Time Traveler from 1965

[skepticalbip]

Great numbers of people walk the busy streets of the city staring down into their telephone screens?
People send text messages on their mobile telephones while driving their cars...isn't that risky?

The Star Trek series first aired in 1966 and the "communicator" was a was a "WOW Gee whiz" device at that time - a year after our time traveler left. So it is doubtful that anyone from 1965 would identify the cellphone as a "telephone" but rather as an amazing communications device. A telephone would be, for them, that handset connected to a base station with a rotary dial all connected to a wall outlet. Cellphones would likely be more identified with the military walkie-talkies of the time which were bulky, short range, and only good for contacting a very few stations.

 

[crazyfingers]

I think I'll start calling my smartphone a "Communicator". It does fit better. Not just voice calls but also video calls to anywhere in the world with Skype, but text and email. All the information I need from pretty much anywhere.

 

[rjh01]

The way people treat each other has changed. A lot. I doubt that they would understand the controversy about child sex abuse. Or that it is no longer standard practice to use corporal punishment on children like in schools. Or the concept of rape in marriage. Or that it is a lot easier to get a divorce.

1965 wasn't THAT long ago. I'm pretty sure that people back then knew things like child sex abuse and rape inside of a marriage existed and were bad things.

Rape inside of marriage was still legal. There are still cases coming up where child sex abuse happened in the 1960s and later and only now are being prosecuted.

And I'm 100% certain that people in 1965 had more than enough information to not be surprised by corporal punishment in schools no longer being standard practice. After all, corporal punishment in schools had already been illegal in some countries for over 40 years by 1965; and almost 200 years in Poland (Poland: 1783, New Jersey: 1867, Russia: 1917, Netherlands: 1920, Italy: 1928, Norway: 1936).

Here is an article when it was banned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_corporal_punishment.

In many places it was banned in the 1980s or later. In some parts of the USA it is still used.

 

[dystopian]

Rape inside of marriage was still legal. There are still cases coming up where child sex abuse happened in the 1960s and later and only now are being prosecuted.

My argument was that people knew it existed back then and that it was generally a bad thing; not that it was illegal and consistently prosecuted. Just because a thing was legal doesn't mean it was endorsed. Similarly, just because there are cases of child abuse from the 60's only prosecuted now (this isn't actually possible in the majority of jurisdictions due to statutes of limitations) doesn't mean that people from the 60's didn't know child abuse was a thing that happened from time to time and that it was a bad thing.

Here is an article when it was banned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_corporal_punishment.

In many places it was banned in the 1980s or later. In some parts of the USA it is still used.

Where do you think I got my information from? My point was that someone from 1965 (whether they were American, Dutch, Australian, or whatever) would come from a world where corporal punishment in school had already been illegal in many countries for a significant length of time and that as time passed more and more countries banned it. Therefore, there's good reason to think that they wouldn't necessarily be particularly surprised by the current legal status of it across the world.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Tell that to Hiroshimans.

Doesn't count; only one side used nukes

Then say 'we haven't had a nuclear exchange.'
But we HAVE had a war in which nuclear weapons were used on an enemy, thus, a nuclear war.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Ooooh. Wait'll he tries to go back and explain Michael Jackson to everyone. Esp. that he died richer than Elvis.

 

[bilby]

Doesn't count; only one side used nukes

Then say 'we haven't had a nuclear exchange.'
But we HAVE had a war in which nuclear weapons were used on an enemy, thus, a nuclear war.

I dunno. The experimental use of a tiny number of a new weapon by one side isn't enough to characterise a war in my book.

We don't talk of WWI as 'a tank war', or 'an air war' - insofar as people talk about a specific weapons technology, it is known as an 'artillery war', as that was the main weapons system used on both sides.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Then say 'we haven't had a nuclear exchange.'
But we HAVE had a war in which nuclear weapons were used on an enemy, thus, a nuclear war.

I dunno. The experimental use of a tiny number of a new weapon by one side isn't enough to characterise a war in my book.

We don't talk of WWI as 'a tank war', or 'an air war' - insofar as people talk about a specific weapons technology, it is known as an 'artillery war', as that was the main weapons system used on both sides.

Well, then you should define 'nuclear war' before saying we haven't had a nuclear war.
What i found was:

Nuclear warfare is a military conflict in which nuclear weaponry is used to inflict damage on the enemy.

I notice that the definition i googled doesn't require nuclear weapons to be the only, the main or even a common weapon used during the conflict.
It also isn't qualified by whether or not both sides were surprised by the success of the attack.
And frankly, one of our hopes today is that our first strike would be swift, extensive and comprehensive enough to prevent a counterstrike by the enemy because either all their assets or their command centers would be smoking, radioactive craters, thus preventing anyone shooting nukes back. So an ideally executed, perfect nuclear war would be where only one side managed to launch. It's not terribly likely, but that's one of the goals the planners strive for. So i guess by your standard, it still wouldn't qualify?

 

[bilby]

I dunno. The experimental use of a tiny number of a new weapon by one side isn't enough to characterise a war in my book.

We don't talk of WWI as 'a tank war', or 'an air war' - insofar as people talk about a specific weapons technology, it is known as an 'artillery war', as that was the main weapons system used on both sides.

Well, then you should define 'nuclear war' before saying we haven't had a nuclear war.
What i found was:

Nuclear warfare is a military conflict in which nuclear weaponry is used to inflict damage on the enemy.

I notice that the definition i googled doesn't require nuclear weapons to be the only, the main or even a common weapon used during the conflict.
It also isn't qualified by whether or not both sides were surprised by the success of the attack.
And frankly, one of our hopes today is that our first strike would be swift, extensive and comprehensive enough to prevent a counterstrike by the enemy because either all their assets or their command centers would be smoking, radioactive craters, thus preventing anyone shooting nukes back. So an ideally executed, perfect nuclear war would be where only one side managed to launch. It's not terribly likely, but that's one of the goals the planners strive for. So i guess by your standard, it still wouldn't qualify?

Would this first strike entail the experimental use of a tiny number of nukes?

Because if so, there seems to me to be a very limited chance of achieving the stated objective. Still, I am sure those guys in the Pentagon know their jobs - perhaps the Russkies only have one or two command bunkers, and the first strike can complete its objectives with two re-entry vehicles in total.

I think someone in 1965 - Just a couple of years after the Cuban Missile Crisis - would think 'apocalyptic exchange of hundreds or thousands of nuclear weapons' when he hears the phrase 'nuclear war'. It seems unlikely that he would first reach for a dictionary; and it certainly wouldn't occur to him to consult Wikipedia or Google.

 

[DBT]

The Star Trek series first aired in 1966 and the "communicator" was a was a "WOW Gee whiz" device at that time - a year after our time traveler left. So it is doubtful that anyone from 1965 would identify the cellphone as a "telephone" but rather as an amazing communications device. A telephone would be, for them, that handset connected to a base station with a rotary dial all connected to a wall outlet. Cellphones would likely be more identified with the military walkie-talkies of the time which were bulky, short range, and only good for contacting a very few stations.

Perhaps, but Dick Tracy was depicted talking into his 2 way wrist radio back in 1952, so a time traveller from '65 may assume something similar, a two way radio, upon seeing mobile phones for the first time.

 

[Duke Leto]

I think someone in 1965 - Just a couple of years after the Cuban Missile Crisis - would think 'apocalyptic exchange of hundreds or thousands of nuclear weapons' when he hears the phrase 'nuclear war'. It seems unlikely that he would first reach for a dictionary; and it certainly wouldn't occur to him to consult Wikipedia or Google.

And I was saying that if that random person from 1965 happened to be Japanese, it's pretty likely they'd say "We haven't had a Nuclear War my ass!".

It's not as though Anime hasn't got a disproportionate number of animation's "Cities engulfed in a giant ball of flame." I don't think they have a cultural chip on their shoulder or anything.

But I'm not sure this is the right forum for arguing incessantly over semantics...

 

[DBT]

We are not permitted to smoke in restaurants, buses, trains, planes, shops, or even pubs??!!

 

[EricK]

Things are so much better, but everybody still complains.

 

[Canard DuJour]

- No space elevator, moon base or extraterrestrial colonisation. Space age all but ended by early 70s after a few moonshots.

- No flying cars. Cars not much different - smaller with cleaner gasoline, but still gasoline.

- No leisure society. Same or longer workweek, later retirement, most moms must work. Inequality and worker rights back to pre-Depression levels.

- West won the cold war. Soviet bloc folded internally by early 90s. No nuclear exchange.

- Ronald Reagan (the ham actor) US president for 2 terms during 80s!! Seriously.

- Popular culture not much different. Similar music, movies, soaps, tabloids, fashions endlessly recycled with minor variations.

- Smoking banned in public places including bars! Widespread diet and fitness obsession, widespread obesity and unfitness.

- Affordable, portable digital computing and communications. Telegraphy making a comeback over telephone. People in the same room communicate by digital telegraph.

- Cosmic expansion found to be accelerating! Grand Unified Theory no closer.



Precis: Technologically disappointing social dystopia with oddly submissive populus.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Would this first strike entail the experimental use of a tiny number of nukes?

Any number of nukes greater than 'zero' that strike enemy territory qualifies as a nuclear war.


And as for itty bitty quantities, if we throw our entire inventory of warheads at the enemy, it'd be very like World War II.

 

[Perspicuo]

Germany is united again and not struggling to conquer the world.

The Soviet Union is divided and struggling to conquer the world.

The quasi-dictatorial ruler of Russia has a name that ends with '-in'. We didn't see that one coming!

 

[lpetrich]

My list:

• Payphones being rare.
• Lack of worry about nuclear war with the end of the Cold War.
• Islamists being the new great international enemy.
• The European Economic Community becoming the European Union, and much bigger.
• Israel and the Arab nations having made a little bit of peace with each other.
• At long long last, people moving to decriminalize and legalize marijuana.
• Queen Elizabeth II still alive.
• Women wearing pants being very common in much of the world.
• Women getting into a lot of professions, but still having a long way to go.
• Human space travel limited to futzing around in low Earth orbit after going to the Moon.
• Automated spacecraft traveling all over the Solar System, to all the planets and also to some asteroids and comets. Including rovers that have wandered around on Mars.
• Mars's canals totally absent from spacecraft pictures of that planet.
• Pluto officially demoted from planethood.
• Sequencing of the human genome, our genetic instructions.
• Brain scanning.
• Solar panels starting to appear on some houses' roofs.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Movie actors strip -- all the way!!!

 

[Duke Leto]

My list:

• Queen Elizabeth II still alive.

Why would anyone find that highly surprising? 88 was well within the range of normal lifespans among the wealthy in 1965 and Victoria made it all the way to 82. You can count the total number of other post-1900 European Queens Regnant on one hand (Wilhelmina (died at 82), Juliana (died at 94), Beatrix (77 and alive), Margaret II of Denmark (74 and alive)) and they've all proven VERY durable. Look at Elizabeth's last three female ancestors, her mother Elizabeth the Queen Mother died at 101, her paternal grandmother Mary of Teck died at 95, and her maternal grandmother Cecilia Bowes-Lyon died at age 76.

You wouldn't have gotten better than even odds on Lizzy making 88 in 1965 from an actuary, but it would certainly not have been rated worse than 1 in 5 or 1 in 4, maybe as high as 1 in 3.

If Lizzy is still on the throne in 2025 and we do a repeat of this list for folks in 1975, a 98 year old Queen will be genuinely surprising. 2035 and 1985 and it'll be downright frightening.

 

[Duke Leto]

In reference to the above if we change the time traveler's point of origin to 1975:

1. Hold on here, there are economists who are concerned that inflation is too low?
2. And Middle Eastern nations producing too much cheap oil is aggravating the problem?
3. The Rolling Stones are still touring???