The Future That Hasn't Arrived

jonerik writes "MSNBC has this article on an exhibit starting this week at Philadelphia's Lost Highways Archive and Research Library. Entitled Radebaugh: The Future We Were Promised, the exhibit focuses on the artwork of the elusive A.C. Radebaugh, a commercial illustrator whose works promised us a glittering, shiny tomorrow from the '30s to the '50s; a helicopter in every garage, massive streamlined cars, vacations on Mars - in short, pretty much everything we didn't get. The exhibit collects examples from Radebaugh's portfolio, auto designs for Chrysler, DoSoto, and Dodge, ads, and 'Closer Than We Think!,' a syndicated weekly comic strip drawn by Radebaugh. I want my jetpack, dammit!"

Comments

Re: Russell is a philosopher, not an economist

[benzapp]

Well, it has, in absolute terms, but not in relative terms. The problem is that human psychology makes us view things using relative metrics instead of absolute ones. If you earn a 20% raise this year, but all your friends earn 100% raises, do you feel richer or poorer compared to last year?

Don't insult me with your first year of college economics discussion. You didn't read the essay. It is not a discussion of materialistic wealth, it is a discussion of time. 200 years ago, farmers did not work 50 hour weeks, commutting 2 hours a day to work. Outside of the planting and harvest times, leisure was the rule. Time could be spent working on the house, hunting, or enjoying other productive activties at your own pace.

If you want to have a 1950s comfortable standard of living regarding possessions, health care, entertainment, food, etc. you can do so by working far fewer hours than a 1950s human had to. But if you want a 2000s standard of living... ah, then you still have to work, or otherwise procure income. But at least work tends to be less menial and physically taxing than it did in the 1950s, on the average at least.

If you believe that you are living in a dreamworld. Today, the average salary barely gets you an apartment anywhere in the US, save the most backwards of places. In the 1950's, the average salary easily got you a house, a car, and your wife didn't have to work. You have little knowledge of the averages of which you speak. I have no love for the 1950's, but those people had it easy. I will never be able to afford a house, two cars, and 3 kids by the time I am 32. I make well above the average salary.

It's a question of whether you measure standard of living by absolute standards or relative ones.

We are discussing an absolute standard. Human beings have a finite lifespan, only slightly higher than it was 100 years ago, without adjusting for infant mortality. (Lifespan averages are heavily skewed when many die at a young age).

The reality is today people have less time to themselves than they did in 100 years ago. People are now forced to go to school for 12 years, then to college for 4 years. Grad school even more. Not even touching on jobs, 12 years of compulsory education alone robs men of their most productive years. That is in fact, what it was designed to do. But thats another story.

THe simplist way to determine this however, which Mr. Russell discusses, is to look at leisure. Leisure today is a passive affair. People simply do not have the time for anything proactive. But I am not going to discuss that here. If you can't read an 8 page essay, written by one of the 20th century's greatest thinkiers... Well, you can continue to make your shallow observations on standards.

The reality is, your obsession with standards, is proof that you are a product of this very system Russell is condemning. We are discussing a fundamentally human problem, not a materialistic one. This is not an economics class.

This is a philosophical question, and your ridiculous inclusion of concepts such as metrics proves you are not only ignorant of the author of which I spoke, but of the most basic questions of philosophy.

I will give you a hint. None of the world's great philosophers discuss one's work as being at all relevant to life. Deal with it.

Nevertheless, I do agree with you on one point - there is more to life than the rat race. But you are free at any time to downshift and live a comfortable and leisuirely life, and viewed in absolute terms one has far more capability to do so now than in the past. It's only the relative viewpoint which seems to suggest that one cannot "afford" to be idle.

No, you are unfortunately quite wrong. You also prove once again you haven't read the essay you ignorant fuckwad. Have you ever wondered, for a moment, what truly is the essence of human civilization? Leisure is not about taking a vacation, it is about freeing men to write music, paint a picture, write poetry, practice the violin, or countless other pursuits. Its about freeing dilitantes like yourself from the academic cage so you can study without the dictates of some professor.

It is also about not having to choose between these things and other human activities, like raising a family.

All of the things that matter in our world, are born of leisure. Without leisure, there would be no Mozart, no Michaelangelo, no Olmstead, or countless other artists.

Anyway, don't be a fucking tool. If someone posts an interesting link, read it or not. Don't criticize in the most ignorant way possible, basing your entirely simplistic academic argument on a completely erroneous assumption. Perhaps you have never read any of Bertran Russell's works. That would make you lazy. But anyone with a college education should realize he was a philosopher, not an economist.