"Were profits really more important than the future of our environment?"

"Why did people dislike other races and sexualities and why did they provide them lesser rights?"

"Lil B really was the based god."

Do we really judge other periods? I think we study them and understand the people who live in them as products of their environments. The rules are different and the people play by those rules.

We've been enjoying How we got to now on Netflix, which is basically Jame's Burke's Connections except slower, not quite as random, and with more wonder, less dread. It's chockablock with history and historical facts. The bit on "Light" talks about whaling and whale oil, and the massive hunts of sperm whales and how people would go out in boats to kill whales from seven feet away and then butcher them at sea and crawl into their skulls to scoop out buckets of spermicetti so that they could luxuriate in the bright white flame of whale funk. It's ghastly, really, and certainly not done for humanitarian means. But do we "judge" the whalers?

I don't. I don't think anyone else does, either. That was the time, that was the practice, that's what it was. We look back at Thomas Jefferson, slave owner, and don't dismiss everything he accomplished despite literally owning other people. That was the period, and we're damn glad slavery is illegal, and we acknowledge that it was Thomas Jefferson's time that was deviant by our standards. Thomas Jefferson would never be forgiven for owning slaves now, of course; this period of history is different. We relate to him, and we know that were we talking to him, the fact that he owned slaves wouldn't be a major component of his existence.

I dunno. These posts tend to be circlejerks of whining about all the social injustices of the day while we extrapolate to a future in which the majority agrees with our morals and philosophy. Really? Has sexuality liberalized since the 70s? Are campuses more open to social and political advocacy and experimentation? Are colleges and universities easier to attend? Is it easier to earn a living wage?

I've watched the '50s go from lame to cool to lame to cool again. I've watched the '60s swing from celebrated to vilified. The '70s were the worst decade imaginable in the '80s, in the '90s they had their own sitcom. Patrick Nagel has been a punchline since '88 but now? Now he's a style:

We don't judge "us." We judge our time, and our judgement is fickle and fluid and highly context-dependent. Was Germany justified in fighting WWII? Depends. What year is it and who's asking? This stuff is all settled until it isn't.

Whale oil used to be the lifeblood of intellectualism. Now it's a $2000 fine. I grew up with Lawn Darts; my daughter will grow up in a school district that forbids you from running at recess unless you're playing soccer. So whose childhood is going to be judged more harshly, mine or my daughter's? 'cuz lawn darts are really fucking stupid... but so's "combatting obesity" by forbidding any milk but skim while also ensuring that no one's pulse rises above 80.

How will history judge us? However they want to. Who cares? We'll be dead.

Something about humanity changed around 15 or 1600. We have variously named it the Enlightenment, the scientific revolution, the Protestant Reformation, progressivism, whatever. All sides of one coin.

It is now 2015.

The way we are judged will depend entirely on whether 2015 is situated 10 percent of the way through the current era of ideological thought, or 95 percent. Picture a number line.

Are we this

1550 - - - 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >

or this

1550 - - - - - - - - 2015 - - .

I think about it nearly every day and still have no idea. Too many factors in play.

We are the first generation to have instant access to all art, history, science, etc. I think we are more than one hundred years into a renaissance that began with industrialization and is now augmented by the internet. We are in a golden age of art. Look at music and films today. They are incredibly varied and amazing. Hip-hop has Death Grips, Kanye West, Kendrick Lamar, and Meek Mill, each artist has a unique style and that is just one genre. The rules of electronic music have still not been created yet, and because of that artists have a lot room to experiment. Kendrick Lamar, Death Grips, Radiohead, FKA Twigs, Flying Lotus etc. will be remembered as musical innovators. In the last few years we've had some great films aswell; Whiplash Anomalisa (Charlie Kaufman will be remembered as a great writer I think), Enemy, Birdman etc. are great films that have recieved great critical acclaim, but each one is incredibly varied, and those are just English speaking films, I am not familiar enough with cinema outside of the US and UK enough make claims about them like this. Comedy has seen great innovations too. Just eighty or so years ago comedy was mostly slap stick and avoided touchy subjects. Comedians like George Carlin, Louis CK, and Bill Hicks use their comedy to take on uncomfortable social subjects and Politics in a vulgar way and can be guaranteed safety from persecution. Tim and Eric and Million Dollar Extreme are insane experimental comedians who could probably have only flourished today.

There has been so much innovation with art in the past hundred years or so because of information technology. Art is moving at a blistering pace, way faster than any other time period. Mediums have been created and there is a community of people discussing on the internet on forums like this one and 4chan. This is a truly amazing time! I think it will have to slow down eventually, but I could be wrong. They say technology improves at an exponential rate and with that society will as well, giving social critics more to criticize. But this is a chaotic world and I think it will cool over. But for now art is flourishing. The next generation of artists will have had access to all art from all cultures from most of history and its just gonna get crazy. I'm just really excited to be alive.

I think it would be worthwhile to look briefly as some historiography (history of history) to start. History is all about interpretation, and as a group, historians tend to periodize in movements. Looking at the American Revolution, we have the very earliest writers, those who actually took part in it and their children and grandchildren, who saw the Revolution and War of Independence as separate, though connected events. Further, it was a grand struggle of the virtue of democracy and liberty against the vices of tyranny and despotism. As time progressed, interpretations either grew more cynical (such as the leftists of the 60s who saw the Revolution as an elite movement to ensure their continued superiority) or maintained the idealistic approach started by the Framers (in part, a conservative backlash to various leftist movements). The point is, we are going to be judged very differently at different times, and our interpretation of current events doesn't count for squat long run.

So, I always tell myself that at some point in the future, my ideals and actions will be judged as harshly as we judge Nazi Germany or the USSR. In fact, at some point, we'll be hated for our lasting prejudices and bigotry, but at some other points it will be for things like universal healthcare or gun controls.

We also have to keep in mind what sort of picture we will leave behind. Archeologists of the future will not be able to decipher stone tablets from our age (except headstones, which would lead to a strange interpretation). They will be left with mass produced books and magazines, digital files, file folders of just our written works alone. Will they comprehend, or even notice, the diffrence between a library and a book-store? Will they be able to access our early recording technology like floppy discs, or even what ever our next new thing is? If so, what story will the incomplete files they do find tell? A culture of technical creators writing thousands upon thousands of lines of code, or materialists who listed every food they needed? Which will they judge worse?

Beats me.

Overall, we tend to get more progressive over time. But that isn't a hard and fast rule. Our progress has reversed at times in the past, and it will in the future. With history accelerating like it is, I don't think we have any where near a sufficient understanding of even a couple of generations from now to answer your question meaningfully. The Ancient Greeks could never have expected us, or our view of them. But, like we should, I think they would expect to be judged in thousands of different ways.