alt Hacker NewsI mean... yes... I guess in 1700 there were only things made by hand, but also those things were so incredibly expensive nobody had them. Most people had one "nice" pair of clothes that they inherited and expected to pass on, because cloth was so labor intensive. Children's toys we're basically non-existent. Books? Forget about it. Only for monks in the hills.
Today you have the option, everyone can have the cheap thing, and the wealthy can still have the honest thing.
Much better this way, in my opinion.
Every era has warts. Even if we lived in heaven, you'd still have substack posts complaining about it. It's just the way humans are. Ever restless, always looking beyond.
you would be crammed in there together, but it felt way more…. Human? Communal?
Replies
You missed the point. The whole town aesthetic changed. No we really can’t do it anymore, because the way we design cities and towns is changing. Wealthy area used to be more open to everyone, now it’s all gated communities and walled compounds. You can’t even drive around the lake and enjoy the nature of it because all you see are the walls of McMansions, that’s what’s not “cute”
I think 1700 is not the best year to use, depending on the place. Rural people in 1700 England were quite different from most peasants who have ever lived – they were in a relatively advanced monetary economy, literacy rates were high, secular books were affordable (much less so than today of course), the price of linen cloth had perhaps halved in the last 200 years. Feudalism was going away, agricultural productivity was rising.
Life of a medieval peasant was quite different. Productivity was basically static, literacy was low, the economy would have been local and mostly based on barter or paying with labour. You would likely be growing your own linen to spin and weave and make into clothes for your own family. I think there was a little more specialisation and a little less subsistence agriculture by 1700.