Hacker News Reader

Comment by alldayeveryday | Hacker News Reader

> I guess the point I'm poorly trying to make is that people aren't suddenly different to those in the 1970s, 1920s, or the 1800s. They have a similar environment with similar anxieties, pains, responsibilities, etc etc.

Not in agreement on this. 2020 looks profoundly different than 1920, for example from the lens of western societies. People are more atomized, have less friends, are having less kids, are getting married less often, divorced more often, job prospects for blue collars workers have diminished, etc etc. Not to mention the simple fact that Fentanyl did not exist in 1920. While man might not have changed much inherently, their environment has changed profoundly and seemingly not for the better.

View on HN

You can't be serious. In 1920, still a significant part of the population lived in absolutely abhorrent slums. People on average worked 60 hours weeks, and often in extremely unhealthy and dangerous conditions (for example, molten iron being accidentally spilled on some poor soul in Carnegie's steel mill wasn't an uncommon occurence). There were no antibiotics, so family deaths were much more common (leading to grief and depression). Overall, the conditions of living were so harsh that people were numbing themselves with alcohol on a massive scale, ultimately leading to Prohibition Act.

> In 1920, still a significant part of the population lived in absolutely abhorrent slums.

Define significant part. There are people in 2020 living in absolutely abhorrent slums. Most major US cities have areas meeting this definition.

> People on average worked 60 hours weeks,

Unsure if this is true. Even if it is, probably more accurate to say of those people who worked, they worked an average of 60 hours per week. But in 2020 a higher percentage of the population is working. Women in the workforce has grown exponentially. This too is a major shift / difference.

> Overall, the conditions of living were so harsh that people were numbing themselves with alcohol on a massive scale, ultimately leading to Prohibition Act.

Suicide rate in the US has been steadily climbing decade over decade. What does that say about our living conditions?

> Define significant part. There are people in 2020 living in absolutely abhorrent slums. Most major US cities have areas meeting this definition.

The 1920 slums meant living at 5-10 people per room, with no running water, in constant stench from the nearby factories. I doubt you can find many places like that in US today.

> Unsure if this is true.

That's what the data I've found says - average time worked in non-agriculture was close 3000 hours per year (so, 60 hours per week for 52 weeks per years - no sick days, no vacation). Plus constant risk of death or maiming, plus obviously inhaling all the deadly pollution etc. (Communist countries at least started recognizing that conditions of working in a coal mine or steel mill will literally kill you over time, and gave those workers full retirement after "just" 15-20 years of work there). Conditions were bad enough that people were risking their lives trying to start trade unions. Many were killed for it, too. How many trade union members were killed in 2022 in the US?

Women didn't worked at jobs, but slaved away at homes. Living without modern amenities plus large families meant a mountain of work. For example, my grandmother didn't have a washing machine and washed the bed linen by hand, which meant 10+ hours of physical labor. She insisted on doing that every 3 weeks or so.

> Suicide rate in the US has been steadily climbing decade over decade. What does that say about our living conditions?

Hard to say? For example, during wartime (cannot imagine harsher living conditions than war), number of suicides can go down significantly - they did in the UK during WWII for example. The relation between living conditions and suicides are complex at best.

So you seem to agree that 2020 and 1920 look very different, as far as the environment that people found themselves in. You seem to take issue with my claim that things have not improved for the better. Lets agree here instead that that some aspects of the environment are better and others are worse.

Going back to the subject at hand (fentanyl use), I think one can safely state that more people are dying from drug overdoses and suicide than they were in other decades in US history. Is it people who have changed, or their environment? And do you disagree that there is a correlation? Certainly there has to be. Availability of fentanyl correlates with fentanyl deaths, whereas unavailability of fentanyl would correlate with lack of fentanyl deaths. And so all the ways that the environment of 2020 is now better than in 1920, seems not to translate to less drug overdoses and suicides. And I can think of no better indicator of quality of life, than the indicator of how many people are choosing death over living.

What fraction of fentanyl deaths are by choice? The accidental OD's where it was unexpected are definitely not by choice. That's why fentanyl is being colored brightly, to help you see that something has been adulterated with it. Other drugs are being messed with by the middlemen, there is a supply chain problem.

Yes, less fentanyl in the supply chain would be the right answer.

> While man might not have changed much inherently, their environment has changed profoundly and seemingly not for the better.

Depends on which man, or woman. I would say the environment has changed for the better for quite a few.

Conceding that point, you're right.

People still look to escape the drudgery of their world, that doesn't change. You're right that we have far fewer social supports. Although I do wonder if a study would confirm that people with smaller in person social networks use or overuse drugs less than more isolated people.

Seems a lot like crack in the 80's but with a different mix of stigmas, and a lot more adulteration.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com