pdkbffwleo said:
Seems like the "good old days" sort of suck...where drunk driving was "cool" and safety restraints were stupid. When having to mail a payment for a bill took 4 days to get there, and when you'd have to wait until the next day to find out the score of a baseball game.
The "good old days" will always be treasured...because it is one person's youth. Youth is always treasured, and therefore, our memories of $.35 candy bars (when we made $12,000 a year) are therefore cherished.
Largely, technology and luxury items are a good thing. Airbags in cars save lives. Drunk driving is bad. Leaving your children running around town until the street lines came on sometimes resulted in kidnapping. Yes, our independence is important, and sometimes children nowadays aren't given the opportunities to figure things out on their own, but not wearing a bicycle helmet and cracking your skull open isn't reminiscent of "good old days."
The good thing about the 'good old days' is that the conditioning of the population was not so overt and malign as today. There was an immensely larger emphasis on self reliance and personal responsibility - a morality if you like - where you were given freedom and expected to use it responsibly.
Of course there are tales here of the limits being tested and I would expect anyone living in the fifties, sixties and seventies will have tales of near misses and friends who 'lost an eye', but life is dangerous and life is for living and you can be wrapped up in cotton wool and protected by the collective will of the society but the loss of individuality and thus the loss of talent and exploration and adventure is, to my mind too high a price to pay.
I remember the day they started a campaign to try and bring the road deaths in Victoria alone down below 1000 a year (prior there was even a 2 hour radio show on Sunday mornings that raced around town on saturday night recording all the human drama - reality radio if you will - such was the 'sport' of the road toll).
They started the compulsory seatbelts - first country in the world apparently, then the education and safety ads on telly, legislated the safety features in cars (check out a 1950's bumper bar if you want to see non-safety features). Then they let people actually drink at hotels after 6pm which meant no peak hour filled with drunk drivers racing home to dinner, and then they introduced booze buses - otherwise known as policing checkpoints on the highway so that papers and personality could be assessed - oh and alcohol readings. Now everyone thinks it a good idea. 700 lives a year saved. To my mind that could have been achieved without the massive police controls and roadblocks. I find unwarranted highway stops and checks a massive affront to liberty and 'training the population for the totalitarian state that is forming around us.
Now the contrary argument is look at the idiots on the road, road rage, burn-outs, hoons etc. All there back in the good old days but the disapproval of neighbours and family and peers usually kept it in check. These days the danger of everyday life is lessened and so people make their own versions of dangerous games to play and circumstances to tempt fate. (I'll take a drive home with my drunk grandad any day over a Saturday night walk down a nightclub strip full of iceheads and steroid abusers.)
These days we have been trained to expect 'The Government' to take care of things for us. Make the rules to protect us from ourselves and 'the Teachers' to teach our children manners and respect, and the 'Doctors' to fix us when we make ourselves sick. What has been lost in modern life is adventure and freedom and with it the opportunity and
requirement to foresee consequences and accept them. Personally I don't find the modern trade off's a good deal overall - more just a long list of massively missed opportunities that the cradle to grave nanny state has wall papered over.
(and b.t.w compulsory bike helmets is a typical example of bureaucracy breaking a walnut with a working party wielding sledgehammers:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...ets-should-not-be-compulsory-say-doctors.html
"Since nowhere with a helmet law can show any reduction in risk to cyclists, only a reduction in cyclists, why would anyone want to bring in a law for something which is clearly not effective at reducing the risk to cyclists?" )