Who would you rather be?

[The Carnivore]

Originally Posted by MooMoo2

You'll have a vague memory of things like antibiotics, cars, and the Internet throughout your life, but you'll have no knowledge of the details and cannot pass on any of your current knowledge to someone else.

With that said, which option would you pick?

I'm currently leaning toward option 1, but option 2 isn't bad either. For option 1, you have a rough idea of what's possible and how society will turn out, so you'll be less focused on building Versailles and more focused on making yourself comfortable by bringing back a rudimentary form of modern day life. You're less likely to get sick if your subjects are healthy, and you're less likely to be overthrown if your armies are winning battles. Although you can't pass on what little you know, you can innovate to a certain extent, and there is some pride in doing so.

Since you're a 17th century king, you can get tons of people to observe, record, and analyze every nuance in life. Do people with cowpox have a greater resistance to smallpox? Can we deliberately infect people with a mild case of cowpox? Congratulations, you've invented immunization. Do most people who contract cholera drink from a few particular wells? Does boiling water make a difference? If so, you've narrowed down the cause and developed a simple but effective means of sanitation. Do the same thing with milk, beer, and juice, and your healthier population will have an advantage over neighboring kingdoms.

Also, why is the top part of your palace slightly warmer than the bottom? Does hot air rise? What happens if we create a large bag to contain air and heat it up? If it rises, you've got a form of flight that can be used for exploration and for the military.

you won't have any outstanding talents either

This less exciting option still leaves open some possibilities. You can be happy, rich, famous, and have a positive impact on society without having any outstanding talents and without being born into a well-off family, but it requires a lot of luck. The most obvious route would be winning the lottery, but a more realistic path would be being lucky enough to make a good investment and getting out when the time is right. If you bought a few hundred bucks of bitcoin back in 2009 or early 2010, you'd be a multi-millionaire if you sold it in late 2017.

Spend a third of the money you have on things and experiences that make you happy, whether it's buying that house you always wanted or renting a private jet for the weekend. Save another third, but spend the remaining third on things that will generate publicity and have a positive impact. For example, a million dollars in funding may lead to a cure for a rarely-studied orphan disease. Rent some billboards and newspaper ads to publicize the cause, and if a cure is found, you'll get a nice little footnote in history.

You can also spend it on more nerdy stuff and get your 15 minutes of fame. Hire someone who's good at working with computers, and rent a bunch of computing power. You can pretty much buy yourself a Mersenne prime that way, and once you've found it, run a deep-learning program on those computers to develop a powerful program that can play chess, go, shogi, and any other board game better than anyone else or any other program. Sell that program, profit, rinse, and repeat.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by The Carnivore

Even considering that, who would want to be in the bottom 10% of society? The bottom 10% today are living on $2/day: http://blogs.worldbank.org/developme...anged-how-even
Are they really better off than the bottom 10% in 1700?

Yup, by quite a lot. I'll see if I can dig out the stats.

Back in 1700 large numbers of people in what is now the developed world died of starvation and/or hypothermia every winter. Charitable organizations existed but had nowhere near the effect that they do today. Very few people die of starvation today anywhere in the world (though admittedly some do), at least in part because of charities.

[axn]

Originally Posted by The Carnivore

I'm still amazed at the number of people who voted for living in 2300, though.

As some who voted that option, allow me to explain my reasoning (such as it is). 1700? No thanks. 2000? Been there, done that. 2300? Sounds interesting. Bottom 10% is going to suck a bit, but I'd rather not be reincarnated rather than sit through the same show twice.

[kruoli]

Living in 17th century would be great! I'll accept being hindered in some ways, but being alive in the same lifespan as J. S. Bach would be outstanding! That is of course an example. I'll except having a lot less than the average guy nowadays, but that'd be on demand. I'm sure that this will be better for my mind.

[Uncwilly]

For option #1, do we carry our current knowledge with us? If we did, that might make a difference. We could share that knowledge and help civilization progress faster than it did.

[The Carnivore]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

For option #1, do we carry our current knowledge with us? If we did, that might make a difference. We could share that knowledge and help civilization progress faster than it did.

Only vague memories of it:

"Whichever you choose, everything that you know now will be like a dream. You'll have a vague memory of things like antibiotics, cars, and the Internet throughout your life, but you'll have no knowledge of the details and cannot pass on any of your current knowledge to someone else."

[ctteg]

I think I'd go with #1.

Pre-1700s could include the Renaissance. The overall environment would be pristine just about anywhere in the world. There's a very large pool of fascinating times, places, and people to select from: Ancient Greece; pre-Colombian western hemisphere; Florence during the Renaissance.... You could carefully select a time and/or place that was war-free. Of course, the major attraction with this pick is the pre-selection, when choices abound.

#2 is obviously the safest choice, since we'd be selecting a known environment and culture. Minimum risk. Ignorance is bliss (assuming the person is the brightest candle), and the definition of this selection is a safe harbor.

#3 is ripe with risk. It could be a technologically amazing time, with inter-planetary or even inter-stellar travel - but probably not for the lowest 10% on the planet. My biggest concern would be the state of the planet in terms of the environment, over population, etc. If the lowest 10% didn't have their own personal robots they could send off to work, they'd probably be factory workers on the moon, wearing gray one-piece suits, with non-stop intercom messages reminding them of the importance of their roll in the greater good of mankind. Eh.

[Routeee]

I like the time at which I live. Firstly, the technological process gives me a lot of opportunities, and secondly, I correspond exactly to this time.

[petrw1]

I'd love to see how much more technological and medical advancements are in the next 200 years