this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2025
34 points (87.0% liked)
Asklemmy
45342 readers
821 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's an interesting question. Many people are answering the question "Would people from 150 years ago think the quality of life is better" instead of "Would they think modern people are weaker."
I think that depends on how you define "weak" or "strong." Physically, I think there is less manual labor needed, so in general people from the past may look at us as weaker. The understanding of mental health and resilience is lesser in the past, but if conveyed in relative terms, I do think they would see how more resilient we need to generally be to things now like doom scrolling and algorithms that we are exposed to in the present.
Humans are pretty adaptable. Since we generally have more access to resources now, I would argue modernity has the side effect of hindering our sense of agency. Likewise, we are adapting different "strengths" based on the challenges we get in the present.