1915 to 1965 vs 1965 to 2015

[RFayette]

How shocked would your 1915-er be at the fact that we developed weapons that could destroy an entire planet several times over?

Yeah, definitely 1915-1965.  Two world wars, the Civil Rights unrest, counterculture, etc. etc. etc.  I don't think the change from 1965 to 2015 was as radical from a cultural perspective, especially if we make it 1975-2015 (after the terrible decision Roe v. Wade occurred and the awful countercultural ideas/sexual revolution became mainstream).  The Internet is indeed revolutionary, but the overall technological changes aren't that massive outside the information industry.

[RFayette]

There's also public health and medical advances to consider.  1915-1965 had antibiotics, safe surgery, effective treatment for heart disease, and death in childbirth going from a fact of life almost to almost unheard of in the developed world.  For 1965-2015 or any future period to compete with that, we would need to see the last death from cancer in the developed world.  It would be a much closer contest on social issues if it were 1905-1955 vs. 1955-2005. 

I'm not so sure about this  The 1950's were so intensely socially conservative in so many respects.  And while Americans hadn't gotten much more socially liberal from 1975-2005, the 1960's were so revolutionary (fornication became normalized, leading intellectuals proclaimed the "death of God," out of wedlock births skyrocketed, etc.) that I think 1955-2005 was by far greater with respect to social change.  Granted, fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians still had sizable control over many prestigious universities in 1905, which was lost by 1955, the majority of Americans got far less of their cues from academia than today, so I think on balance, 1955-2005 was way greater with respect to the magnitude of social changes.

[RFayette]

I'm not so sure about this  The 1950's were so intensely socially conservative in so many respects.

I think you are confusing the actual 1950s - a time of rapid social change and cultural vibrancy across the industrialised world West and East - with the strange fantasy 1950s that often pervades American political discourse.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nietzsche had himself been dead for half a century by that point, dear.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Academia wishes it was that influential. Actually academia wishes it was about 5% as influential...

1. It is true that there were many rapid changes in the 1950's, but at the time, church attendance was at record highs, a majority of people thought religion's influence in public life was increasing, the average age of marriage was dropping, etc. etc. etc.

2. My point was referring to Newsweek's article in 1966 about "The Death of God."  It is true that intellectuals had always been far more secular than the public at large, but thankfully they tended not to voice their opinions too loudly outside of hyper-cosmopolitan realms or to fellow academics.  Articles like "The Death of God" being published in a mainstream publication like Newsweek, which would have been unthinkable a few decades ago, showed just how revolutionary the decade was. 

3. Academia has a far bigger influence on the culture today than it did then.  There are far more "public intellectuals" like Niel Degrasse Tyson who want to strip people's faith and lead them away from the truth of God's word.  Combined with the Internet, which seems to over-reprsent academics, there's definitely a bigger influence than it had in the 1950's.

[RFayette]

the latter.

"oh by the way, future people, who is president now?"

I don't think this would be too shocking to young LBJ voters.  I often wonder when we would have seen the first black president if Reconstruction had stuck the first time.  e.g., did Radical Republicans anticipate a black president circa 1910?

Considering how racist many intellectuals were at the time, it seems pretty unlikely to me.