Two women recall coming of age in Victorian London (1970) [video] | Hacker News Reader

Two women recall coming of age in Victorian London (1970) [video]

aeon.co

178 pointssamclemens98 comments

I'm always completely fascinated by the change in language style between now and then. They're speaking the same English; it's not like a different dialect or anything. But the manner in which words are strung together is completely different and rather poetic sounding to my ears.

These women were, of course, citizens of the 20th century. But I assume they formed many of their speaking habits early in their lives during the 19th century.

Richard Pogge at Ohio State touches briefly upon this problem in his astronomy lectures as an analogy to trying to communicate with a putative extraterrestrial culture. We can barely communicate with our own species just a few generations removed. Have you ever tried to talk about technology with your oldest living ancestors (such as your grandparents)? I have, it’s a comedy of errors.

There's a classic science fiction novel, The Forever War, which explores this idea as well - because of relativity, when the soldier returns from his battles he is speaking almost entirely a different language.

Edit: Corrected from Starship Troopers to The Forever War

I think you are thinking of The Forever War by Joe Haldeman.

Yes! Thanks for the correction

The Languages Of Pao by Jack Vance is another classic science fiction novel that explores the impact of language on anthropology (the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis). For example, the warrior caste speak a dialect that encourages aggression.

Another one is Babel 17.

Also along these lines: Return from the stars by Stanislaw Lem.

Spoiler: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_from_the_Stars

There's also '39 (the queen song) where the relativistic travellers come home and find everyone they've ever known or loved are long dead.

Although I know people who are grandparents who are probably far more technologically sophisticated than a lot of teenagers are. More generally though, there is just a lot of culture, ways of doing things, lived experience, etc. that are--if not bubbles--more disjoint between different ages and other demographics than not. It's probably really hard for a teenager or young adult in western society to really imagine a world before the internet, smartphones, home computers, etc. and all those imply. You had to watch whatever was on one of three channels at a specific time of night?

> You had to watch whatever was on one of three channels at a specific time of night?

True. But then again, far less TV was watched. There was an occasional good show, the rest was filler that was pure drivel.

There's a reason kids played outside with their friends in those days. There was nothing to do in the house.

The stations would broadcast a test pattern at night.

Looking through and old tabloid newspaper from the early '80s I was amazed to see that the TV listings was just a bare half page showing the names of the programmes, and that was it. Nowadays you have endless recommendations and reviews of what's coming up, and endless analysis of what's been on (e.g. just last night was reading the House Of The Dragon episode recap in the Guardian). What was most striking is that I don't remember TV being so low-key in the culture, nor how it crept up in importance, despite living through the change. Edit: Briton here.

>What was most striking is that I don't remember TV being so low-key in the culture, nor how it crept up in importance, despite living through the change.

TV was anything but low-key in culture. In fact because everyone watched a show at the same time, there was much more cultural synchronization/watercooler talk with respect to shows like MASH or Seinfeld.

What did change beginning with maybe the Sopranos was that (a limited slice of) TV became more high culture and displaced film to a certain degree in that regard. (And streaming enabled the sort of serialized drama that was hard to pull off in a fixed time slot broadcast world.)

>the TV listings was just a bare half page showing the names of the programmes, and that was it.

True, but in the US, TV Guide magazine was I believe the most subscribed to magazine in the country. That's where a lot of people got more detailed (though relatively still quite limited) information from.

> What was most striking is that I don't remember TV being so low-key in the culture

That is really interesting. For want of a better way to put it, I also agree that it had a "long-tail" quality to it; it was just implicitly part of the status quo.

Communication nowadays seems to be broadly impacted by disproportionate focus on explicit definition, disambiguation, structure, etc, but in such a way that abolishes and shuns implied cohesion. Constantly trying to define and underline the way things should be instead of just getting on with letting things be the way they already are. My current chicken-and-egg "hmm" is whether this came before or after the worldwide obsession around security and safety (which arguably started just before the turn of the century - I once read the "no no stay inside" thing started in America circa 1998).

From this perspective I definitely think TV occupied more of the "tribal knowledge" side of written vs implied culture, than it does today - both in terms of production and societal impact. Kind of weird, that; it had more of an impact when it wasn't trying to shoehorn and corral. Heh.

I lastly wouldn't say that TV "crept up in importance" so much as turned into a vacuous foghorn contest to see who can bellow the hottest air the furthest :P

(AU here, aka UK Lite Edition)

I don't have a breakdown by demographic but people in general "watched" (whatever that meant exactly) a lot of TV--up to almost 9 hours per day per household at peak. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/05/when-... And a lot of traditional TV is still being watched, although it obviously skews older.

A lot of people simply turned the TV on as background. It doesn't mean they were watching it.

I remember daytime TV in the 60s. Jack LaLane's exercise show, aimed at bored housewives. You had to be desperately bored to watch that. There were daytime soap operas, about as interesting as watching paint dry (they were aimed at bored housewives). Then there were variety shows the local TV stations themselves produced aimed at preschool kids. Like the Krusty the Clown show on the Simpsons. The shows were just a camera pointed at a stage and the host tried to figure out something to do. I bet those shows are all lost from being taped over. There were talk shows, which were very cheap to produce. Game shows, which I never understood the attraction of.

The better stuff was prime time evening. I liked Daktari, but that was a half hour once a week. Movies were very rarely shown. The evening news 30 minutes was popular.

When Star Trek TOS appeared, that was amazing. Even my very skeptical dad actually said it was good.

It's not that I didn't want to watch TV all the time. I did. But there was very little to see on it. Much more fun to go outside and meet up with the neighborhood kids and do kid stuff.

That's massively hyperbolic. I can walk the streets of Rome and understand most of what was written 2000 years ago on the walls, and I was always a mediocre student in Latin, just the latin-derived languages are close enough.

You’re right, but when you try to explain a cell phone to the most learned Roman, how far do you think you might get?b I’m guessing they will try to have you locked up, or worse.

Eh, just tell them it's a magic trinket that allows you to see and hear others with such a trinket from far apart. It's not like the average person of today's understanding of cell phones is significantly more sophisticated.

It's not particularly prominent here (as far as I can tell anyway), but worth noting I think that often some (to a lot) of that is clipping and similar artefacts from the microphone (et al.) used at the time.

I agree though, and why should it happen really? Every next generation's slight defiance of the (then) norm? It's tempting to call ours a more relaxed English, but I don't think that's right, it only seems that way by comparison to something else we'd have to adopt consciously.

Before smartphones, television, etc, language was a much more significant source of entertainment in itself, and so people invested much more time in word play, or employing more descriptive and emotive vocabulary and phrases. I think this is why, for example, not too long ago you typically saw more colorful language in rural areas, especially before television became such a ubiquitous past-time, but after more modern entertainment like film became common in the cities and suburbs. This seems still somewhat true in less developed areas around the world, where "back country" folk sometimes have a peculiarly rich vocabulary and manner of speech compared to their counterparts from more urban, modern areas.

Imagine if we spent (intentionally or unintentionally) all the time we spend today learning to identify and applying pop-culture references to instead improving our vocabulary or using more expressive speech patterns. Or to put it another way, before mass consumer popular culture, expressive speech was the popular culture--stories, jokes, songs, turns-of-phrase, or just gossiping, but unlike those things today you had to add the flourish.

Maybe it's just all in my head, though.

Maybe it's just all in my head, though.

What you said makes perfect sense to me.

Doesn't mean that it's true, though.

what would you offer as an alternative explanation?

That unfamiliar language usage sounds more complicated or embellished simply because it’s unfamiliar.

I disagree.

We rarely have that reaction to obscure accents of dialects of English we're unfamiliar with. Usually the instinct is to laugh or belittle.

Yet we hear this and we all know instinctively that it's a higher form than what we currently speak.

Surely there's a reason for that.

Because of their association to period dramas and high culture.

Before the 60s/70s, most interactions were through either radio or books. Then TV and now internet. Check the vocabulary used in these different eras and generations. At least, as a French, I can see large differences across generations.

The downfall of book sales and libraries marks the end of good literacy.

Having watched some interviews with people around that time or just tv programmes, it's just sad how we managed to go from eloquent language to dumb, three word expressions dominating today's world.

Why? For entertainment sure. But I fail to see the advantage of using "pretty" words when they don't convey additional meaning.

Probably because it sounds different, even foreign. If that was their language reality, they'd be out praising other way of speaking -- perhaps contemporary simplicity. You know, the greener grass is always where you're not.

I think the advantage of the "pretty" words is that they can, in fact, convey additional meaning. It seems to me that people in general used to be have a far richer vocabular at their disposal. This allowed for fantastic nuance in conversation. The careful (but wholly instinctive) choice of words enabled a speaker to express complex thoughts and opinions through intimation and subtext.

Nowadays, sarcasm is frequently employed for a similar purpose, but it's a much blunter tool. Note also the ubiquity of hyperbole: anything that people want to express approval of, no matter how banal or quotidian, is declared to be "incredible", "amazing", "game-changing". If something genuinely amazing comes along, how are we to describe it?

This sparked a thought in me. Sarcasm, irony, and hyperbole; the three most common tools used to express depth of emotion. Each of which, coincidentally, is a way of speaking something untrue. But no one even considers them untruths any more; even calling out hyperbole as literally, factually, false is weird to do. There is no expectation of literal truth in any sort of speech. Words are used mainly for emotive value (I remember a rap critic, distressed at nonsense strings of words a rapper was using in order to rhyme, crying out "Words mean things, dammit!") rather than as vessels to convey information, because their carrying capacity has been heavily degraded. Strange.

Have you guys ever thought that maybe you just aren't able to perceive the differences in modern speech and vocab because you choose not to? Maybe viewing the past the way you are kinda leads itself to not enjoying the modern world to the extent that you possibly could. Speech evolves in ways that are often very challenging to perceive, particularly if you think of modern society as somehow dumber and less apt to convey emotions through language which mostly comes off as the opinions of someone who somehow thinks that language only works "one way" aka the way they were taught it works, and the way that they personally speak in. In the example you're using here with the rap critic, words do have meaning, and playing with that meaning or lack of meaning is just as interesting and intelligent as some rural turn of phrase, and also isn't a very new concept if you're younger than say 150.

From the video (01:40) when the headmistress of the school in Wales calls the girl "indolent and feckless" it is a rich and meaningful accusation (rightly or wrongly) that today would more likely be dumbed down into "stupid".

This short video has many such examples that offer a high level of precision in everyday communication that seems rarely achieved today.

I'm not sure "indolent and feckless" is much more descriptive than "lazy and unmotivated." Modern American English likes adding prefixes (-un) and suffixes (-ated) to everything, which I find clutteratedizing, but such language still communicates meaning.

I'd hazard a guess that - at the time in which they were commonly used - "indolent and feckless" described character traits (or habits of behaviour) whereas "lazy and unmotivated" described individual behaviours.

If I take a 2 hour lunch one day and don't make my 1pm meeting, it's lazy. If I generally only make 10% of my meetings for that reason, it's indolent.

These days "lazy" is used equally for either a single behaviour or a habitual behaviour. The meaning has to be inferred from context, which makes it less accurate than the above definitions.

There has certainly been a shift from the verbal to the visual in the last century, which undoubtedly impacted the "common man's" verbal fluency. Vocabulary has shifted from the "emotive" and "rich" descriptors to a verbal shorthand; like you I've found rural people have better preserved speech. While vocabulary and cadence are very obvious differences, I particularly notice how speakers in the past were able to construct a story--even in a casual manner. The difference in verbal skill between an adult from the 1950s and early 2000s is massive. Even news programs from the 1990s sound much more formal and precise than now.

Personally, I've struggled since childhood with verbal coherence and cohesion and our "rapid fire" way of speaking limits practice opportunities.

city folk trade more and salespersons relentlessly simplify language to increase reach - also managers as they scale become increasingly under attack and are forced to communicate defensively which means using common language. watch videos/podcasts of any successful CEO, elon musk for example communicates in memes

Language is a class shibboleth even in the present days, even moreso in the Victorian era.

It's all just meme referencing.

Interesting. I don't have quite the same impression. To me it feels like they're generally well spoken but with a decent amount of a casual or conversational style.

In essence, I'd bet it's a relatively clean and efficient use of the language where you could probably transcribe their words and not need to make many corrections for written publication. Fewer fill words ("like", "umm" etc) and pauses and relative fluency with their selection of meaningful but not bombastic words.

The both sound middle class.

It’s wonderful. I love the word “slurring” for sliding. It describes the way a cart might move through mud perfectly.

You observe the same in French. The quality of the language of people interviewed in the 40s is almost flawlessly superior to today's french literature. And every generation from there has been a step down, I don't think there is an exact cutoff. It seems to me that it affects all social classes and levels of education. I am not sure why.

I read your comment and, though I understand the sentiment, sometimes even feeling the same myself, I don't quite agree with it.

Just think: who would be interviewed in the 40s from the previous century? Just a few, highly selected individuals. So what you have is a very biased sample.

Compare that to what we have today, and the noise is obviously much, much stronger. We are almost drowning in information, everyone can virtually host their own show, and so on and so forth.

But once you weed out the noise, and select the gems, they're still there, still shining. Our time is just that, our time. We are different, for sure, but not less qualified language wise.

Plenty of average people where interviewed for one reason or another and the difference is still generally striking. Here’s some interviews with former southern slaves for example: https://www.loc.gov/collections/voices-remembering-slavery/

And even for sophisticated people, the drop is very visible. The wealth of vocabulary of XVIII french books is nothing like any modern literature.

A better language instead of the americanization and slang for modern English. As someone who is not English I would rather listen to those old women than any modern man.

It is a dialect of course, basically RP. They are both middle-upper class Londoners and the accent still survives to some degree. You can tell when the one lady sings the "cockney" song, she imitates the working class accent of the area which also you still hear a bit in East London.

Other posters here are bemoaning the degradation of language, kids these days and their hippity hoppity music and tock tick videos, and so on...

But we should bear in mind that one of these women was a professional novelist, and the other, one of the first professional typists. Meaning they both had a much higher sensitivity to the use of language than the average Joe on the street. They were professionally more literate and intentional in the use of language than the average.

A better comparison would be modern professional writers or speakers. Or if you prefer, compare modern tiktok speech to those "cockneys" who sang the bawdy song.

I am not discounting the terrible effect on the English language of the kids these days, of course. We are all entitled to our expression of "ugh" like the magistrate in her story.

I was just thinking.

Somebody born in the 1870s and who went on to live for a 100 years would have seen:

- people going around on horses and donkeys with carriages and everything getting replaced by motor cars

- invention of aircraft, jetplanes, and even supersonic aircrafts that obsoleted ocean-liners

- moon landing

- two world wars

- decline of the British Empire

- telephones

- computers

- germ theory

It's too much.

I wonder what the world would be like if I survive till the later parts of this century.

you’ll probably see..

-a moon landing

-two world wars

-decline of the nato empire

-the end of telephones

-hopefully not the end of computer technology cause by the world wars but…

-germs striking back

unlikely to see WW3 _AND_ WW4 ...

> - decline of the British Empire

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpohrKaos2o

There's a long but very good interview done with the philosopher Bertrand Russell in the 60's, and a point he makes in it was that in the early 1900's the idea that the British empire and specifically their navy would be supreme forever more was widespread.

And I suppose pre-WW1 they might have had a point - he said the people at the time didn't view "land powers" like the Prussians as being terribly threatening to their global status.

Another takeaway from it, was that he was very particular about how his kids were educated, these days, we mostly give it to abandoning them to cultural groupthink rather than having any critical input into how their taught.

> the idea that the British empire and specifically their navy would be supreme forever more was widespread

People always think the current top dog has an unassailable position and will be there forever.

For example, every decade a new crop of businesses rise to the top and everyone thinks they're unstoppable, and yet they're replaced the next decade, and those become the new unstoppable juggernauts.

RCA, Sears, Walmart, Kodak, IBM, Lotus, Novell, Netgear, Ford, AT&T, ...

Who'd have thunk Apple would become the biggest company in the world?

> we mostly give it to abandoning them to cultural groupthink rather than having any critical input into how their taught.

I am curious what you mean by this.

Was being particular about education a widespread thing back at that time, or is it just that Bertrand Russell was a serious philosopher and intellectual and so rather more invested than average in the fine details of his childrens' education ?

> very particular about how his kids were educated

Why do you think this has changed? Many people base where they live, primarily where they buy houses on how good the school district is. Private schools, Montessori, etc., are still very important in many cases.

Hell, one of my friends fathers grew up in rural Sicily; he can remember the excitement at the first mechanical tractor to arrive in the village back in the 1960s.

One year, for christmas, he was gifted an orange - in midwinter! There was considerable speculation about how far it must have traveled.

Nearly every item on your list was a change he saw in his lifetime - the date a technology was widespread in the area it was invented can be separated by several decades from the date it becomes widespread globally.

One year, for christmas, he was gifted an orange - in midwinter! There was considerable speculation about how far it must have traveled.

Was that really all that uncommon, though? My father, born in the 50's, always associated oranges with christmas - it was their season, after all. For me, my parents kept up a tradition of giving an apple and an orange in stockings - this was in the late 70's to the 90's. Many years later, I moved to Norway, where I can buy boxes of mandarin oranges every christmas, as they are a traditional christmas time food (Last year was filled with mandarin cocktails to use up the box).

Not to mention the prevalence of things like clove-studded oranges that pop up around christmas.

From what I can tell, not associating oranges with Christmas is really a more modern take on the holiday, as at one time, they were in season around the holidays.

In Norway during December, 'normal' temperatures are a daily maximum of 5c. That's not fruit-growing weather for any variety I'm aware of.

However, it's true that fruit was a common Christmas gift - specifically because it wasn't in season & was therefore hard to come by. Eating common, readily-available food would hardly be appropriate for a major celebration.

- having water, electricity, washing machine, dishwasher in every home

- cinema then radio then television

- half of the world falling under communism, rise and fall of nationalisms

- fall of religion in the west, sexual revolution

- art dropping beauty for originality

They would have only just seen computers. The first "practical" home computers became available in 1977, and even that is stretching the definition of the word "practical".

Mainframe computing had obviously been around for a while before that, but the general public would not have been aware of it.

> Mainframe computing had obviously been around for a while before that, but the general public would not have been aware of it.

Nonsense. Of course the general public knew of computers. When I was 14, in 1969, we had a high school computer club. We used the terminal room at the local college to connect to a Leasco mainframe in London. I still have the Basic reference card somewhere.

The LEO1 was in use in 1951 to perform calculation for baking in factories and stock control.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LEO_(computer)

My grandmother was born in 1895 and died 1987, she went through all you listed and something you forgot (and many more missing):

- photography (in the family, outside professional shops)

- electricity in homes

- radio

- television

- spanish flu (she lost her first born in 1918)

and she was just fine, as a matter of fact she remained curious about everything ( and this probably helped her live for such a long time with a perfectly working brain till the very end).

My mom is now in the same ballpark (born 1930) and she often brings up this topic, all in all she believes that she witnessed much less changes than her mother, most of what she went through were refinements and betterings of existing technologies rather than "revolutionary", as an example the telex and fax were essentially evolutions of the telegraph, what she points out are:

- electric dishwashers and washing machines

- computers/internet

- cellular phones

I don't think that if we live to that age we will see many "new" things.

My grandmother was an 1895-1995 stretch and experienced that same remarkable sweep of technology. The other item that most people forget about are some of the radical consequences of the democratisation of travel in that period and just prior. My great-grandparents came of age when most people lived and died within view of the place they were born and where travel to another city was a days journey at least, by the time their youngest daughter died she could travel halfway across the planet in the same time and do so rather inexpensively.

I am sure there is some aphorism out there about how we do not recognise the big change while it is happening, but I think you are underselling just how much is changing around you. Advances in medicine, energy, transport, and computing over the past couple of decades have been rather amazing, and you are really underselling the past few years of mobile phones combined with internet advances. When I grew up the phone in the house (because landlines were all that existed) was owned by Ma Bell and was one of three types, rotary dial, no answering machines, and long-distance cost an arm and both legs. Last night I was walking my dog down a street in London while my watch updated me on turns for my new route while I was having a video call with my mother back in the US at a near-broadcast quality; 15 years ago that would have existed only in science fiction. It takes a bit of distance to see what really was 'new' and important.

I have to agree with jaclaz: The advances you mention are "refinements and betterings of existing rather than revolutionary". slightly better antibiotics and slightly better phones, but all in all not near the impact of its predecessors.

There's a thread on this very topic that I've bookmarked as I think it's one of HN's best and most insightful discussions ever. It's top comment goes:

"'Innovation' in the internet age, say the last 30 years has mostly been limited to enable hedonistic digital consumption with very little impact on how we fundamentally move through the world. The difference between a car right now and a car 30 years ago is that you can now play angry birds on a tablet. A 100 years ago to 50 years ago meant going from horse carriages to trains and from weeks on a ship to hours on a plane. Today the average person crosses the Atlantic no faster than we did decades ago."

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31494671

And - as a side note - my grandfather (born 1885 and dead prematurely in 1936) was originally from a village that in the 1930's was reachable from my city by public transport (train) in around 6-7 hours.

When I was a kid (think of the 60's and 70's) we went there in the summer, and it took us ... the same 6-7 hours, if we used the car it took something less than 3 hours.

Nowadays, that is respectively almost 100 years or 50 years later, guess how much it takes?

I just checked, 6:15 by train, 2:30 by car.

I do know that it is probably an edge case, but one has to think how advancements in technology are actually applied to real world cases.

Yep, but broadly your last night experience is within the:

- computer/internet

- cellular phone

items.

There is a point about the difference between "concept" and "diffusion/availability", i.e., in the case of your video call it is not so much a "new concept" but rather the fact that you can access and afford this technology.

Something like radio was conceptually revolutionary, to have something similar in importance we should get to see something like teleportation, even a fixed "origin" like in Star Trek, would do.

Personally I would settle for being able to see (and use/be able to afford) completely self-driving cars, something you can call, that arrives and brings you to your destination.

I don’t think smartphones should be considered the same thing as cell phones in the 80s. They are completely different devices with completely different function that just also have a cellular modem.

I also suspect we’re going to see very significant changes as a result of AI.

I don't think anyone made that comparison.

Smartphones are computers, they use the cellular network to connect to the internet, besides strictly phoning, they remain conceptually inside:

- computer/internet

- cellular phone

as an evolution of those broader technologies, what I find remarkable is their ubiquity/affordability.

As an anecdotal data point, I got my first (personal) cellular phone well in the '90's, probably 1994 or 1995, in the (late) '80's cellular phones were mainly for business use, I remember buying for the company I worked with (and BTW for a particular case where the need to reach this particular person was essential) one of these:

https://www.mobilephonemuseum.com/phone-detail/4500x

in 1988 or 1989 and paying it more than 4,500,000 Italian lire, the equivalent of roughly 2,000-2,500 Euro/Dollars of the time, considering inflation probably equivalent to 4,000-5,000 today and the subscription/calls were prohibitively expensive.

Even outside of the smartphone per se, I expect a lot of people don't really appreciate just how high friction it was to get information about anything including government services, information you might want to do your job, purchases, books, etc. etc.--especially outside of major cities with large libraries and research universities. (And even as an undergrad at one of those research universities it was hard to find current information on specialized topics.)

I guess I can see that but I think the combinations in some of these are making something that is much more significant than the sum of its individual components. If we are looking for bullet list items that have been changed or advanced in the past three decades which are going to impact the future in ways we still do not comprehend then here is my list:

- genomics/proteomics and bioinformatics - 'AI' and machine learning - automated driving and robotics - privatised spaceflight (60s spaceflight handbook with 21st century materials science and computing) - dissolution of the USSR and fracturing of many former Warsaw pact nations, European map looks closer to 1910 - rise of violent empowered individuals and terrorism (inspired by religion, nationalism, paranoia, and misanthropy) - social/sexual changes so profound and fast that they are driving violent reactionary response - the arc of AIDS from terrifying bogeyman to a serious but chronic condition as exemplar for the future of disease

A lot has happened over the past 30 or so years and we also tend to look back at the past with an odd viewpoint, picking and choosing the old and new of that particular point in time. Yes, my grandmother went to school in a horse-drawn carriage but at the same time she could take that carriage to the train station and be halfway across the US by the following morning and upon her arrival at Grand Central Terminal the telegram from the station back home informing them of her arrival would take less than an hour to be hand-delivered. As Gibson noted, the future is here but is not evenly distributed and that also applied in the past.

My dad was born 3 years after the invention of sliced bread, escaped Nazi Germany as a child, worked with early computers, and will soon turn 92.

The social changes are also quite dramatic in that time span, especially the position and role of women (at least in the developed world) - gaining the vote, increased representation in the work force, etc.

With water becoming scarce and our inability to generate more electricity, I wonder if we'll see the reverse of progress.

> I wonder what the world would be like if I survive till the later parts of this century.

I suspect much the same as today, but somewhat worse. Electronic gadgets will continue to get cheaper, while essentials like housing and healthcare become more expensive.

The pace of change has slowed as the low-hanging fruit of industrialization has been picked, and the costs of negligence like pollution and antibiotic overuse will become more apparent.

Consider:

- No major new household appliances have been introduced since the microwave.

- Trains in many parts of the USA are slower than they were in the 1920s: https://slate.com/human-interest/2009/05/why-trains-run-slow...

- Supersonic aviation is over.

"Mud brushing" their skirts for hours. Ah, the things we are convinced to do from a social expectation standpoint. In terms of what she saw on the streets of London -- mud and fog -- my understanding is that London rarely sees fog, and that "fog" in the 1890s was actually smog.

a large part of the "Mud" was almost certainly horse waste, one of the same reasons why traditional new york brownstone townhouses have their entrance up a set of stairs.

Moscow had mud on the streets as late as early 2000s. Turns out, only with careful urban planning can you make sure that soil is undisturbed and any extra water gets into drainage. By default you will get mud on the streets in wet climates (and dust in more arid ones).

Brown stone indeed.

Where I used to live in the New Town of Edinburgh there was a boot scraper built into the stone just to the side of the front door.

NB The New Town is quite old, but not as old as the Old Town :-)

https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/728/

I thought about the smog too. Probably from the coal fires, gas lamps and the like. And now we’re worrying about dust from tyres! Things move on eh.

> Ah, the things we are convinced to do from a social expectation standpoint.

Shopping for new clothes for hours because our perfectly serviceable old ones are less fashionable.

Cleaning sneakers for hours to ensure our streetwear look is on point.

Queueing up for hours to take selfies at an influencer hotspot.

etc

I believe London referred to as the "The Big Smoke" in Victorian times, due to the pollution from coal fires - people could see the near-permanent dark cloud over the city from several dozens of miles away.

Tangential, but this is a great channel by an old school amateur film maker who posts lots of great old videos that you can't find elsewhere, two of my favorites:

Vietnam vet:

https://youtu.be/tixOyiR8B-8

Mountain clog dancers:

https://youtu.be/cs2j8f7H2WY

That recollection of the vietnam war should be required watching for all Americans, thanks for posting it, what a pointless war.

FYI certainly not at the level of "required viewing" yet...but this is a very popular and highly seen interview...there's a far more popular YT video of the same guy that has 19M views: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tixOyiR8B-8

My city is now best known for Microsoft headquarters, but in those days it was a logging town. The roads and sidewalks were made of “skids”, aka logs. Skid Road later became “skid row.” Falling in the mud was a preoccupation of everyone but especially the ladies in their Victorian dresses.

This is a majestic video. The elegant elocution of these ladies helps reveal much about the parallels between then and now.

Theirs was a time of enormous change in society, morality, identity, gender, poverty, industry, technology, religion and so on.

Just as ours.

Some years ago I was asked to record interviews with older family members for a class in collage. The result was something similar to this interview, those college interviews have become family memories.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv6V1yHvJyo

The second woman on the video, Berta Ruck, has her own Wikipedia page. She was quite a prolific author in her day https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berta_Ruck

The BBC Archives are great, including British Pathé

spaking about 19° century, there is a yt channel "life in the 1800s" which takes old black&white videos of that time and adds/restore audio/color:

https://www.youtube.com/c/Lifeinthe1800s

So much better-sounding than the affected “trans-Atlantic“ accent we Yanks used roughly until Robert DeNiro.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com