If I were born 80 years ago, it would be a horrific cube of total isolation

>If I were born 80 years ago, it would be a horrific cube of total isolation
>No video games, no online socialization, no VR games, just pure hell

I realistically would have shot people by now.

Attached: 164595088844.png (244x311, 99.28K)

>>No video games, no online socialization, no VR games, just pure hell
>I would want things that didn't exist yet
No, you'd instead read books and engage in outdoors activities if you didn't just die during childbirth on account of being such a weak bitch. No one in the 1900's was tearing their hair out because they couldn't play VR games you faggot.

I've read books before as a child. It's hell and why I don't commit suicide. I've already run out of good books to read for the rest of my life, and I only read the ones in my public school.

There's nothing to do outside.

>in 80 years people will wonder how the fuck we lived without their technology
time marches on

The thing is, I have a powerful feeling they will drop bombs/start a serious war within the next 80 years.

I think this is as good as it gets for the most part.

The year 1940 was just pure misery for incels/autistics which is why they had more serial murderers/homosexuals running around.

You think like that because you've heard about and engaged in these better entertainment options, had you never experienced them you'd be perfectly comfortable with the other, now less appealing, options.
>There's nothing to do outside.
Kill yourself, bugman.

No.
I would know better.
When I was a child and playing Sega Genesis, I knew there were better, more graphically intense consoles out there.

I would be able to imagine the computers while everyone else is reading comic books, and it would hurt me to see how much fun I could be having that I am not.

Oh, you're just schizophrenic. There's a massive difference in thinking about a superior version of something you're already familiar with and conceptualizing an entirely new thing. And even if what you say were true, you'd just spend your time trying to make all the fascinating things you cooked up in your head a reality and that's how you'd fill your time.

No.
It's hell to make something like the Oculus Quest or a PS3 by yourself. Most of it is made by Orientals for this reason or totally neurotypical 250 IQ white people with no interest in video games.

If you pay attention, violent crime has been going down for decades. That's because people have access to video games, electricity, and movies that they didn't have in the year 1920. All they have when they have nothing is violence.

>I think this is as good as it gets for the most part.
my feeling is that in the case of a SHTF happening, the winners of that conflict or crisis will come out living far better lives than us.
unfortunately it feels we were born too early to do little more than lay the foundations of that world or watch someone else do it

>It's hell to not have it
>It's hell to make it a reality
Honestly I wish we were living back then so you would take you're own life, you are peak consoomer and the reason we're all going to die.

I don't think so.
I think they're going to lose everything they made and have to remake all of it, and then they're going to go through violence again. Violence can set people back 60 years in human development/thinking.

I think if they didn't have WW2 we would have had Oculus Quest 2 50 years ago.

Yeah. Too bad it's never going to happen and Nintendo just keeps rocking them out.

>I think if they didn't have WW2 we would have had Oculus Quest 2 50 years ago.
maybe not 50. if we assume 1930-1950 was all just a complete dark age where no computing technology was developed at all, it still took a long time in peacetime to develop computers. mind you, the internet is literally a military project

It only took a long time in peace time because a lot of people died, and their kids would have been computer programmers, and they died too with their Dad and his genetic code.

It would have rocked a lot faster than it did if there were no warfare.

without WW2 there would be less american dominance. that's what i mean by the winners. the US came out stronger than before. the rest of the world was 30 years behind

That would actually be a very good thing.
America is a hell-hole and shouldn't be controlling racially pure parts of the earth at all.

I don't see America as more developed than it was for participating in WW2 at all though, and I don't think it was necessary to kill 75 million Europeans either who were all capable of developing Oculus Quest 2 and electronic technology.

I really think, if WW2 never broke out, everything good in life would have been sped-up by at least 30 to 40 years. There would be better cameras, better consoles, more video games, etc.

This would mean a more expansive game/movie collection for everyone as well.

I'm looking at Ukraine developing Metro 2033, and I can see the rest of Europe doing similar activity including the UK and Germany.

They didn't just lose civilians they lost a lot of natural resources on warfare as well, so life in general became harder post WW2 for most countries for up to 30 years.

>this is what hypersocialized nuAge cattle believes
lol
lmao

A lot slower at the same time since there would have been nowhere near the funding for the initial milestones.

The kicker is that this wasn't even due to the warfare itself, but rather how the spoils were handled in the end.

I think I doubt that heavily.
There's a lot of government interest in being ahead of the rest of the world.

I really see WW2 as a very bad thing for the human species.

Realistically yes.

>There's a lot of government interest in being ahead of the rest of the world.
In wartime, there is effectively no incentive to limit spendings. In peacetime, spending is watched very carefully at all times. This is exploited by companies in every war and is the prime reason the business world loves war, regardless of what business they're in and what side they're on. Some part of it is because of campaign success: you will probably not be reelected if you spent over 9000 millions on space programs when the people are asking why their seniors are starving in the streets. However that doesn't apply in war: the people understand that you need that spending to bomb the gooks back to the stone ages, and are too distracted to actually scrutinize where the money is going anyway.
It's the same reason nobody cares that inflation is 20% annualized during war, but if it's 5% in peace time, it's reason to panic.

It doesn't really matter how much you spend. There's still a limitation on it.

You can't force something to happen you have to have someone willing to build it.

With or without warfare, they would be building what they are thinking.