Jump to content

Who would have harder time adapting.


Feologild

Recommended Posts

Lets say that the average person from 1317 and the average person from 2017 switched places. The person from 1317 would be in 2017, and the person from 2017 would end back in 1317. So who do you think would have the hardest time adapting the person from 1317 or the person from 2017 ?

And lets say that they are both British from Colchester. 

I think both would have a very hard time adapting, But i do think it would be a bit tougher for the person from 2017 to adapt to 1317 than it would be for a person from 1317 to adapt to life in 2017


What do you think ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking the question seriously, I suspect that the person coming forward would adapt more quickly to our society than we would to theirs.  Learning to do all the things people had to do much more labor intensively to survive would probably be more difficult and frustrating than someone coming forward and having to learn to deal with all the labor saving devices we have today.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think someone from the past would have a tough time. We've got some examples to go by in history when looking at uncontacted people, feral children and the early examples of Native Americas being taken to Europe. Our modern technology is quite different than even 50 years ago but there are enough cases where you could theorize how it would go. My re-collection is that it normally does not end well. 

Future people going back in time would have a significant advantage in basic knowledge but it would take a certain type of person to survive for an extended period of time. If you dropped your average urban skinny jean hipster into 1317 they would be screwed but there are plenty of people that have survival instincts and could pick up all the skills needed to survive. Language, food procurement, hygiene and culture challenges would still be very difficult for even the hardiest survivalist type dropped into the past.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dr. Pepper said:

A 1317 person would probably fall over dead within a few days due to lack of immunity to today's diseases.  

Well, if we look at it from that angle, a person today (or a 1317er today) would have access to modern medicine, which could be of use. Given that our hypothetical is placed in Colchester, he’d be in the care of the NHS, who, among others, have taken care of this person for quite some time. OTOH, our 1317er would perhaps not know where to seek help, and thus be at the mercy (quite literally) of the native Colchesteranians (if that’s not a word, it should be) to point out where mercy from illness is to be found.

Our 2017er would face some similar problems, as disease would’nt be quite what s/he is immune to - but s/he would be worse for wear in that other respect - if taken ill, «medicine» would be something s/he would abhor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 1317er would probably look less out of place than a 2017er would look.  People would probably initially think the 1317er were some cosplayer, or maybe mentally ill and they'd either leave her alone or help her to the hospital.  I don't know that the 2017er would have that same luxury just showing up in what would have been a very small village wearing strange clothing, smelling strange, speaking strange.  Where would you say you were from?  Were they burning witches yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't recall where I read this. Maybe somewhere on this board. Reminds me of this:

To the 1317er (paraphrasing): "We have these hand held devices that allow us to connect to the collective wisdom of the planet. We use them to watch cat videos and to vehemently argue over the most ridiculous things with people we've never met."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, S John said:

In either case the person would stick out as a fucking weirdo.  I think a weirdo's chances are better in 2017.  

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the people of 1317 weren’t open minded and accepting of people who didn’t completely conform to society? You sir, have gone too far! Good day!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hereward said:

[Pedantry] Witches weren't burned in England, they were hanged. [/Pedantry]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_women_in_England

http://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/Witches-in-Britain/

http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/burning.html

Plenty of people were burned for witchcraft in England, whether there was an official law on the books or not.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hereward said:

Your own links all point out that the sentence for witchcraft was hanging or drowning. 

Except they also point out the number of people burned for witchcraft, with witchery often being classified as treason.  

Again, just because the official laws on the books said one thing does mean the other thing didn't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, they don't. The only mention of burning a witch in England as opposed to Scotland and Western Europe in any of the three links was this: "A heart carved on a wall in the market place at Kings Lynn is supposed to mark the spot where the heart of Margaret Read, a condemned witch who was being burnt at the stake, leapt from the flames and struck the wall", which is hardly conclusive. All other mentions are of heresy, treason or counterfeiting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...