1912 vs. 2012 [Pic]


----------------

[Source: Glorious Mind]







17 Responses to 1912 vs. 2012 [Pic]

  1. Funny thing is that in some places people don't even have access to the 1912 technologies hahaha, what a bunch of retards!

  2. I think you missed a few things
    1912: Britannica Encyclopedia
    2012: Wikipedia

    1912: Huge Camera with burning light bulbs
    2012: Your phone

    1912: Charted Map with a navigator
    2012: GPS

      • Yes, it does. But screwing up wasn't nearly as bad by then. They weren't on fossil energies yet. Just starting. Non continent-size floating garbage in the pacific ocean. No Nuclear wastes burried under our feet. And then, WWI, and then… then it all went so fast!

        • Actually, nuclear power plants pollutes less than coal power plants. While many argue, why not go with wind or solar? An engineering concern is that, wind and solar are not that constant (except in a few area). Non-constant power source means, batteries have to be used and the current technology (wind/solar power) can't sustain a nation like US.
          Nuclear waste are buried. Mind you, the "waste" from nuclear power plants do occur naturally. While these waste product have high half-life, these things are the next best thing for us.

        • Let's not forget that pollution caused by mining the uranium needed to run those plants. That's something most people seem to forget. Not saying nuclear power isn't the best thing we have right now, but there's a downside to every source of energy, be it that it's not constantly available or that the potential risks may be catastrophic and (very) long-term.

    • Dear Emilie
      GMO is not bad (while the Monsanto's practice and ethic are questionable as much as Apple's practice and ethic are questionable)
      Without GMO, food price would have been so much higher

      and yeah, we are screwed with global warming

  3. The Su-27 air superiority fighter first entered service in 1984. The T-90 main battle tank has been produced since 1995 and was first used in operations in 1999. The ISS is currently in year 14 of its 18 year mission. While these may be vast improvements from 1912, it is hard to ignore the stagnation in development that has been the matter of course over the last 20 years.

  4. I think I’m going to have to give 1912 the win on fashion. What we wear today is less onerous, but they had more style.

    To those making comments about pollution, the pollution in cities in 1912 was NASTY. Lethal smogs that were literally green. Part of the reason we have a problem with global warming is that we’re not putting as much crap (particles) in the air as we used to. London had lethal smogs even in the late 18th century, and they were cranking out CO2 like nobody’s business. In 1952 there was a great smog that killed thousands of people, and prompted the creation of then environmental movements.

    Also, no centralized public trash service + horses + bad sewage. As I said, cities in 1912 were NASTY.

  5. I for one hope to see a return in 1912 fashion, for us men at least. I'd love to go about my day with a suit, bow tie, top hat, and cane if good ones where easier to find.

  6. Technology has to start from someplace. I am sure 100 years from now that people will look at our technology, the same way we view technology from 1912.

  7. It's not about what was invented in those years, it's about what was in use in those years. People commenting about the jet, tank and ISS to nitpick, in a clear effort to try to look knowledgeable just look foolish.

    And the "fashion" back then is only appropriate in the most formal of circumstances, not every day. We are still too uptight and prudish about fashion.

    Overall, one has to say, not much has changed. Everything now would be recognizable to those then, and in very many ways they'd be left asking "is that it?" We might just be stagnating for a reason – there might not be anyplace left to go (just fighting tooth and nail for any tiny incremental improvement).