also, the mentally ill are no longer shunned as harshly and so they don't die of starvation. Perhaps community bonds have something to do with it, but that's also debatable.

[agsdfgsd]

>Even if we have less nutritious food, which is debatable

It really isn't, it has been measured. With increased atmospheric CO2, plants grow faster and end up with a much higher calorie:micronutrient ratio. We also consume vast quantities of industrial waste products now like "vegetable oil", HFCS and soybean by-products.

>we have an abundance of it, sufficient to feed us all and we don't suffer famines and shortages, or nutritional deficiencies.

Famine wasn't as common as you seem to think it was, unless you include impoverished states, in which case famine is killing more people now than it was back then. You can't just look at rich countries now compared to everyone centuries ago. You have to compare like to like. We suffer plenty of nutritional deficiencies, and we suffer huge amounts of diet caused diseases like "type 2 diabetes" and osteoporosis.

>We have an "epidemic" of mental illness because most of our day is no longer solely focused on scrounging for survival.

People were not scrounging for survival then either. They were producing significant surpluses of food, enough to feed massive armies. And while they worked hard in spring and fall, they essentially had summer and winter as vacation time. They had more holidays/vacation time than modern Americans do.

>Perhaps community bonds have something to do with it, but that's also debatable.

We literally have hundreds of thousands of people killing themselves entirely because they have no social bonds. Everything is debatable, but this debate in particular has overwhelming evidence in support of it being correct. As population density grows, social cohesion, trust and relationships all decline. We just didn't evolve to be friends with 5 million people.

[naasking]

> With increased atmospheric CO2, plants grow faster and end up with a much higher calorie:micronutrient ratio.

Citation please.

> We also consume vast quantities of industrial waste products now like "vegetable oil", HFCS and soybean by-products.

Naturalistic fallacy. "Industrial waste" isn't necessarily harmful.

> Famine wasn't as common as you seem to think it was, unless you include impoverished states, in which case famine is killing more people now than it was back then.

"More people" is an irrelevant metric, what matters is the percentage of people relative to the total. That's a meaningful measure of progress.

> We suffer plenty of nutritional deficiencies

Such as?

> and we suffer huge amounts of diet caused diseases like "type 2 diabetes" and osteoporosis.

The latter of which was either common back then also, or uncommon because they didn't live long enough to develop it. As for type II diabetes, it's a disease of abundance, which proves my point. You can't overeat if you don't have enough to eat.

> They were producing significant surpluses of food, enough to feed massive armies.

That often starved during campaigns.

> And while they worked hard in spring and fall, they essentially had summer and winter as vacation time. They had more holidays/vacation time than modern Americans do.

During which they had to ration food, developed nutritional deficiencies, and died of exposure. Some vacation. You're awfully selective about how you compare "like to like".

> We literally have hundreds of thousands of people killing themselves entirely because they have no social bonds.

Citation please.

Also, there is very little real data on historical suicide rates [1,2]. It consists mainly of conjecture from the writings of artists at the time, like Dante speaking about hell and suicide. So your claims that modern rates are higher are also pure conjecture.

[1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-...

[2] http://psychiatry.queensu.ca/assets/Synergy/synergyfall12.pd...

[agsdfgsd]

>Citation please.

https://www.google.com/search?q=co2%20plant%20nutrition

>Naturalistic fallacy. "Industrial waste" isn't necessarily harmful.

It is not a naturalistic fallacy. The things I mentioned are harmful. Industrial waste may not be necessarily harmful, but it is also not necessarily food. We consume it because it is industrial waste, not because it is food. It is harmful, we consume it in vast quantities, it did not even exist before the early 1900s.

>"More people" is an irrelevant metric, what matters is the percentage of people relative to the total. That's a meaningful measure of progress.

It is more as a percentage.

>Such as?

Do you think nutritional deficiencies don't exist any more? Common deficiencies include iron, B12, D, calcium, A, iodine, magnesium, zinc and folate. People now eat fewer vegetables, which contain fewer micronutrients, and we have almost completely removed organ meat from our diets altogether.

>The latter of which was either common back then also, or uncommon because they didn't live long enough to develop it.

Those are conflicting explanations. You can't dismiss a problem by throwing out random conflicting excuses. No, osteoporosis was not common then. "Type 2 diabetes" and heart disease both didn't even exist, and now are so widespread that they are top killers.

>As for type II diabetes, it's a disease of abundance, which proves my point.

No, it is a disease of consumption of toxic omega 6 polyunsaturated fats. Fat people existed in medieval times. They did not get "type 2 diabetes". And it still would not prove your point, as overeating is not the same as healthy. I said people ate healthier. People eating high calorie low nutrient food and getting morbidly obese now supports my point, it does not contradict it.

>That often starved during campaigns.

Only if you have an unusual definition of "often". And those incidents were due to being cut off from supplies. Another army preventing your food from getting to you is not an indication that you are unable to grow enough food and thus "everyone is spending all day trying to stave off starvation".

>During which they had to ration food, developed nutritional deficiencies, and died of exposure

Except none of those things. Those are the times they spent feasting. We still have several of the same traditional feasts, just renamed to pretend they are christian.

>So your claims that modern rates are higher are also pure conjecture.

Modern rates are higher than any other point in recorded history. We have poorer data from ancient times, but we do still have data. You even linked to some. And it indicates that suicide was rare, and when it did happen it was mainly out of shame or a sense of honor having done something wrong. There is no reason to assume suicide rates were higher in medieval times just because you want to believe the iron age was some horrific time. Again, the people who still live in the stone age today and are healthier and happier than us right now, and have essentially no modern "mental illnesses" like depression or social anxiety and no modern dietary diseases like "type 2 diabetes", even the ones with BMI scores in the "morbidly obese" category. Because they do not possess the technology to create petrochemical solvents necessary to extract toxic seed oils. We are just supposed to ignore that because they inconveniently point to modern society being harmful?

[kortilla]

>but this debate in particular has overwhelming evidence in support of it being correct.

Yet you provide none despite you making the extraordinary claims. Worrying about society overeating wasn’t even a thing in the US until the 50s.

[agsdfgsd]

I have not made any extraordinary claims, I have repeated the very standard scientific consensus, which is constantly repeated in the popular media. I do not presume that every piece of common knowledge is going to be considered an "extraordinary claim" by someone who hates search engines.

>Worrying about society overeating wasn’t even a thing in the US until the 50s.

So, our modern lifestyle is good because we've only been worried about it killing us since we've had it?

[JoeAltmaier]

We have orders of magnitude safer food, fewer mentally ill than feudal folk. And we have medicine that works. Its disingenuous and incorrect to dismiss it so glibly.

[agsdfgsd]

I am not dismissing medicine. But the existence of medicine now does not mean life centuries ago was a horrifying existence struggling to survive as popular culture suggests. There are still primitive people now, whose existence is far closer to that subsistence stereotype than medieval Europeans were. They are overwhelmingly happy and healthy. They eat better than we do, are healthier than we are, and work less than we do. If they had modern medicine, it is hard to argue they wouldn't be better off than us in every way.

[kortilla]

But they don’t have modern medicine, and they don’t have the means to deal with droughts, or other natural disasters. Indigenous tribes who have contact with society are overwhelmingly unhappy with some of the highest suicide rates in the world. The ones who don’t have contact don’t have their happiness measured in any meaningful or comparable way... because they don’t have contact.

Additionally, if they are in any kind of environment where they have to do manual labor for food, they work way more than most Americans do. Standing around for 40 hours a week making coffees for people is a walk in the park compared to tilling a field with a hoe.

[agsdfgsd]

>But they don’t have modern medicine

Yes, we've covered that haven't we? In the very post you just replied to, in order to add absolutely nothing to the discussion?

>Indigenous tribes who have contact with society are overwhelmingly unhappy with some of the highest suicide rates in the world.

No, indigenous tribes who have been forced into adopting modern lifestyles are: https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s1291...

People like the indigenous Kitava have no such problems. Because they are not living as an underclass minority in another culture. They have contact with modern people, but they choose to live traditionally.

>Additionally, if they are in any kind of environment where they have to do manual labor for food

That would be every kind of environment...

>they work way more than most Americans do.

They do not. Again, see the Kitava. They barely have a concept of work.

>Standing around for 40 hours a week making coffees for people is a walk in the park compared to tilling a field with a hoe

Tilling a field with a hoe is a completely unnecessary act. Your cultural bias makes you assume this is some universal penance that must be paid in order to extract food from the soil. It is not.

[kortilla]

>that the people born into the top 1% almost always remain there, and people born in the bottom 99% almost always remain there.

The former isn’t true for income and doesn’t remain true for wealth for more than a couple generations. The latter is of course true because... math. 99% of the people are always going to be in the bottom 99%.

When you talk about the 1 percent for income, you are capturing doctors, lawyers, professors, and small business owners with your angst. Many of those people absolutely earned their position by busting their ass. You don’t become a successful spinal surgeon by having daddy grease the wheels. You do it by taking on $400k in debt and spending most of your 20s in school.

[agsdfgsd]

>The former isn’t true for income

Wealth inequality is not about income is it?

>doesn’t remain true for wealth for more than a couple generations

So, it only remains true for as long as it has existed?

>The latter is of course true because... math. 99% of the people are always going to be in the bottom 99%.

The statement isn't that 99% of people are in the bottom 99%, it is that it is the same people staying there.

>When you talk about the 1 percent for income, you are capturing doctors, lawyers, professors, and small business owners with your angst.

What part of "wealth inequality" would make you think repeating a deliberately misleading corporate propaganda piece about income would be productive?

[kortilla]

>only remains true for as long as it has existed?

You are woefully misinformed if you think wealth inequality has only been around for 100-150 years.

>statement isn't that 99% of people are in the bottom 99%, it is that it is the same people staying there.

That’s not true though. A non-negligible portion of the richest people are first generation. And again, of course most of the 99% will stay in the 99% because math. Even with a complete turnover in one year, 98% didn’t move.

>deliberately misleading corporate propaganda piece about income would be productive?

It’s not propaganda when it comes mostly from the people on the left using it to argue for higher income taxes. Higher income taxes are an attack on income inequality, not wealth inequality. You might think it’s propaganda, but it would behoove you to listen to people on the left to hear what they are proposing.