The general decline in standards today

[Mojito]

Without going into (your or my) personal family details, I think modern society reactions to certain crimes have changed for the better. Violence towards women and children especially. Back in the day it wasn't spoken of & rarely reported to the police.

Sweeping under the carpet certainly occured then as now...perhaps even more so in certain crimes like child abuse (but I'm just going by my own family's experience and anecdotal stories). My great-great grandfather was the epitome of the Victorian pater familias...prosperous and highly respected. He had a property in the country and a huge house in "town", in the then fashionable area of Strathfield. During much of the year his unmarried sisters lived there, vacating it for their brother and his mistress when they came for a visit. As outwardly conforming to religious and social norms as anyone else, they were willing to turn a blind eye because of his wealth and respectability.

Worse still, it was only as an adult I found out he abused my grandmother as a little girl. I grew up thinking she had a rather dirty imagination, because I was such a sheltered child and couldn't understand why she was so suspicious of the motives of any adult male around us, even strangers on the street. Then I found out that not only had she been abused, my mother had suffered the advances of a priest while she was attending a Catholic boarding school, and my father and his twin sister had been abused by one of their father's best friends, a man he trusted implicitly (when he found out, years later, apparently it was one of the few times my dad ever saw my grandfather weep).

You look at the explotation of some of the children (not all, I hasten to add - many I've met over the course of research have nothing but respect and affection for the institutions and individuals that took them in) who were sent out from England to resettle here, particularly in the immediate post-war period. Many were treated as slave labour and abused in terrible ways. Same with some of the orphanages run by the state and religious institutions. It was only quite recently that these stories have come out.

Shame often reflected on the victim (something which still hasn't been eradicated). When Louise Brooks tried to tell her mother about being abused, her mother asked her what she'd done to provoke "that nice man" (in fact, the "nice man" had lured the child into his house with candy.

 

[Miss Golightly]

Here's an interesting little article from The Consumerist that seems to highlight the common theme of this thread:
Antique Piggy Bank From eBay Stuffed With $133 In Cash

Shawn bought this antique piggy bank on eBay for $13.50. Adorable, isn't it? What was even more adorable was what he found when he pulled out the original cork: $133 in cash. That'll do, pig. That'll do.

Shawn's tale, straight out of an episode of "Storage Wars":

“I thought you'd find this interesting. I bought a vintage 1950s piggy bank w/ original cork on eBay for S13.50 (plus S&H). Inside, to my surprise, I found $133 in cash! I'm considering this a cosmic win, and have no intention of [telling the] seller. Is that jerky?”
I don't think so. Under the sacred law of "finders, keepers" the seller should have checked inside the bank before selling it. You bought the bank and its contents.

What do you think, Consumerist Hive Mind? Is Shawn justified in not letting the seller know? Would it matter if the seller were an individual selling their own possessions, instead of an antiques dealer?

Update: Shawn just wrote back that the bills all have series dates from the early to mid 1980s, so they've probably been in that bank for 20-25 years.

I found the comments section interesting, and quite telling. It seems everyone KNOWS what the right thing is to do, but they try to rationalize why they shouldn't do the right thing. Like Lizzie says, it's all about looking out for #1.

This reminds me of a girl I worked with who found a brand new mobile phone on the bus and kept it - she made no attempt whatsoever to find the owner - I asked her why she didn't bother as it wouldn't be that difficult and she just shrugged her shoulders and gave me some lame excuse that went along the lines of "if I called one of her friends they might keep the phone for themselves so it's better that I keep it" - I was pretty disgusted - shame on her. I found a phone on the pavement myself the other week - after it took me around 10 minutes to find how to open it (one of those touch screen ones I haven't used before :eusa_doh I found "Dad" and called him and he came and picked it up and he was thrilled. It would have been so easy for her to do the same - most people have "Home" or "Mum" or "Dad" so it's not like splitting the atom or anything. Her actions told me everything I needed to know about her......

 

[C-dot]

It would have been so easy for her to do the same - most people have "Home" or "Mum" or "Dad" so it's not like splitting the atom or anything. Her actions told me everything I needed to know about her......

People seem to lack the ability to place themselves in the opposite end of a situation. Phones cost money, and all of your contact numbers are saved in it. You may even have photos or videos in it with sentimental value. No one wants to pay to replace their phone, change their number, or lose information stored on it - Especially if you know someone has it, and could so easily return it.

About a year ago, there was a serious car crash at a busy intersection in my neighbourhood. The woman who was driving one of the cars had her iPhone stolen from the scene before the police arrived. She recovered, and her family later publicly asked for it to be returned (even offering a reward!), since it had videos on it of a close relative who had recently passed away. Three guesses as to if they received it back.

 

[Miss Golightly]

People seem to lack the ability to place themselves in the opposite end of a situation. Phones cost money, and all of your contact numbers are saved in it. You may even have photos or videos in it with sentimental value. No one wants to pay to replace their phone, change their number, or lose information stored on it - Especially if you know someone has it, and could so easily return it.

About a year ago, there was a serious car crash at a busy intersection in my neighbourhood. The woman who was driving one of the cars had her iPhone stolen from the scene before the police arrived. She recovered, and her family later publicly asked for it to be returned (even offering a reward!), since it had videos on it of a close relative who had recently passed away. Three guesses as to if they received it back.

Well that's just it, people seem to have lost the ability to empathise with others and have become hardened to other people's plights - kind of like "he/she should have been more careful with it" or "their loss - too bad".

That particular story is absolutely shocking but unsurprising - I have heard countless stories of people being knocked over by cars/buses and having their bags stolen as they are lying seriously injured on the ground - words fail me.

 

[Undertow]

Some people are honest and a lot aren't. It's certainly nothing new though...

Jim, you certainly have a point. I think it's wise to consider that hearing/seeing more stories about this is very possibly linked to a greater ability to communicate over vast distances.

But it doesn't end there. When I brought this story up to friends and family, I received two contrasting responses. My mother, father and grandfather each said (without any goading), "I would have returned the money," while my peers each snickered and said, "I would have kept the money." Sure, that's anecdotal, conversational evidence that doesn't actually reflect what would happen. Yet, I found it interesting that there was a correllation marked by age alone.

Furthermore, shouldn't it be telling that we have these stories at all? It seems quite brazen that people would publically gloat over this kind of misdeed, while others would publically back them with concurring comments. It's one thing to take the money, but another thing to wag your tongue and laugh. Sure, it's not as if this hasn't happened throughout history, but then does that not indicate a regression on our part?

 

[Pompidou]

Jim, you certainly have a point. I think it's wise to consider that hearing/seeing more stories about this is very possibly linked to a greater ability to communicate over vast distances.

But it doesn't end there. When I brought this story up to friends and family, I received two contrasting responses. My mother, father and grandfather each said (without any goading), "I would have returned the money," while my peers each snickered and said, "I would have kept the money." Sure, that's anecdotal, conversational evidence that doesn't actually reflect what would happen. Yet, I found it interesting that there was a correllation marked by age alone.

Furthermore, shouldn't it be telling that we have these stories at all? It seems quite brazen that people would publically gloat over this kind of misdeed, while others would publically back them with concurring comments. It's one thing to take the money, but another thing to wag your tongue and laugh. Sure, it's not as if this hasn't happened throughout history, but then does that not indicate a regression on our part?

At the very least, it means the shame filter that used to stop people from talking about the bad things they did or wanted to do has been circumvented. Is it better to do bad things, or want to, and keep it a secret, or do bad things, or want to, and tell people openly? I could see arguments for both sides, but personally, I would rather be stabbed in the front than stabbed in the back. Seems to me, the world has always been a terrible place, but now we know about it.

It seems, while a lot of accountability has been lost over time, but a lot of accountability has been added as well. Personal accountability for the little things in life seems to have degenerated, as people here often attest, but accountability for the people of any power has never been higher. There would never have been a Catholic Church scandal of any scale decades ago, for example. We're holding those in charge of the various facets of our lives to strict accountability whilst being held less accountable ourselves.

 

[LizzieMaine]

We're holding those in charge of the various facets of our lives to strict accountability whilst being held less accountable ourselves.

In other words, we're living in the Golden Age of Hypocrisy. I'd agree with that.

 

[Pompidou]

In other words, we're living in the Golden Age of Hypocrisy. I'd agree with that.

That's one golden age that hasn't ended. Some things are timeless. Gone are the days when simply having a respectable position entitled you to blind respect. Perhaps, someday, the pendulum will swing back the other way. The problem with pendulums is that people never let them stop in the middle. When they do, people set them swinging again, because that's what pendulums do. It's not hypocrisy if everyone's doing it, so maybe that's a goal we can strive for - a world where everyone's equally unethical, and open about it. So long as people can get away with keeping their dirt secret, they'll be able to be hypocritical, after all. The internet will save us, at least in that regard.

 

[rue]

I've been reading this thread and I have a lot of opinions that I won't go over except to say that I completely agree with Lizzie.

I am curious though...

How many people these days could survive with out all the comforts we have now... electric... gas.... running water.... and all the things that go with it? I know I could, as well as quite a few of my generation, but I fear for my kids generation. I'm not talking about choosing to, but if all of a sudden we had no choice?

By the way, I know what I asked may sound like it's off topic, but my point is that this generation is so dependent on computers, cell phones, etc, that I don't think they could survive. They don't know how to do anything that isn't done by a machine.

 

[Pompidou]

Since the days of the caveman, humans have been completely dependent on tools to survive. Why, one theory as to the success of the Homo Sapiens over the Neanderthal is superior tools - we had developed throwing spears and they still had to stab in close - a big deal against a cave bear or mammoth. Our tools have gotten better and better, and at various stages of the game, we reach points of no turning back. The dawn of the information age was one of them. So, too, was the advent of fast travel that globalized the world. Just as the modern person couldn't live a 40s lifestyle (well, excepting the most devout of the TFL crew), the 1940s suburbanite probably couldn't survive in say, the Middle Ages, who in turn probably couldn't last as cave dwellers. Tools essentially define humanity - they're what make us what we are. We might suffer if we lose access to our modern tools, but history is full of proof that those who don't constantly upgrade their tools lose in the end.

 

[sheeplady]

There is a concern that the younger generation doesn't even understand how the tools they use work, at a most basic level. I'm talking about the basic level where you know what the major parts do, etc. They understand how to use them (for the most part) but not anything beyond the interface. One of the people I know said that she runs into youngsters who say, "well, just download an app" to solve a problem. But they don't actually know that *people* write those, or that they are "written," and they don't just drop down from the sky.

I'd even argue over the topic of the younger generation being digital natives. After several semesters of watching students struggle to do some very basic interface-type things that they should know how to do (or at least pick up very fast) with some having an inability to troubleshoot, I don't believe the digital native thing.

It's like the people who don't understand at the most basic level what the different fluids do for their car and how it runs on them. Or people knowing that baby carrots don't grow in bags, they grow in the ground and need to be washed, etc.

 

[rue]

Since the days of the caveman, humans have been completely dependent on tools to survive. Why, one theory as to the success of the Homo Sapiens over the Neanderthal is superior tools - we had developed throwing spears and they still had to stab in close - a big deal against a cave bear or mammoth. Our tools have gotten better and better, and at various stages of the game, we reach points of no turning back. The dawn of the information age was one of them. So, too, was the advent of fast travel that globalized the world. Just as the modern person couldn't live a 40s lifestyle (well, excepting the most devout of the TFL crew), the 1940s suburbanite probably couldn't survive in say, the Middle Ages, who in turn probably couldn't last as cave dwellers. Tools essentially define humanity - they're what make us what we are. We might suffer if we lose access to our modern tools, but history is full of proof that those who don't constantly upgrade their tools lose in the end.

While you are correct, I believe the farther we progress in technology, the more we forget the knowledge we once had of things such a farming and other basics that we need to survive. Back in the 40's, although things were modernizing, they still knew how to do these things. If I stuck my son (before he joined the army) in the middle of the woods without his cell phone or computer to look things up, he would have had no idea how to survive. Let alone do the simplist of tasks. I just believe that we have become so detached from the basics that we would be much more crippled in today's world without the things mentioned above.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

My favorite quote:

"We must be on our guard to see that modern conditions do not weaken our fibre until when faced with hardship we become as helpless as a hermit crab without its shell."
...Daniel Carter Beard, 1929

(founder of the Boy Scouts of America)

 

[Pompidou]

I know the Boy Scouts has to be kicking around, but it's got to be on life support by now. There's no real market for the values or skills they promote. Even I thought the Boy Scouts were pretty "cheesy" as a kid growing up in the 80s and 90s, and I was something of a chronic teacher's pet.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

I know the Boy Scouts has to be kicking around, but it's got to be on life support by now. There's no real market for the values or skills they promote. Even I thought the Boy Scouts were pretty "cheesy" as a kid growing up in the 80s and 90s, and I was something of a chronic teacher's pet.

I don't think eating s'mores under starlight, scary stories told by a camp fire, friendship, team-building, character development and cool uniforms will ever go out of style.

 

[Undertow]

Since the days of the caveman, humans have been completely dependent on tools to survive. Why, one theory as to the success of the Homo Sapiens over the Neanderthal is superior tools - we had developed throwing spears and they still had to stab in close - a big deal against a cave bear or mammoth...

fftopic:
(hate to play Devil's advocate, but it's likely they did NOT die out as a result of their inability to use tools)
The Many Mysteries of Neanderthals

"They were probably less brutish and more like modern humans than commonly portrayed. Their brains were at least as large as ours. They controlled fire, expertly made stone tools, were proficient hunters, lived complex social groups and buried their dead. The discovery of the remains of an adult male Neanderthal with severely deformed arm bones, suggesting a major disability perhaps since childhood, hints they may have taken care of their sick. Genetic research even suggests they might have shared basic language capabilities with modern humans."

The article goes on to say that disease, human-interbreeding or possibly conquest ultimately resulted in their demise.

Did Neanderthals Believe in an Afterlife?

"Neanderthals therefore may have conducted burials and possessed symbolic thought before modern humans had these abilities. The site, Sima de las Palomas in Murcia, Southeast Spain, may also be the first known Neanderthal burial ground of Mediterranean Europe."

 

[Gregg Axley]

No Prettysquaregal it won't. I was in the Boy Scouts and achieved the rank of Eagle. Some of the people I was in Scouting with, I still talk to today, and I met them over 30yrs ago. It is a set of values, a mindset to do what is right, not just because it benefits you or because people are watching. Along the way, you learn how to survive by building shelter, a fire, find food, etc. When have those gone out of style?
In my town kids today don't have many people to look up to, sports figures that cheat, leaders that get indicted and go to jail, or school mates that join gangs. I think the values I learned go a long way to staying true to yourself no matter who gives approval or disapproval.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

No Prettysquaregal it won't. I was in the Boy Scouts and achieved the rank of Eagle. Some of the people I was in Scouting with, I still talk to today, and I met them over 30yrs ago. It is a set of values, a mindset to do what is right, not just because it benefits you or because people are watching. Along the way, you learn how to survive by building shelter, a fire, find food, etc. When have those gone out of style?
In my town kids today don't have many people to look up to, sports figures that cheat, leaders that get indicted and go to jail, or school mates that join gangs. I think the values I learned go a long way to staying true to yourself no matter who gives approval or disapproval.

Good role models are hard to find. That's nice that you keep in touch after all these years.

 

[Undertow]

Good role models are hard to find. That's nice that you keep in touch after all these years.

That makes me wonder...

I've been going back and forth over this thread trying to pin down what parts of the "decline" can be solidly identified.

Role models? Why does it seem like role models are harder to find? Is it that Society was somehow smaller before, and therefore held people more personally accountable? And as a result, it seemed you could have a number of local role models?

Whereas today, with the expansion and anonimity of society, the advent of the internet and social networking, etc, people are held less accountable, and therefore many more people have many more vices displayed prominently in the open?

When I try to think of my role models as a child, they were certainly normal people with normal problems, but I can't imagine who my nephew and neice will look up to, seeing as "official" roles have changed quite dramatically even in the last 20 years. A child can't get too close to a teacher, or priest or camp counselor, etc., without fears of indecency. And worse, those fears may be well-founded. Am I on to something here?

 

[PrettySquareGal]

That makes me wonder...

I've been going back and forth over this thread trying to pin down what parts of the "decline" can be solidly identified.

Role models? Why does it seem like role models are harder to find? Is it that Society was somehow smaller before, and therefore held people more personally accountable? And as a result, it seemed you could have a number of local role models?

Whereas today, with the expansion and anonimity of society, the advent of the internet and social networking, etc, people are held less accountable, and therefore many more people have many more vices displayed prominently in the open?

When I try to think of my role models as a child, they were certainly normal people with normal problems, but I can't imagine who my nephew and neice will look up to, seeing as "official" roles have changed quite dramatically even in the last 20 years. A child can't get too close to a teacher, or priest or camp counselor, etc., without fears of indecency. And worse, those fears may be well-founded. Am I on to something here?

I think it's the simple reason that bad used to be bad and good used to be good. Now bad is good and glorified whereas in the past it was at least blushed upon in public, very generally speaking.

For example, celebrity role models for girls: Annette Funicello vs Britney Spears.