In the movie, Poindexter asks at a party, "Wait, would you rather live in the ascendancy of a civilization or its decline?"
I have always wondered:
a) why would the answer ever be "decline?" Is the implication that a civilization in its decline is still more technologically/socially/etc. advanced than during its ascendancy, or are there other considerations going on here?
b) is this an actual question that college students/historians/academicians actually ask, or only while high?
It's a strange source for the question, but am genuinely curious about the answers (such as they may be).
Well we are currently studying this now in my History unit in university titled "The decline of the British Empire".
So to give very broad generalizations i would say that living in the decline of the Empire is actually better than living during it's ascendancy.
Putting it simple compared to 1900, Britain today has; higher wages (taking into account inflation etc), higher standards of living, higher life expectancies, more job advancement opportunities, more opportunities to travel etc etc. It can be said that today, right now, as a British Citizen it is better to be alive during the decline as opposed to an average citizen in the 1900s during Britain's apex.
That said many people are very vocally against the decline of the British Empire and its steps to "ease into it" and "exit gracefully". If you were to head into any discussion of the recent London Olympics opening ceremony (in no way do i suggest you do) it is filled with racism, anger, hatred and general filth by people who consider Britain to be failing and want a reversion to the good ol' days.
This might be where the question is coming from since those looking back with rose-tinted goggles will consider the past to be better even if it was objectively worse (culture and whatnot dont apply) which prompts "wasn't it better back then" comments.
I think it is a good question. Live poorly now with a good future, or live well now with a poor future? I'm also curious whether it was a philosophical question in college, because it sounds like one.
It may also reveal a persons attitude. Are you more comfortable with an unknown (but likely positive) future, something out of your control(liberal)? Or, do you think more short term, conservative, in which if you have a good situation, you can hang on to it, things won't change. All the other people will suffer if things get bad.
It is probably a good psych test. Do you feel you can control things or not. Is the world bad to you? (Ascendancy would not necessarily be good for everyone). Are you comfortable with ideas, or only with facts in front of you?
It's a great question to torment students with.