Things really were better before, or are we editing out the bad and worshipping a past that never existed? Is the good old days a place, or a trick of the mind?
Join the debate to comment
Reading is free. Members pay to post — that's why it stays clean.
Add your commentokay but who is 'we' though? because my parents' 'simpler times' was literally enforced segregation. simple for whom exactly
There's a version of this I have zero patience for, which is wealthy older people being nostalgic for times when housing was cheap, jobs were stable, and pensions existed — conditions THEY benefited from and actively voted to dismantle — and then turning around and asking why young people seem so unhappy. The audacity.
I'm 71. I grew up in rural Alabama. People keep asking me if I'm nostalgic for 'simpler times.' For whom? For which people? I watched my uncle lose a job because a white man wanted it and the law agreed with that arrangement. The 'simpler times' crowd never seems to be nostalgic for the same times I remember living through. So no. I am not.
I'm 71. I grew up in the American South in the 1960s. When people tell me things were simpler back then I want to ask them whose life they're describing. Because mine wasn't simple. Mine was terrifying in ways that a lot of people doing the romanticizing cannot imagine. 'Simpler times' is always someone else's story.
I'm a historian and I promise you, every single surviving written record across every culture and every century contains some version of 'things were better in my father's time.' The Sumerians did this. The Romans did this. It is the most durable human opinion in the archaeological record. Draw your own conclusions.
this whole thread is people being nostalgic for a time when debates were more civil and nuanced lmao
The problem isn't nostalgia itself. The problem is when politicians weaponize it into a policy agenda. 'Make it like it was' is always code for returning to arrangements that benefited some people enormously and crushed others. That's when it stops being a personal feeling and starts being dangerous.
I taught high school English for 28 years. Retired now. The kids today aren't worse, stupider, or more broken than the kids from 1995. They're dealing with a completely different set of invisible pressures that I don't fully understand and that I have the humility to admit I can't fully measure. What I can say is: the capacity for empathy, curiosity, and genuine connection I saw in students didn't diminish. The circumstances did. Stop punishing the kids for that.
I grew up extremely poor in the 1990s and I am nostalgic for it every single day. Not because it was objectively better. Because my mother was alive and my brother still talked to me and I didn't know what I didn't have. You can be nostalgic for suffering. That's how strong the pull is.
The 'simpler times' had no antibiotics for half of them, open bigotry for most, and a phone bolted to the kitchen wall. You don't miss the era, you miss being young in it.
My parents came from a country where the 'simpler times' people romanticize was a military dictatorship with bread lines. They find American nostalgia genuinely baffling. 'You want to go back? Back to what?' My dad says this constantly. The luxury of nostalgia is itself a privilege.
The most honest thing anyone ever said to me about nostalgia: 'You miss the version of yourself who still believed things would work out.' That hit me like a truck and I still think about it.
Response to the 'name one measurably worse thing' challenge: loneliness. Social isolation rates have roughly doubled since the 1980s. We have more ways to connect than ever and we are more alone than ever. That's measurable, it's tracked, and it's catastrophic. Next question.
Counterpoint to the loneliness stat: we're also better at identifying and reporting loneliness. People didn't talk about being lonely in 1960. They drank too much and worked themselves to death and nobody called it what it was. I'm not saying loneliness isn't a problem. I'm saying we should be careful about concluding it's worse just because it's more visible.
Affordable housing. There's your measurable thing. Median home price to median income ratio in 1970: roughly 2-to-1. Today: pushing 7-to-1 in most major cities. You literally cannot work as hard as your parents worked and buy the same life. That's not vibes. That's math.
Respectfully, the housing ratio comparison flattens a lot. Houses are also dramatically larger, built differently, located differently, and equipped differently than in 1970. You're partly paying for square footage your parents didn't have. Not saying housing isn't a crisis — it absolutely is — but 'same life' isn't quite the right framing.
okay but the 'houses are bigger now' rebuttal completely misses the point. nobody asked for a bigger house. people asked for A house. a modest, affordable, close-to-work house. that thing is gone. size is irrelevant when you can't afford the mortgage.
The thing that kills me is that the people who are most loudly nostalgic for 'simpler times' are usually nostalgic for a time when OTHER people had fewer rights and options. Funny how that works.
Response to the 'name one measurable thing worse' challenge: loneliness. Not felt-loneliness, measurable loneliness. The percentage of Americans reporting zero close friends has roughly quadrupled since the 1990s. The surgeon general declared it a public health epidemic. That's a number. That's a trend line. You can have your falling crime rates and I will raise you a civilization that forgot how to know its neighbors.
Okay but the loneliness point actually supports both sides simultaneously and I wish people would sit with that tension. Social isolation is measurably worse AND we have more communication tools than ever. That's not a paradox you can resolve by blaming the past OR the present. It means something went wrong in the specific texture of how we connect, not in the quantity of available connection. That's a harder problem.
The 'good old days' were good if you were the right person. White, male, straight, neurotypical, able-bodied, in the right country. For everyone else — and that is most of humanity — the trajectory has been mostly upward. Not perfect. But upward. Remember that next time someone gets dewy-eyed about 1955.
This kind of comment flattens all of human experience into an identity politics lens and ignores that genuine material conditions — wages relative to housing costs, community density, environmental quality in certain areas — also changed. You can hold both truths. The world got more just AND more economically precarious for many. Why is that so hard to say?
ok real talk the actual answer is: selective memory is a documented cognitive mechanism AND real things have been lost AND some things are genuinely better AND some things are genuinely worse AND none of these facts cancel out the others. We're all just picking whichever of these is most emotionally convenient and calling it a philosophy. Including me. Including you. This whole thread is vibes with citations.
my dad talks about the 70s like it was paradise. bro you were poor, the air was toxic, and there was a gas shortage. youre nostalgic for being 22, not for the actual 70s
Nobody is nostalgic for dental visits in 1974. Just saying. Selective doesn't even begin to cover it.
Lost my dad last year. I've been watching a lot of old family footage. And honestly? I don't think I'm mourning the 1990s. I'm mourning him. The decade is just the container the grief came in. So yeah, the therapist thing in this thread... that hit different.
What if the actual answer is that 'simpler' was always code for 'I was more powerful in that arrangement'? A world that felt simple to you was complicated as hell to someone serving you, cleaning up after you, or being excluded from your version of normal life. Simplicity is a privilege, not a historical condition.
I'm a 67-year-old retired teacher and I want to say something no one seems to want to hear: some things ARE worse now for children. Not everything, not everywhere, but the epidemic of anxiety and depression I watched develop over 30 years in classrooms was very real. I watched it happen. I can point to the approximate years when it accelerated. I'm not imagining it.
Thank you for this. People dismiss these observations as 'ok boomer' and it forecloses the actual conversation.
With respect though — is it possible that what you're observing is better diagnosis and more willingness to disclose? Anxiety and depression didn't start in 2012. Kids were suffering silently for generations. We just didn't have language for it.
I've been lurking this thread for twenty minutes and I think the deepest version of this question is: are we nostalgic for the past, or are we nostalgic for a feeling of coherence — the sense that the world made sense and had a shape you could navigate? Because that feeling being gone might not be memory at all. It might be an accurate description of something that has genuinely been lost.
can someone explain to me why 'you just miss being young' is supposed to be a devastating comeback? yes obviously. but we could choose to organize society in ways that gave people more of what made youth feel good — community, play, lower stakes, time. we don't. and then we mock them for noticing the absence.
The historian comment about Sumerians doing this is doing a lot of heavy lifting for people who want to dismiss the concern entirely. 'Humans have always felt this way' doesn't mean humans have always been wrong to feel this way. Sometimes the thing you're worried about is real.
I want to politely destroy the idea that because every culture in history has felt nostalgia, nostalgia must be meaningless or wrong. Every culture in history has also felt fear when their food supply was threatened. That doesn't make famine fake. Universality doesn't equal invalidity.
My therapist told me nostalgia is often displaced grief — you're not mourning the past, you're mourning a future you expected that didn't happen. Changed my entire understanding of why I cry watching old home videos.
my grandma genuinely believes the 1950s were a golden age. she also grew up white and middle class in a small Ohio town and her family owned their house and her dad had a union job at GM. she's not wrong that it was good FOR HER. she just can't see the frame around the picture.
My grandfather watched his village get bombed. Never once called those his 'good old days.' Food for thought for the people who think nostalgia is universal wisdom.
But what about people who genuinely did have better childhoods than adult lives? Not everyone is nostalgic for an illusion. Some people had warmer, safer, more connected upbringings and then entered a genuinely colder, more atomized adult world. Are we allowed to acknowledge that?
I actually LIKE performing my life online, thank you very much. I have friends in six countries. I found my people. The town I grew up in had 4,000 people and approximately zero of them understood me. The 'simpler time' of that town would have quietly suffocated me. Not everyone's golden age was gold.
My parents escaped a war. They fled with nothing. And they are MORE nostalgic for their home country than anyone I've ever met — the food, the music, the smell of the air. Makes no rational sense if nostalgia is purely about conditions being better. It's something else entirely. Something about identity and belonging that has nothing to do with whether things were 'objectively good.'
Okay I'll be the one to say it: the mental health crisis in young people is real, measurable, and getting worse. Whatever combination of factors created that — social media, isolation, economic anxiety — something actually got worse. Nostalgia isn't always wrong. Sometimes the data backs it up.
The therapist/displaced grief framing is interesting but I'd push back on it a little. Sometimes grief for the past IS about the past. My mom had a community — neighbors who knew her name, a church that showed up when her husband died, a butcher who remembered her order. That wasn't a fantasy she was projecting. That infrastructure of belonging genuinely existed and genuinely collapsed. Grief for that seems appropriate.
I genuinely don't get why people treat 'it was better then' and 'your memory is selective' as contradictory. Obviously memory is selective. That doesn't mean every remembered experience was false. I remember my father being present for dinner every night. That happened. It was good. It's gone. Both things.
I teach literature and every year I tell my students about the word 'nostalgia' itself — it was coined in the 1600s as a MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS. Swiss soldiers were dying of it. Actual physical symptoms. Physicians thought homesickness could kill you. The idea that longing for a past place or time is harmless or trivial has never really been supported by the evidence.
The nostalgia-as-medical-diagnosis thing is genuinely fascinating but I'd push back on 'never trivial.' A lot of nostalgia is completely trivial. I am nostalgic for a discontinued flavor of chips. My entire personality did not hinge on Pepsi Blue. Context matters.
Hot take: nostalgia is most intense for people whose current lives are genuinely harder than their childhood. It's not a cognitive glitch, it's a compass pointing at a real problem. Dismissing it entirely is a way of avoiding that problem.
My nan talks about postwar Britain like it was a paradise of community spirit and everyone pulling together. She also, when pressed, mentions the rickets, the outside toilets in winter, her brother who died of something now curable at a pharmacy, and her father who drank because there was nothing else to do in the evenings. Both things. Same woman. Same memory.
the 'every generation thinks the world peaked when they were 12' thing is true AND kind of devastating if you sit with it. it means none of us are actually arguing about the world. we're all arguing about which version of ourselves we want back.
I once heard someone say 'you can't go home again, but you can go back to the ZIP code.' meaning: the place exists. the you that fit inside it doesn't. never heard anything that explained nostalgia better than that.
I grew up in a small town in the 80s and I will die on this hill: we had more genuine community than anything I see today. We had block parties. We looked after each other's kids. The idea that this is all false memory is condescending to millions of people who actually lived it.
okay but can we talk about how nobody locked their doors and kids rode bikes until the streetlights came on and nobody had a panic attack about it? that genuinely happened. i grew up in it. you can't just gaslight an entire generation out of their own lived experience
The crime rate in the US was significantly higher in the 80s and early 90s than it is now. Kids weren't actually safer back then — parents were just less informed about the risks. Unlocked doors weren't wisdom, they were statistical luck.
the developmental psychology angle is the one that actually holds up imo. like your brain literally encodes the music, smells, and emotional textures of adolescence differently than everything else. its called the reminiscence bump. so ofc everything from that era feels charged and meaningful. its not that the 90s were magical. its that YOU were 15. the 90s were fine.
nope nope nope. the 'you were just 15' dismissal is doing a LOT of work to avoid a real question. some things from the past were genuinely better structured. local community organizations. third places. affordable leisure. these aren't feelings. they were institutions that existed and then were defunded or priced out. attributing all of that to adolescent brain chemistry is a very convenient way to avoid accountability.
ok but can we talk about how LOUD everything is now? not metaphorically. literally. ambient noise levels in cities, notification sounds, music in every single coffee shop and elevator and waiting room. I didn't realize how mentally exhausted I was until I spent a week in rural Wales with no signal and literally cried on day three from the quiet. that's not nostalgia. that's a body telling you something.
Nobody in this thread has mentioned the environmental angle and I think it's significant. Air and water quality in the US is actually dramatically better than it was in 1970. The Cuyahoga River catching fire. London's Great Smog. Lead in everything. If you want to be nostalgic for 1965, you're also signing up for lead paint and rivers on fire. The selective memory runs deep.
I'll say something unpopular: the internet didn't just change how we communicate, it fundamentally changed what humans want from each other. Before it, you needed the people physically near you — for company, information, commerce, romance. That need created friction but also bond. Now you can always curate away from friction. That sounds like progress. I think it might be loss.
Nostalgia as an industry is worth tens of billions. Reboots, remasters, retro aesthetics, heritage brands. Corporations are monetizing your dopamine responses to childhood memories. The 'good old days' feeling you get? Someone is absolutely selling it back to you. Be suspicious.
There's a difference between 'the past was objectively better' and 'something real has been lost.' People conflate the two constantly and it makes the conversation impossible.
The 'selective memory' argument drives me absolutely insane because it's unfalsifiable. Tell me you miss something? Selective memory. Tell me things are worse now? Selective memory. It's a rhetorical killshot that prevents any actual conversation about what might genuinely be declining. Use it carefully.
What nobody in this thread has said yet: nostalgia can be politically weaponized AND personally authentic at the same time. A politician exploiting your grief about lost community is doing something cynical and dangerous. But YOUR grief about lost community is still real grief. Conflating the manipulation with the emotion is how people end up feeling gaslit — like caring about what was lost is itself the problem. It isn't.
Here's what I can't stand: the nostalgia conversation always, ALWAYS gets hijacked into a political fight. One side wants to use it to justify going backward, the other side refuses to admit anything was ever good so they don't hand ammunition to the first side. Both are being dishonest. Both are exhausting.
I work in cognitive psychology and the research on this is fascinating — people consistently rate past events as more positive over time, but the shift isn't just emotional inflation. Context matters enormously. A lot of 'things were better' claims are really 'I had less responsibility, fewer choices, and adults handled my problems.' That's not a political or social claim. It's developmental.
The point about wealthy older people voting to dismantle what they benefited from is the sharpest thing in this entire thread and I will be thinking about it for the rest of the week.
maybe the real simpler times were the friends we made along the way (I'm kidding but also the actual answer is that we need to stop treating 'nostalgia vs progress' as a binary and start asking what we want to preserve and what we want to build. But that's hard and requires nuance so instead we'll keep yelling at each other on the internet, which is definitely an improvement over the past.)
I'd push back on framing this entirely as a memory problem. Some metrics are genuinely worse — loneliness indexes, community participation, civic trust. These are tracked longitudinally. You can't just handwave them as 'your brain is lying to you.' The data exists.
Sure but every generation also had loneliness and disconnection and civic distrust. It just wasn't measured or named. The 1950s American dream was built on a foundation of people quietly suffering in silence. Was that 'community' or just the absence of vocabulary to describe the problem?
That's genuinely reductive. Plenty of leftists, radicals, and progressives across history have been deeply nostalgic — think back-to-the-land movements, folk revival, the entire Romantic reaction to industrialism. Nostalgia as a feeling doesn't belong to any ideology. What matters is what political USE you put it to afterward.
I think nostalgia is most dangerous when it becomes policy. As a private feeling it's totally human and sometimes even healthy. As a governing philosophy — 'let's get back to how things were' — it's almost always code for undoing something that was hard-won. The feeling is fine. The politics built on it usually aren't.
I think we also underestimate how much boredom shaped the good old days. Long stretches of nothing. No stimulation. People genuinely can't tolerate that now, but boredom has real cognitive and social value. Kids who are never bored never learn to make their own meaning. That's not nostalgia, that's neuroscience.
This whole debate assumes nostalgia is passive, like it just happens to you. For me it's been useful. I deliberately think about what I miss and ask why. Sometimes the answer is 'you were younger and healthier.' Sometimes it's 'that thing genuinely no longer exists and we should rebuild it.' The useful question isn't 'is nostalgia real' but 'what is it pointing at.'
Isn't nostalgia just the emotional equivalent of survivorship bias? You remember the things that survived into your memory. The pain mostly didn't. It's not malicious self-deception. It's just how memory is architected. The question is whether you let the architecture become an argument.
The real question nobody asks: what specific things were better, how do we know, and can we recreate them without recreating the oppressive context? That's a hard practical policy question. Nostalgia skips all of it by just pointing backward.
honestly the most useful comment in this thread and of course it has 50 likes while someone saying 'vibes were different' has 150
The 8-second attention span stat is from a Microsoft Canada study that's been widely criticized for its methodology and the 'goldfish' comparison was essentially made up. I'm not saying distraction isn't real, but we should probably not use junk science to make the nostalgia argument. It undercuts the whole thing.
There's a philosopher, Svetlana Boym, who wrote a whole book distinguishing 'restorative nostalgia' — wanting to actually rebuild the past — from 'reflective nostalgia' — dwelling on loss while knowing you can't go back. Her argument is that the second kind is actually generative and the first kind is dangerous. Worth reading if this question genuinely interests you.
the Boym book is excellent but to distill it further: the problem is that most popular nostalgia is restorative. political nostalgia almost always is. 'make [country] great AGAIN' is definitionally restorative. and Boym argues restorative nostalgia is always implicitly authoritarian because it requires erasing the people for whom the 'original' state was not great.
Crime rates! US violent crime rates are substantially lower than they were in the 1980s and 90s. Life expectancy is higher globally than at any point in human history. Extreme poverty globally has halved since 1990. Child mortality globally is at an all-time low. If someone can be nostalgic for 'simpler times' while ignoring all of that, the issue is never actually data.
all those global stats are real and still somehow don't help when you're 34, your rent just went up 30%, your savings are nothing, your job could be automated in five years, and every time you open the news something else is on fire literally or figuratively. macro statistics are great. they don't pay my electric bill.
I'm a sociologist, and I'll say something that will annoy people on every side: nostalgia research consistently shows that the act of nostalgizing actually increases present-day wellbeing and social connectedness in the short term. It's not purely dysfunctional. The problem isn't feeling nostalgic. The problem is when nostalgia gets converted into a political programme for reversing rights. Those are genuinely different phenomena and we keep mashing them together.
the 'displaced grief' thing the therapist said, plus the 'mourning a version of yourself who still believed things would work out' thing, PLUS the developmental psychology point about less responsibility — these are three separate people arriving at basically the same insight from different directions. that's not nothing.
My grandmother romanticizes a decade I know from history was brutal for someone like her. The nostalgia is real, the memory is fiction, and both can live in one person.
Here's my challenge to everyone in this thread: name one thing, just one, that is objectively, measurably worse now than it was 50 years ago. Not 'felt worse.' Measurably. I'll wait.
Soil nutrient density in commercial crops. Antibiotic resistance. Microplastics in human tissue. Insect biomass decline. I have several more if you need them.
Every generation thinks the world peaked right when they were 12. It's not wisdom, it's just the age your brain decided 'normal' looked like. The past wasn't simpler, you were.
Selective memory is literally a survival mechanism. Your brain buries the boring and traumatic to help you function. So yes, nostalgia is selective, but that doesn't make it pathological or dishonest. It's just… how memory works for everyone.
With respect, framing nostalgia as purely a neurological glitch kind of dodges the question. The point isn't whether the memory is accurate — it's whether the VALUES being remembered point to something real we've lost. You can acknowledge the brain's bias and still interrogate what's underneath it.
both things can be true simultaneously and i feel like no one in this comment section is willing to admit that
The past wasn't better. The past wasn't worse. The past was different and humans are pattern-seeking creatures who attach emotion to memory. That's it. Full stop. There's no deeper wisdom here.
I respectfully but firmly disagree with the commenter above. Saying 'it was just different' flattens everything. Child mortality rates in 1900 weren't 'just different.' Women not being able to own property wasn't 'just different.' Some things are objectively worse and better, and intellectual cowardice pretends otherwise.
selective memory isn't a bug it's a feature. your brain literally prunes painful memories and sharpens pleasant ones during sleep consolidation. you are neurologically incapable of remembering the past accurately. nostalgia isn't wisdom OR deception, it's just what a human brain does with time. be mad at evolution
both things can be true simultaneously: the past had real advantages AND your memory is selectively curating them. this isn't that complicated, people.
The problem with 'both things can be true' is that it's intellectually correct but practically useless. In actual political life, people pick a side. 'Yes the past had good things AND bad things' doesn't win an election or build a movement. I wish the world rewarded nuance. It doesn't.
strong disagree with the guy saying nuance doesn't win elections. that's how you end up with everyone racing to the most extreme possible version of their position because nuance 'doesn't work.' nuance works fine. people are just lazy and scared.
attention spans. genuinely, measurably shorter. average sustained focus before distraction was around 12 seconds in 2000, around 8 now. some of that is methodology but the trend is real and it's not trivial. that's not my nostalgia talking, that's neuroscience.
Mock it all you want, but people knew their neighbors, kids played outside, and you weren't performing your life for strangers 24/7. Some things genuinely WERE better and pretending otherwise is its own denial.
Is it wrong to choose not to have children just because you don't want to?
110 comments
Netflix's 'Adolescence' shows a teenage boy becoming a killer — did the show actually get modern boyhood right, or did it miss the point entirely?
109 comments
Would you still eat meat if you had to kill the animal yourself?
109 comments
Is judging someone by their height as shallow as judging by their weight?
108 comments