life then vs now essay

Life Is Better Today than in the Past Essay

Introduction, how life in modern times different from that of the past, society then and now.

Although most individuals may argue that the world is at the verge of destruction, because of the increased civil wars, environmental problems such as global warming, and the ever-increasing gap between the rich and the poor, the quality of life in the contemporary society is far much better than it was fifty years ago.

It is very hard to imagine how life was fifty years ago when most products of technology were not present. As compared to historical communities, present societies are more developed, democratic, diverse, and all-inclusive. In addition, people’s health has improved; individuals can interact freely; the transportation system is better, and communication is easy and fast.

Therefore, although every innovation and development cannot lack some form of negative effects, the world is a better place than it was fifty years ago; hence, the need for every individual to appreciate and always struggle to make the world a better place for both present and future generations.

One primary fact that every individual should attest to is that, as compared to fifty ago, nowadays the quality of healthcare is better and more responsive to the ever-changing health condition of the world.

Unlike in the past when diseases such as small pox, measles, pneumonia, and even HIV and AIDS were a threat to the human existence, presently, majority f these diseases can be cured, and for those that cannot be cured there are numerous control measures or vaccines to control their spreading.

This like scenario has been made possible by the increasing research endeavours in the medicine world aimed at making the world a healthy place. As a result of the improved health condition, nowadays individuals can afford to live long and productive life spans with little fears of the likelihoods of a disease arising that will lack a cure.

Although some individuals may argue that some diseases are incurable; hence, to some extent the world is stagnant somewhere in terms of health, it will be so illogical to compare the health status of the world fifty years with the present situation, where even life supporting machines exist.

In addition to an improved quality of health, because of the numerous products of technology such as the computer, numerous aspects of life have improved greatly.

With the internet nowadays individuals can send or receive information from any part of the world within short time spans. Moreover, with numerous products of technology such as the television, presently individuals are always updated with any occurrences and information from any part of the world.

This cannot be compared to fifty years ago when the few radio and cable television sets that were available could only transmit their news within short distances. On the other hand, in the present world there exist numerous modern conveniences that have made life easy.

For example, with the presence of microwaves, fridges, gas burners, washing machines, printers, fax machines, video decoders, and many other office and home electronic gadgets, individuals can perform all the office and home chores easily, faster, and more efficiently.

Another aspect of life that is far much better than it was some fifty years ago is the quality of education. With the internet and other forms of “sophisticated” modes of learning for example, distance education, e-learning, and virtual classrooms, nowadays individuals are able to learn from any geographical positions.

In addition, nowadays societies appreciate the importance of education to the wellbeing of the society, because of the numerous research endeavours aimed at improving the quality of life that are included in most present scientific studies.

As compared to some fifty years ago, the literacy level in most present societies is very high, as most present governments offer free basic education to its citizenry. As a result of this, the level of self-conscious and self-esteem is better in present societies, because more individuals are able to provide for their families using the practical concepts learnt in both formal and informal educational settings.

On the other hand, life in present societies is better, because of the increased respect of every individual’s fundamental civil rights. Most present day governments are democratic and respect the right of its citizenry, something that was rare in most past societies, because of the nature of power that was enjoyed by the ruling class.

Closely related with increased respect of civil rights, is the ever reducing racism and segregation on racial, social class or background basis. Nowadays societies have learnt to appreciate and live in harmony with one another; hence, the nature of peace that is enjoyed by the world and the freedom of movement from a society or country to another.

In conclusion, considering the present condition of the world economically, technologically, socially, and politically, the world of today is a better place to live in as compared to fifty years ago.

This is because modern conveniences and technological innovations have revolutionized how human do everything is done, without which life could be very hard to live. Although people were comfortable with their lifestyles fifty years ago, possibly it is because they had no knowhow any of the modern developments could have made their work better.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, October 29). Life Is Better Today than in the Past Essay. https://ivypanda.com/essays/life-today-is-better-than-fifty-years-ago/

"Life Is Better Today than in the Past Essay." IvyPanda , 29 Oct. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/life-today-is-better-than-fifty-years-ago/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Life Is Better Today than in the Past Essay'. 29 October.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Life Is Better Today than in the Past Essay." October 29, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/life-today-is-better-than-fifty-years-ago/.

1. IvyPanda . "Life Is Better Today than in the Past Essay." October 29, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/life-today-is-better-than-fifty-years-ago/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Life Is Better Today than in the Past Essay." October 29, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/life-today-is-better-than-fifty-years-ago/.

• Is Alex in Burgess' "A Clockwork Orange" Cured?
• Baby With HIV Is Deemed Cured
• Organisational Development and Change
• BJ’s: Profiting in Recessionary Times
• Democratic Rule and Educated Citizenry
• Dubai Tourism Promotion and Commerce Marketing
• Essential Foundations of the Public Relations
• Google Inc's Corporate Strategy
• The Blindness That Can Be Cured: Some Cultural Aspects of Manager’s Responsibilities
• Containing Iranian Nuclear Aspirations
• Social Theories of Crime in Explaining Gang Violence
• How Does Culture Affect the Self Identity Personal Essay
• Subculture Theories: Response to the Dominant Culture
• Negative Impact of Internet on Society Essay
• Multi-Occupancy Buildings: Community Safety

Lifestyle – Then and Now

Lifestyle is the way a person lives. The human body and mind have adequately adapted to their changing lifestyle. Many factors have affected the lifestyle of a person - technology, health, environment, culture, society, etc. One of the biggest changes that affected mankind has been the discovery of fire and the wheel. Many years and discoveries later, it was the invention of electricity. Due to electricity, technology developed. Technology has changed all the fields such as - warfare, agriculture, transportation - air, sea and land travel, , manufacturing, medicine, communication, information, etc.

With the advancement of the human race, many new inventions and discoveries were added to the ever growing list. But along with the advantages, it brought some disadvantages as well. Earlier people had more interaction with each other. There was no TV or computer to distract them. They were able to spend time with each other and they were more relaxed. The TV and the computer have become a kind of addiction for most of the people now and they find it hard to stop using it. Now most of the time both the parents would be working long hours and there is no time for them to be with their family.

They are stressed out most of the time and are too tired to talk even when they get some free time. In earlier days not many people had a car. There might be one car in the whole neighbourhood. It was something that only the rich could afford. Most people used the public transport or walked if they wanted to go somewhere. Walking was a part of life and not considered to be a great task. Many people lived as joint families in large houses with many children, aunts, uncles, and other relatives.

Order custom essay Lifestyle – Then and Now with free plagiarism report

There was always someone to talk to, someone to share the household chores with, etc. With the advancement of technology, nuclear families have emerged. It has brought with it more independence for the individual but more loneliness as well. All in all, lifestyle has changed significantly from the days of the early caveman to the present day technology savvy man. There have been both positive and negative changes that have happened. In the years ahead, many more changes will still take place. The human race will continue to adapt and evolve to embrace these changes.

Related Questions

on Lifestyle – Then and Now

Cite this Page

Lifestyle – Then and Now. (2017, Jan 19). Retrieved from https://phdessay.com/lifestyle-then-and-now/

Run a free check or have your essay done for you

More related essays

I am a thirty three year old teen mother. Sixteen years ago, at the age of 17, I became pregnant with a child that would eventually dictate, run, and be.

In the story That Was Then, This is Now, the main character was a 16 year old boy named Bryon. Being 16 and living in the 50’s would obviously give.

Why is it that we have so many foreign-born children continuing to speak only their native language and not a scent of English? How successful has bilingual education been? They.

Vera Calculator Loved a man named Hugo Hog's nephew was the boy she watched Since the boy was a boy, Hugo lost all the inheritance money and therefore could not marry.

In Jamaica Kincaid’s short story, “On Seeing England for the First Time,” reality and idea are distinguished. More often than not, the idea of something is and it’s reality are.

And Then God Created Teachers “If a doctor makes a mistake a life is in danger, if an engineer makes a mistake a bridge/building is in danger but if a.

Katherine Quimbayo Set 6 September 16, 2010 Characterization in And Than There Were None Agatha Christie uses characterization to show the evil side of human nature, in her mystery novel.

In Breathless the story is told through random events and references. It could be described as a story about nothing, with no beginning and no end, " I want to.

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy

Save time and let our verified experts help you.

Greater Good Science Center • Magazine • In Action • In Education

Parenting & Family Articles & More

How teens today are different from past generations, a psychologist mines big data on teens and finds many ways this generation—the “igens"—is different from boomers, gen xers, and millennials..

Every generation of teens is shaped by the social, political, and economic events of the day. Today’s teenagers are no different—and they’re the first generation whose lives are saturated by mobile technology and social media.

In her new book, psychologist Jean Twenge uses large-scale surveys to draw a detailed portrait of ten qualities that make today’s teens unique and the cultural forces shaping them. Her findings are by turn alarming, informative, surprising, and insightful, making the book— iGen:Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids Are Growing Up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy—and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood—and What That Means for the Rest of Us —an important read for anyone interested in teens’ lives.

Who are the iGens?

Twenge names the generation born between 1995 and 2012 “iGens” for their ubiquitous use of the iPhone, their valuing of individualism, their economic context of income inequality, their inclusiveness, and more.

She identifies their unique qualities by analyzing four nationally representative surveys of 11 million teens since the 1960s. Those surveys, which have asked the same questions (and some new ones) of teens year after year, allow comparisons among Boomers, Gen Xers, Millennials, and iGens at exactly the same ages. In addition to identifying cross-generational trends in these surveys, Twenge tests her inferences against her own follow-up surveys, interviews with teens, and findings from smaller experimental studies. Here are just a few of her conclusions.

iGens have poorer emotional health thanks to new media. Twenge finds that new media is making teens more lonely, anxious, and depressed, and is undermining their social skills and even their sleep.

iGens “grew up with cell phones, had an Instagram page before they started high school, and do not remember a time before the Internet,” writes Twenge. They spend five to six hours a day texting, chatting, gaming, web surfing, streaming and sharing videos, and hanging out online. While other observers have equivocated about the impact, Twenge is clear: More than two hours a day raises the risk for serious mental health problems.

She draws these conclusions by showing how the national rise in teen mental health problems mirrors the market penetration of iPhones—both take an upswing around 2012. This is correlational data, but competing explanations like rising academic pressure or the Great Recession don’t seem to explain teens’ mental health issues. And experimental studies suggest that when teens give up Facebook for a period or spend time in nature without their phones, for example, they become happier.

The mental health consequences are especially acute for younger teens, she writes. This makes sense developmentally, since the onset of puberty triggers a cascade of changes in the brain that make teens more emotional and more sensitive to their social world.

Social media use, Twenge explains, means teens are spending less time with their friends in person. At the same time, online content creates unrealistic expectations (about happiness, body image, and more) and more opportunities for feeling left out—which scientists now know has similar effects as physical pain . Girls may be especially vulnerable, since they use social media more, report feeling left out more often than boys, and report twice the rate of cyberbullying as boys do.

Social media is creating an “epidemic of anguish,” Twenge says.

iGens grow up more slowly. iGens also appear more reluctant to grow up. They are more likely than previous generations to hang out with their parents, postpone sex, and decline driver’s licenses.

More on Teens

Discover five ways parents can help prevent teen depression .

Learn how the adolescent brain transforms relationships .

Understand the purpose of the teenage brain .

Explore how to help teens find purpose .

Twenge floats a fascinating hypothesis to explain this—one that is well-known in social science but seldom discussed outside academia. Life history theory argues that how fast teens grow up depends on their perceptions of their environment: When the environment is perceived as hostile and competitive, teens take a “fast life strategy,” growing up quickly, making larger families earlier, and focusing on survival. A “slow life strategy,” in contrast, occurs in safer environments and allows a greater investment in fewer children—more time for preschool soccer and kindergarten violin lessons.

“Youths of every racial group, region, and class are growing up more slowly,” says Twenge—a phenomenon she neither champions nor judges. However, employers and college administrators have complained about today’s teens’ lack of preparation for adulthood. In her popular book, How to Raise an Adult , Julie Lythcott-Haims writes that students entering college have been over-parented and as a result are timid about exploration, afraid to make mistakes, and unable to advocate for themselves.

Twenge suggests that the reality is more complicated. Today’s teens are legitimately closer to their parents than previous generations, but their life course has also been shaped by income inequality that demoralizes their hopes for the future. Compared to previous generations, iGens believe they have less control over how their lives turn out. Instead, they think that the system is already rigged against them—a dispiriting finding about a segment of the lifespan that is designed for creatively reimagining the future .

iGens exhibit more care for others. iGens, more than other generations, are respectful and inclusive of diversity of many kinds. Yet as a result, they reject offensive speech more than any earlier generation, and they are derided for their “fragility” and need for “ trigger warnings ” and “safe spaces.” (Trigger warnings are notifications that material to be covered may be distressing to some. A safe space is a zone that is absent of triggering rhetoric.)

Today’s colleges are tied in knots trying to reconcile their students’ increasing care for others with the importance of having open dialogue about difficult subjects. Dis-invitations to campus speakers are at an all-time high, more students believe the First Amendment is “outdated,” and some faculty have been fired for discussing race in their classrooms. Comedians are steering clear of college campuses, Twenge reports, afraid to offend.

The future of teen well-being

Social scientists will discuss Twenge’s data and conclusions for some time to come, and there is so much information—much of it correlational—there is bound to be a dropped stitch somewhere. For example, life history theory is a useful macro explanation for teens’ slow growth, but I wonder how income inequality or rising rates of insecure attachments among teens and their parents are contributing to this phenomenon. And Twenge claims that childhood has lengthened, but that runs counter to data showing earlier onset of puberty.

So what can we take away from Twenge’s thoughtful macro-analysis? The implicit lesson for parents is that we need more nuanced parenting. We can be close to our children and still foster self-reliance. We can allow some screen time for our teens and make sure the priority is still on in-person relationships. We can teach empathy and respect but also how to engage in hard discussions with people who disagree with us. We should not shirk from teaching skills for adulthood, or we risk raising unprepared children. And we can—and must—teach teens that marketing of new media is always to the benefit of the seller, not necessarily the buyer.

Yet it’s not all about parenting. The cross-generational analysis that Twenge offers is an important reminder that lives are shaped by historical shifts in culture, economy, and technology. Therefore, if we as a society truly care about human outcomes, we must carefully nurture the conditions in which the next generation can flourish.

We can’t market technologies that capture dopamine, hijack attention, and tether people to a screen, and then wonder why they are lonely and hurting. We can’t promote social movements that improve empathy, respect, and kindness toward others and then become frustrated that our kids are so sensitive. We can’t vote for politicians who stall upward mobility and then wonder why teens are not motivated. Society challenges teens and parents to improve; but can society take on the tough responsibility of making decisions with teens’ well-being in mind?

The good news is that iGens are less entitled, narcissistic, and over-confident than earlier generations, and they are ready to work hard. They are inclusive and concerned about social justice. And they are increasingly more diverse and less partisan, which means they may eventually insist on more cooperative, more just, and more egalitarian systems.

Social media will likely play a role in that revolution—if it doesn’t sink our kids with anxiety and depression first.

About the Author

Diana Divecha

Diana Divecha, Ph.D. , is a developmental psychologist, an assistant clinical professor at the Yale Child Study Center and Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence, and on the advisory board of the Greater Good Science Center. Her blog is developmentalscience.com .

You May Also Enjoy

This article — and everything on this site — is funded by readers like you.

Become a subscribing member today. Help us continue to bring “the science of a meaningful life” to you and to millions around the globe.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Is Life Better Now Than 50 Years Ago? The Answer May Depend On The Economy

Ashley Westerman

People eat at a noodle stall at the Han Market in the central Vietnamese city of Danang in November. Vietnamese respondents to the Pew Research Center survey overwhelmingly said life is better than it was 50 years ago. Ye Aung Thu/AFP/Getty Images hide caption

People eat at a noodle stall at the Han Market in the central Vietnamese city of Danang in November. Vietnamese respondents to the Pew Research Center survey overwhelmingly said life is better than it was 50 years ago.

The way people perceive their country's economic conditions plays a big role in whether they view their lives more positively now compared with the past, according to a study released Tuesday by the Pew Research Center.

Of the nearly 43,000 people surveyed in 38 countries in Asia, Europe, the Middle East, Africa and North and South America, Vietnam had the most positive self-assessment: Eighty-eight percent of respondents said life is better today in their country than it was a half-century ago.

Other Asian countries round out the top five, including India (69 percent), South Korea (68 percent) and Japan (65 percent).

At the opposite end of the survey, with the least positive assessment of their lives today, 72 percent of respondents in Venezuela said they are worse off. Bleak assessments were also reported by Mexico (68 percent) and Argentina (51 percent).

"Latin Americans stand out for their widespread negative assessment of progress over the past half-century," the report says.

The findings reported in "Worldwide, People Divided on Whether Life Today Is Better Than in the Past" are part of Pew's annual global attitudes survey. But this is the first time the organization has asked whether life in a person's country is generally better, worse or the same as it was five decades ago, says senior researcher Jacob Poushter.

"We're interested in how people see sort of the changing nature of the world and how that affects their lives," he says.

Thirty-eight countries were included in the Pew Research Center survey. Pew Research Center hide caption

Thirty-eight countries were included in the Pew Research Center survey.

While the results are subjective and depend on the historical events and politics of each country, Poushter says the biggest takeaway from this survey is that economic outlook is an important factor.

"Exceptions aside about where actual countries were 50 years ago and what the history has been, it generally finds that economic satisfaction ... tends to be one of the strongest in terms of pushing people to say life is better or worse," says Poushter.

For example, in Vietnam, 91 percent of respondents said economic conditions are good. According to the World Bank, Vietnam has become among the world's fastest-growing economies and is projected to continue that upward swing.

The Two-Way

Venezuela will create new 'petro' cryptocurrency, president maduro says.

In Venezuela, with the highest percentage of people saying life is worse, only 20 percent of respondents said the economy was good. A collapse of international oil prices has greatly affected Venezuela's economy, which is almost solely reliant on fossil fuels. Things have become so dire that the Venezuelan government announced this month it would create a cryptocurrency to combat high inflation and replace its virtually worthless currency, the bolivar.

While the correlation between economic outlook and positive responses about life today was strong for most countries surveyed, it was not true in all cases — including the United States.

"There are countries which, if you look at objectively, are doing well economically but [respondents] still said that life was worse today than it was 50 years ago," says Poushter. "Oftentimes, you see ... more issues with politics, issues with relatively more recent history, in terms of people more upset about where they are compared to 50 years ago."

Among U.S. respondents, 37 percent said their lives are better and 41 percent said they are worse.

Anti-government looters attacked a supermarket in Venezuela's Carabobo state in May. Seventy-two percent of Venezuelans told the Pew Research Center they were worse off than 50 years ago. Ronaldo Schemidt/AFP/Getty Images hide caption

Anti-government looters attacked a supermarket in Venezuela's Carabobo state in May. Seventy-two percent of Venezuelans told the Pew Research Center they were worse off than 50 years ago.

A lot of that comes down to political divisions, says Poushter.

"It's just that in the last year, Republicans have become more likely to say life is better off, and Democrats have become less likely to say their lives are better off," he says.

Political divides also were apparent in Europe, where those supporting populist parties such as the Alternative for Germany or France's National Front were more likely to say "life is worse off for people like them," the report says.

The report finds education level is also a factor affecting whether people see their lives as better now than five decades ago.

In more than half the countries polled, respondents with a higher level of education said that for people like themselves, life was better.

The greatest educational divide can be seen in Poland, where 76 percent of more educated people said life was better than in the past. Fifty-seven percent of the less educated felt that way. The only two countries where the less educated saw their lives as better today were Nigeria and Turkey.

Further, in some countries surveyed, the perceived gains and losses by certain religious and ethnic groups over the last 50 years played a factor in respondents' answers. For example, the survey found that black respondents in South Africa are "much more likely" to say life is better (52 percent) than it was 50 years ago, when the country was living under an apartheid system. Just 27 percent of white South Africans said the same.

• Pew Research Center

Life 100 Years Ago vs Life Now – What Has Changed?

Every day our world and the way we live changes, and life 100 Years ago vs life now is very different. People used to be different towards one another and towards the elderly. Money and life had a different meaning. But, over time these things have changed due to society, technology and the way we act, think and feel in general.

How has technology changed in the last 100 years? Our generation lives in a fast-paced, technologically progressive society. Life today vs 100 years ago is much more advanced. The early 1900s were a fascinating time of primitive automobiles. The major invention at that time was the first toggle light switch. The major tech invention of today is CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing technology. This use of technology in agriculture is changing farming now from old farming methods. It enables us to reprogram life as we know it. We are also making strides in artificial intelligence, robotics, sensors, and networks. As well as advancements in synthetic biology, materials science, space exploration and more!

Life 100 Years ago vs life now was different when it comes to love and relationships too!

Dating in the past vs now has evolved quite a bit. Thanks to the Internet. New generation relationships often start via online dating. People also commonly live together without getting marriage. One of the biggest differences in dating then and now is our openness about it. We are no longer so conservative about our love lives, and sex lives. As a result, infidelity and casual relationships are quite common these days. Regardless of these thought-provoking facts, there are simple habits that will make you more attractive and get people to like you . If you are interested in actual dating, that is!

There’s also a big difference between education now and in the past. Nowadays graduating high school is more of an expectation, rather than a privilege. But, education 100 years ago was not the same. Only about 10 percent of high school students actually graduated. Yet, classrooms 100 years ago looked much like classrooms now. There are still chalkboards and chalks, but classrooms today are also filled with computers. Students also have access to online learning and are able to earn degrees from home.

How has healthcare changed in the past 100 years?

Marijuana, morphine, and heroin were sold over the counter. Now, marijuana has been legalized (or about to become) in the recent past. But, morphine and heroin without a physician’s prescription are illegal. Hospital stays used to be lengthy. Along with severe blind spots in prevention and a lack of patient respect. Today, the length of hospital stays for recovery from procedures has declined substantially. Due to technological advances. Hospital births are common and pretty much expected. But, back then over 95 percent of childbirths occurred at home.

People didn’t make too much of a big deal about personal hygiene either. Only 14 percent of the homes had a bathtub. While most women only washed their hair once a month using Borax or egg yolks as their shampoo. In comparison, life 100 years ago vs life now are polar opposites, as far as personal hygiene is concerned. Our obsession with hygiene and personal care is undeniable. We shower daily, brush our teeth twice a day, we remove unwanted hair. We put on makeup, and wouldn’t dare to leave the house without deodorant and perfume. And more than likely, we overestimate our hand sanitizer effectiveness. Instead of trusting our own body’s defense system. There are so many amazing facts about the human body most of us still don’t even know about!

How else was life 100 years ago vs life now different?

Well, it’s also worth mentioning that women have made a lot of progress towards equality. Life of a woman 100 years ago was very different. But, one thing women one hundred years ago and women today have in common is the need for independence. Let’s look at women’s roles in society then and now. In the early 1900s, women wanted to be seen as more than mothers and wives. Today they are still working towards equality in the workplace. And advocating for higher education! After being seen as the weaker sex, during the World War, women had to step up to fill men’s vacant jobs. Of course, they were expected to return to their domestic roles when the men returned from war. But the cause was already underway. Today, women are just as career-driven as their male counterparts and have just as many opinions to voice about society.

A hundred years ago money was important, but it wasn’t the cornerstone of everyone’s life!

You could get a handle full of candy for a penny, and now you have to pay a couple of dollars just for a candy bar. In the past, people stored basic items and had more access to fresh foods and raw materials. Which is not the case today! Profits made on things are skyrocketing. Whilst big companies are keeping people dependent on manufactured products more than ever. Inflation has also been taking its toll on our society.

Entertainment in the 1910s was important. People loved music and dancing! Marking the era of Early Jazz, also known as Dixieland Jazz (from 1900 to 1928). Going to the theater, opera and to the circus was very popular back in the day. People also loved sports in the early 1900s. Especially tennis, golfing, football and soccer. Today we play video games, we get to enjoy virtual reality and online video chat. We can go skydiving, paragliding and bungee jumping; Go to bars, nightclubs, music festivals, and casinos, and we get to travel the world; Keep in touch with friends and family on Social Media; Have entertainment and information available at our fingertips; Read e-books and magazines on our tablets; Binge-watch movies and our favourite shows on Netflix. Plus, we get to entertain each other on platforms like YouTube! Not to mention having access to online shopping around the clock.

Life 100 Years ago vs life now has changed due to technology, the Internet, and health care. Revolutionizing human civilization. Indeed, the difference between lifestyle now and 100 years ago is remarkable. Though certain life lessons have remained the same, and they are worth remembering. No matter what the next 100 years may bring!

But, the question remains. Is life better today than it was 100 years ago? How will humans 100 years from now live? Let us know what you think!

Facebook Comments

You may also like, 18 surprising traits of highly creative people, how to save money fast – 18 money..., 18 signs he’s just not that into you, 16 skills sets every man should master, most powerful motivational quotes for success in life, 16 proven methods for gaining self discipline, how to set goals – 16 smart goal..., 15 ways to improve your attitude, how to talk to people – start a..., 15 things girls find unattractive.

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

The Meaning of Life

Many major historical figures in philosophy have provided an answer to the question of what, if anything, makes life meaningful, although they typically have not put it in these terms (with such talk having arisen only in the past 250 years or so, on which see Landau 1997). Consider, for instance, Aristotle on the human function, Aquinas on the beatific vision, and Kant on the highest good. Relatedly, think about Koheleth, the presumed author of the Biblical book Ecclesiastes, describing life as “futility” and akin to “the pursuit of wind,” Nietzsche on nihilism, as well as Schopenhauer when he remarks that whenever we reach a goal we have longed for we discover “how vain and empty it is.” While these concepts have some bearing on happiness and virtue (and their opposites), they are straightforwardly construed (roughly) as accounts of which highly ranked purposes a person ought to realize that would make her life significant (if any would).

Despite the venerable pedigree, it is only since the 1980s or so that a distinct field of the meaning of life has been established in Anglo-American-Australasian philosophy, on which this survey focuses, and it is only in the past 20 years that debate with real depth and intricacy has appeared. Two decades ago analytic reflection on life’s meaning was described as a “backwater” compared to that on well-being or good character, and it was possible to cite nearly all the literature in a given critical discussion of the field (Metz 2002). Neither is true any longer. Anglo-American-Australasian philosophy of life’s meaning has become vibrant, such that there is now way too much literature to be able to cite comprehensively in this survey. To obtain focus, it tends to discuss books, influential essays, and more recent works, and it leaves aside contributions from other philosophical traditions (such as the Continental or African) and from non-philosophical fields (e.g., psychology or literature). This survey’s central aim is to acquaint the reader with current analytic approaches to life’s meaning, sketching major debates and pointing out neglected topics that merit further consideration.

When the topic of the meaning of life comes up, people tend to pose one of three questions: “What are you talking about?”, “What is the meaning of life?”, and “Is life in fact meaningful?”. The literature on life's meaning composed by those working in the analytic tradition (on which this entry focuses) can be usefully organized according to which question it seeks to answer. This survey starts off with recent work that addresses the first, abstract (or “meta”) question regarding the sense of talk of “life’s meaning,” i.e., that aims to clarify what we have in mind when inquiring into the meaning of life (section 1). Afterward, it considers texts that provide answers to the more substantive question about the nature of meaningfulness (sections 2–3). There is in the making a sub-field of applied meaning that parallels applied ethics, in which meaningfulness is considered in the context of particular cases or specific themes. Examples include downshifting (Levy 2005), implementing genetic enhancements (Agar 2013), making achievements (Bradford 2015), getting an education (Schinkel et al. 2015), interacting with research participants (Olson 2016), automating labor (Danaher 2017), and creating children (Ferracioli 2018). In contrast, this survey focuses nearly exclusively on contemporary normative-theoretical approaches to life’s meanining, that is, attempts to capture in a single, general principle all the variegated conditions that could confer meaning on life. Finally, this survey examines fresh arguments for the nihilist view that the conditions necessary for a meaningful life do not obtain for any of us, i.e., that all our lives are meaningless (section 4).

1. The Meaning of “Meaning”

2.1. god-centered views, 2.2. soul-centered views, 3.1. subjectivism, 3.2. objectivism, 3.3. rejecting god and a soul, 4. nihilism, works cited, classic works, collections, books for the general reader, other internet resources, related entries.

One of the field's aims consists of the systematic attempt to identify what people (essentially or characteristically) have in mind when they think about the topic of life’s meaning. For many in the field, terms such as “importance” and “significance” are synonyms of “meaningfulness” and so are insufficiently revealing, but there are those who draw a distinction between meaningfulness and significance (Singer 1996, 112–18; Belliotti 2019, 145–50, 186). There is also debate about how the concept of a meaningless life relates to the ideas of a life that is absurd (Nagel 1970, 1986, 214–23; Feinberg 1980; Belliotti 2019), futile (Trisel 2002), and not worth living (Landau 2017, 12–15; Matheson 2017).

A useful way to begin to get clear about what thinking about life’s meaning involves is to specify the bearer. Which life does the inquirer have in mind? A standard distinction to draw is between the meaning “in” life, where a human person is what can exhibit meaning, and the meaning “of” life in a narrow sense, where the human species as a whole is what can be meaningful or not. There has also been a bit of recent consideration of whether animals or human infants can have meaning in their lives, with most rejecting that possibility (e.g., Wong 2008, 131, 147; Fischer 2019, 1–24), but a handful of others beginning to make a case for it (Purves and Delon 2018; Thomas 2018). Also under-explored is the issue of whether groups, such as a people or an organization, can be bearers of meaning, and, if so, under what conditions.

Most analytic philosophers have been interested in meaning in life, that is, in the meaningfulness that a person’s life could exhibit, with comparatively few these days addressing the meaning of life in the narrow sense. Even those who believe that God is or would be central to life’s meaning have lately addressed how an individual’s life might be meaningful in virtue of God more often than how the human race might be. Although some have argued that the meaningfulness of human life as such merits inquiry to no less a degree (if not more) than the meaning in a life (Seachris 2013; Tartaglia 2015; cf. Trisel 2016), a large majority of the field has instead been interested in whether their lives as individual persons (and the lives of those they care about) are meaningful and how they could become more so.

Focusing on meaning in life, it is quite common to maintain that it is conceptually something good for its own sake or, relatedly, something that provides a basic reason for action (on which see Visak 2017). There are a few who have recently suggested otherwise, maintaining that there can be neutral or even undesirable kinds of meaning in a person’s life (e.g., Mawson 2016, 90, 193; Thomas 2018, 291, 294). However, these are outliers, with most analytic philosophers, and presumably laypeople, instead wanting to know when an individual’s life exhibits a certain kind of final value (or non-instrumental reason for action).

Another claim about which there is substantial consensus is that meaningfulness is not all or nothing and instead comes in degrees, such that some periods of life are more meaningful than others and that some lives as a whole are more meaningful than others. Note that one can coherently hold the view that some people’s lives are less meaningful (or even in a certain sense less “important”) than others, or are even meaningless (unimportant), and still maintain that people have an equal standing from a moral point of view. Consider a consequentialist moral principle according to which each individual counts for one in virtue of having a capacity for a meaningful life, or a Kantian approach according to which all people have a dignity in virtue of their capacity for autonomous decision-making, where meaning is a function of the exercise of this capacity. For both moral outlooks, we could be required to help people with relatively meaningless lives.

Yet another relatively uncontroversial element of the concept of meaningfulness in respect of individual persons is that it is logically distinct from happiness or rightness (emphasized in Wolf 2010, 2016). First, to ask whether someone’s life is meaningful is not one and the same as asking whether her life is pleasant or she is subjectively well off. A life in an experience machine or virtual reality device would surely be a happy one, but very few take it to be a prima facie candidate for meaningfulness (Nozick 1974: 42–45). Indeed, a number would say that one’s life logically could become meaningful precisely by sacrificing one’s well-being, e.g., by helping others at the expense of one’s self-interest. Second, asking whether a person’s existence over time is meaningful is not identical to considering whether she has been morally upright; there are intuitively ways to enhance meaning that have nothing to do with right action or moral virtue, such as making a scientific discovery or becoming an excellent dancer. Now, one might argue that a life would be meaningless if, or even because, it were unhappy or immoral, but that would be to posit a synthetic, substantive relationship between the concepts, far from indicating that speaking of “meaningfulness” is analytically a matter of connoting ideas regarding happiness or rightness. The question of what (if anything) makes a person’s life meaningful is conceptually distinct from the questions of what makes a life happy or moral, although it could turn out that the best answer to the former question appeals to an answer to one of the latter questions.

Supposing, then, that talk of “meaning in life” connotes something good for its own sake that can come in degrees and that is not analytically equivalent to happiness or rightness, what else does it involve? What more can we say about this final value, by definition? Most contemporary analytic philosophers would say that the relevant value is absent from spending time in an experience machine (but see Goetz 2012 for a different view) or living akin to Sisyphus, the mythic figure doomed by the Greek gods to roll a stone up a hill for eternity (famously discussed by Albert Camus and Taylor 1970). In addition, many would say that the relevant value is typified by the classic triad of “the good, the true, and the beautiful” (or would be under certain conditions). These terms are not to be taken literally, but instead are rough catchwords for beneficent relationships (love, collegiality, morality), intellectual reflection (wisdom, education, discoveries), and creativity (particularly the arts, but also potentially things like humor or gardening).

Pressing further, is there something that the values of the good, the true, the beautiful, and any other logically possible sources of meaning involve? There is as yet no consensus in the field. One salient view is that the concept of meaning in life is a cluster or amalgam of overlapping ideas, such as fulfilling higher-order purposes, meriting substantial esteem or admiration, having a noteworthy impact, transcending one’s animal nature, making sense, or exhibiting a compelling life-story (Markus 2003; Thomson 2003; Metz 2013, 24–35; Seachris 2013, 3–4; Mawson 2016). However, there are philosophers who maintain that something much more monistic is true of the concept, so that (nearly) all thought about meaningfulness in a person’s life is essentially about a single property. Suggestions include being devoted to or in awe of qualitatively superior goods (Taylor 1989, 3–24), transcending one’s limits (Levy 2005), or making a contribution (Martela 2016).

Recently there has been something of an “interpretive turn” in the field, one instance of which is the strong view that meaning-talk is logically about whether and how a life is intelligible within a wider frame of reference (Goldman 2018, 116–29; Seachris 2019; Thomas 2019; cf. Repp 2018). According to this approach, inquiring into life’s meaning is nothing other than seeking out sense-making information, perhaps a narrative about life or an explanation of its source and destiny. This analysis has the advantage of promising to unify a wide array of uses of the term “meaning.” However, it has the disadvantages of being unable to capture the intuitions that meaning in life is essentially good for its own sake (Landau 2017, 12–15), that it is not logically contradictory to maintain that an ineffable condition is what confers meaning on life (as per Cooper 2003, 126–42; Bennett-Hunter 2014; Waghorn 2014), and that often human actions themselves (as distinct from an interpretation of them), such as rescuing a child from a burning building, are what bear meaning.

Some thinkers have suggested that a complete analysis of the concept of life’s meaning should include what has been called “anti-matter” (Metz 2002, 805–07, 2013, 63–65, 71–73) or “anti-meaning” (Campbell and Nyholm 2015; Egerstrom 2015), conditions that reduce the meaningfulness of a life. The thought is that meaning is well represented by a bipolar scale, where there is a dimension of not merely positive conditions, but also negative ones. Gratuitous cruelty or destructiveness are prima facie candidates for actions that not merely fail to add meaning, but also subtract from any meaning one’s life might have had.

Despite the ongoing debates about how to analyze the concept of life’s meaning (or articulate the definition of the phrase “meaning in life”), the field remains in a good position to make progress on the other key questions posed above, viz., of what would make a life meaningful and whether any lives are in fact meaningful. A certain amount of common ground is provided by the point that meaningfulness at least involves a gradient final value in a person’s life that is conceptually distinct from happiness and rightness, with exemplars of it potentially being the good, the true, and the beautiful. The rest of this discussion addresses philosophical attempts to capture the nature of this value theoretically and to ascertain whether it exists in at least some of our lives.

2. Supernaturalism

Most analytic philosophers writing on meaning in life have been trying to develop and evaluate theories, i.e., fundamental and general principles, that are meant to capture all the particular ways that a life could obtain meaning. As in moral philosophy, there are recognizable “anti-theorists,” i.e., those who maintain that there is too much pluralism among meaning conditions to be able to unify them in the form of a principle (e.g., Kekes 2000; Hosseini 2015). Arguably, though, the systematic search for unity is too nascent to be able to draw a firm conclusion about whether it is available.

The theories are standardly divided on a metaphysical basis, that is, in terms of which kinds of properties are held to constitute the meaning. Supernaturalist theories are views according to which a spiritual realm is central to meaning in life. Most Western philosophers have conceived of the spiritual in terms of God or a soul as commonly understood in the Abrahamic faiths (but see Mulgan 2015 for discussion of meaning in the context of a God uninterested in us). In contrast, naturalist theories are views that the physical world as known particularly well by the scientific method is central to life’s meaning.

There is logical space for a non-naturalist theory, according to which central to meaning is an abstract property that is neither spiritual nor physical. However, only scant attention has been paid to this possibility in the recent Anglo-American-Australasian literature (Audi 2005).

It is important to note that supernaturalism, a claim that God (or a soul) would confer meaning on a life, is logically distinct from theism, the claim that God (or a soul) exists. Although most who hold supernaturalism also hold theism, one could accept the former without the latter (as Camus more or less did), committing one to the view that life is meaningless or at least lacks substantial meaning. Similarly, while most naturalists are atheists, it is not contradictory to maintain that God exists but has nothing to do with meaning in life or perhaps even detracts from it. Although these combinations of positions are logically possible, some of them might be substantively implausible. The field could benefit from discussion of the comparative attractiveness of various combinations of evaluative claims about what would make life meaningful and metaphysical claims about whether spiritual conditions exist.

Over the past 15 years or so, two different types of supernaturalism have become distinguished on a regular basis (Metz 2019). That is true not only in the literature on life’s meaning, but also in that on the related pro-theism/anti-theism debate, about whether it would be desirable for God or a soul to exist (e.g., Kahane 2011; Kraay 2018; Lougheed 2020). On the one hand, there is extreme supernaturalism, according to which spiritual conditions are necessary for any meaning in life. If neither God nor a soul exists, then, by this view, everyone’s life is meaningless. On the other hand, there is moderate supernaturalism, according to which spiritual conditions are necessary for a great or ultimate meaning in life, although not meaning in life as such. If neither God nor a soul exists, then, by this view, everyone’s life could have some meaning, or even be meaningful, but no one’s life could exhibit the most desirable meaning. For a moderate supernaturalist, God or a soul would substantially enhance meaningfulness or be a major contributory condition for it.

There are a variety of ways that great or ultimate meaning has been described, sometimes quantitatively as “infinite” (Mawson 2016), qualitatively as “deeper” (Swinburne 2016), relationally as “unlimited” (Nozick 1981, 618–19; cf. Waghorn 2014), temporally as “eternal” (Cottingham 2016), and perspectivally as “from the point of view of the universe” (Benatar 2017). There has been no reflection as yet on the crucial question of how these distinctions might bear on each another, for instance, on whether some are more basic than others or some are more valuable than others.

Cross-cutting the extreme/moderate distinction is one between God-centered theories and soul-centered ones. According to the former, some kind of connection with God (understood to be a spiritual person who is all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful and who is the ground of the physical universe) constitutes meaning in life, even if one lacks a soul (construed as an immortal, spiritual substance that contains one’s identity). In contrast, by the latter, having a soul and putting it into a certain state is what makes life meaningful, even if God does not exist. Many supernaturalists of course believe that God and a soul are jointly necessary for a (greatly) meaningful existence. However, the simpler view, that only one of them is necessary, is common, and sometimes arguments proffered for the complex view fail to support it any more than the simpler one.

The most influential God-based account of meaning in life has been the extreme view that one’s existence is significant if and only if one fulfills a purpose God has assigned. The familiar idea is that God has a plan for the universe and that one’s life is meaningful just to the degree that one helps God realize this plan, perhaps in a particular way that God wants one to do so. If a person failed to do what God intends her to do with her life (or if God does not even exist), then, on the current view, her life would be meaningless.

Thinkers differ over what it is about God’s purpose that might make it uniquely able to confer meaning on human lives, but the most influential argument has been that only God’s purpose could be the source of invariant moral rules (Davis 1987, 296, 304–05; Moreland 1987, 124–29; Craig 1994/2013, 161–67) or of objective values more generally (Cottingham 2005, 37–57), where a lack of such would render our lives nonsensical. According to this argument, lower goods such as animal pleasure or desire satisfaction could exist without God, but higher ones pertaining to meaning in life, particularly moral virtue, could not. However, critics point to many non-moral sources of meaning in life (e.g., Kekes 2000; Wolf 2010), with one arguing that a universal moral code is not necessary for meaning in life, even if, say, beneficent actions are (Ellin 1995, 327). In addition, there are a variety of naturalist and non-naturalist accounts of objective morality––and of value more generally––on offer these days, so that it is not clear that it must have a supernatural source in God’s will.

One recurrent objection to the idea that God’s purpose could make life meaningful is that if God had created us with a purpose in mind, then God would have degraded us and thereby undercut the possibility of us obtaining meaning from fulfilling the purpose. The objection harks back to Jean-Paul Sartre, but in the analytic literature it appears that Kurt Baier was the first to articulate it (1957/2000, 118–20; see also Murphy 1982, 14–15; Singer 1996, 29; Kahane 2011; Lougheed 2020, 121–41). Sometimes the concern is the threat of punishment God would make so that we do God’s bidding, while other times it is that the source of meaning would be constrictive and not up to us, and still other times it is that our dignity would be maligned simply by having been created with a certain end in mind (for some replies to such concerns, see Hanfling 1987, 45–46; Cottingham 2005, 37–57; Lougheed 2020, 111–21).

There is a different argument for an extreme God-based view that focuses less on God as purposive and more on God as infinite, unlimited, or ineffable, which Robert Nozick first articulated with care (Nozick 1981, 594–618; see also Bennett-Hunter 2014; Waghorn 2014). The core idea is that for a finite condition to be meaningful, it must obtain its meaning from another condition that has meaning. So, if one’s life is meaningful, it might be so in virtue of being married to a person, who is important. Being finite, the spouse must obtain his or her importance from elsewhere, perhaps from the sort of work he or she does. This work also must obtain its meaning by being related to something else that is meaningful, and so on. A regress on meaningful conditions is present, and the suggestion is that the regress can terminate only in something so all-encompassing that it need not (indeed, cannot) go beyond itself to obtain meaning from anything else. And that is God. The standard objection to this relational rationale is that a finite condition could be meaningful without obtaining its meaning from another meaningful condition. Perhaps it could be meaningful in itself, without being connected to something beyond it, or maybe it could obtain its meaning by being related to something else that is beautiful or otherwise valuable for its own sake but not meaningful (Nozick 1989, 167–68; Thomson 2003, 25–26, 48).

A serious concern for any extreme God-based view is the existence of apparent counterexamples. If we think of the stereotypical lives of Albert Einstein, Mother Teresa, and Pablo Picasso, they seem meaningful even if we suppose there is no all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good spiritual person who is the ground of the physical world (e.g., Wielenberg 2005, 31–37, 49–50; Landau 2017). Even religiously inclined philosophers have found this hard to deny these days (Quinn 2000, 58; Audi 2005; Mawson 2016, 5; Williams 2020, 132–34).

Largely for that reason, contemporary supernaturalists have tended to opt for moderation, that is, to maintain that God would greatly enhance the meaning in our lives, even if some meaning would be possible in a world without God. One approach is to invoke the relational argument to show that God is necessary, not for any meaning whatsoever, but rather for an ultimate meaning. “Limited transcendence, the transcending of our limits so as to connect with a wider context of value which itself is limited, does give our lives meaning––but a limited one. We may thirst for more” (Nozick 1981, 618). Another angle is to appeal to playing a role in God’s plan, again to claim, not that it is essential for meaning as such, but rather for “a cosmic significance....intead of a significance very limited in time and space” (Swinburne 2016, 154; see also Quinn 2000; Cottingham 2016, 131). Another rationale is that by fulfilling God’s purpose, we would meaningfully please God, a perfect person, as well as be remembered favorably by God forever (Cottingham 2016, 135; Williams 2020, 21–22, 29, 101, 108). Still another argument is that only with God could the deepest desires of human nature be satisfied (e.g., Goetz 2012; Seachris 2013, 20; Cottingham 2016, 127, 136), even if more surface desires could be satisfied without God.

In reply to such rationales for a moderate supernaturalism, there has been the suggestion that it is precisely by virtue of being alone in the universe that our lives would be particularly significant; otherwise, God’s greatness would overshadow us (Kahane 2014). There has also been the response that, with the opportunity for greater meaning from God would also come that for greater anti-meaning, so that it is not clear that a world with God would offer a net gain in respect of meaning (Metz 2019, 34–35). For example, if pleasing God would greatly enhance meaning in our lives, then presumably displeasing God would greatly reduce it and to a comparable degree. In addition, there are arguments for extreme naturalism (or its “anti-theist” cousin) mentioned below (sub-section 3.3).

Notice that none of the above arguments for supernaturalism appeals to the prospect of eternal life (at least not explicitly). Arguments that do make such an appeal are soul-centered, holding that meaning in life mainly comes from having an immortal, spiritual substance that is contiguous with one’s body when it is alive and that will forever outlive its death. Some think of the afterlife in terms of one’s soul entering a transcendent, spiritual realm (Heaven), while others conceive of one’s soul getting reincarnated into another body on Earth. According to the extreme version, if one has a soul but fails to put it in the right state (or if one lacks a soul altogether), then one’s life is meaningless.

There are three prominent arguments for an extreme soul-based perspective. One argument, made famous by Leo Tolstoy, is the suggestion that for life to be meaningful something must be worth doing, that something is worth doing only if it will make a permanent difference to the world, and that making a permanent difference requires being immortal (see also Hanfling 1987, 22–24; Morris 1992, 26; Craig 1994). Critics most often appeal to counterexamples, suggesting for instance that it is surely worth your time and effort to help prevent people from suffering, even if you and they are mortal. Indeed, some have gone on the offensive and argued that helping people is worth the sacrifice only if and because they are mortal, for otherwise they could invariably be compensated in an afterlife (e.g., Wielenberg 2005, 91–94). Another recent and interesting criticism is that the major motivations for the claim that nothing matters now if one day it will end are incoherent (Greene 2021).

A second argument for the view that life would be meaningless without a soul is that it is necessary for justice to be done, which, in turn, is necessary for a meaningful life. Life seems nonsensical when the wicked flourish and the righteous suffer, at least supposing there is no other world in which these injustices will be rectified, whether by God or a Karmic force. Something like this argument can be found in Ecclesiastes, and it continues to be defended (e.g., Davis 1987; Craig 1994). However, even granting that an afterlife is required for perfectly just outcomes, it is far from obvious that an eternal afterlife is necessary for them, and, then, there is the suggestion that some lives, such as Mandela’s, have been meaningful precisely in virtue of encountering injustice and fighting it.

A third argument for thinking that having a soul is essential for any meaning is that it is required to have the sort of free will without which our lives would be meaningless. Immanuel Kant is known for having maintained that if we were merely physical beings, subjected to the laws of nature like everything else in the material world, then we could not act for moral reasons and hence would be unimportant. More recently, one theologian has eloquently put the point in religious terms: “The moral spirit finds the meaning of life in choice. It finds it in that which proceeds from man and remains with him as his inner essence rather than in the accidents of circumstances turns of external fortune....(W)henever a human being rubs the lamp of his moral conscience, a Spirit does appear. This Spirit is God....It is in the ‘Thou must’ of God and man’s ‘I can’ that the divine image of God in human life is contained” (Swenson 1949/2000, 27–28). Notice that, even if moral norms did not spring from God’s commands, the logic of the argument entails that one’s life could be meaningful, so long as one had the inherent ability to make the morally correct choice in any situation. That, in turn, arguably requires something non-physical about one’s self, so as to be able to overcome whichever physical laws and forces one might confront. The standard objection to this reasoning is to advance a compatibilism about having a determined physical nature and being able to act for moral reasons (e.g., Arpaly 2006; Fischer 2009, 145–77). It is also worth wondering whether, if one had to have a spiritual essence in order to make free choices, it would have to be one that never perished.

Like God-centered theorists, many soul-centered theorists these days advance a moderate view, accepting that some meaning in life would be possible without immortality, but arguing that a much greater meaning would be possible with it. Granting that Einstein, Mandela, and Picasso had somewhat meaningful lives despite not having survived the deaths of their bodies (as per, e.g., Trisel 2004; Wolf 2015, 89–140; Landau 2017), there remains a powerful thought: more is better. If a finite life with the good, the true, and the beautiful has meaning in it to some degree, then surely it would have all the more meaning if it exhibited such higher values––including a relationship with God––for an eternity (Cottingham 2016, 132–35; Mawson 2016, 2019, 52–53; Williams 2020, 112–34; cf. Benatar 2017, 35–63). One objection to this reasoning is that the infinity of meaning that would be possible with a soul would be “too big,” rendering it difficult for the moderate supernaturalist to make sense of the intution that a finite life such as Einstein’s can indeed count as meaningful by comparison (Metz 2019, 30–31; cf. Mawson 2019, 53–54). More common, though, is the objection that an eternal life would include anti-meaning of various kinds, such as boredom and repetition, discussed below in the context of extreme naturalism (sub-section 3.3).

3. Naturalism

Recall that naturalism is the view that a physical life is central to life’s meaning, that even if there is no spiritual realm, a substantially meaningful life is possible. Like supernaturalism, contemporary naturalism admits of two distinguishable variants, moderate and extreme (Metz 2019). The moderate version is that, while a genuinely meaningful life could be had in a purely physical universe as known well by science, a somewhat more meaningful life would be possible if a spiritual realm also existed. God or a soul could enhance meaning in life, although they would not be major contributors. The extreme version of naturalism is the view that it would be better in respect of life’s meaning if there were no spiritual realm. From this perspective, God or a soul would be anti-matter, i.e., would detract from the meaning available to us, making a purely physical world (even if not this particular one) preferable.

Cross-cutting the moderate/extreme distinction is that between subjectivism and objectivism, which are theoretical accounts of the nature of meaningfulness insofar as it is physical. They differ in terms of the extent to which the human mind constitutes meaning and whether there are conditions of meaning that are invariant among human beings. Subjectivists believe that there are no invariant standards of meaning because meaning is relative to the subject, i.e., depends on an individual’s pro-attitudes such as her particular desires or ends, which are not shared by everyone. Roughly, something is meaningful for a person if she strongly wants it or intends to seek it out and she gets it. Objectivists maintain, in contrast, that there are some invariant standards for meaning because meaning is at least partly mind-independent, i.e., obtains not merely in virtue of being the object of anyone’s mental states. Here, something is meaningful (partially) because of its intrinsic nature, in the sense of being independent of whether it is wanted or intended; meaning is instead (to some extent) the sort of thing that merits these reactions.

There is logical space for an orthogonal view, according to which there are invariant standards of meaningfulness constituted by what all human beings would converge on from a certain standpoint. However, it has not been much of a player in the field (Darwall 1983, 164–66).

According to this version of naturalism, meaning in life varies from person to person, depending on each one’s variable pro-attitudes. Common instances are views that one’s life is more meaningful, the more one gets what one happens to want strongly, achieves one’s highly ranked goals, or does what one believes to be really important (Trisel 2002; Hooker 2008). One influential subjectivist has recently maintained that the relevant mental state is caring or loving, so that life is meaningful just to the extent that one cares about or loves something (Frankfurt 1988, 80–94, 2004). Another recent proposal is that meaningfulness consists of “an active engagement and affirmation that vivifies the person who has freely created or accepted and now promotes and nurtures the projects of her highest concern” (Belliotti 2019, 183).

Subjectivism was dominant in the middle of the twentieth century, when positivism, noncognitivism, existentialism, and Humeanism were influential (Ayer 1947; Hare 1957; Barnes 1967; Taylor 1970; Williams 1976). However, in the last quarter of the twentieth century, inference to the best explanation and reflective equilibrium became accepted forms of normative argumentation and were frequently used to defend claims about the existence and nature of objective value (or of “external reasons,” ones obtaining independently of one’s extant attitudes). As a result, subjectivism about meaning lost its dominance. Those who continue to hold subjectivism often remain suspicious of attempts to justify beliefs about objective value (e.g., Trisel 2002, 73, 79, 2004, 378–79; Frankfurt 2004, 47–48, 55–57; Wong 2008, 138–39; Evers 2017, 32, 36; Svensson 2017, 54). Theorists are moved to accept subjectivism typically because the alternatives are unpalatable; they are reasonably sure that meaning in life obtains for some people, but do not see how it could be grounded on something independent of the mind, whether it be the natural or the supernatural (or the non-natural). In contrast to these possibilities, it appears straightforward to account for what is meaningful in terms of what people find meaningful or what people want out of their lives. Wide-ranging meta-ethical debates in epistemology, metaphysics, and the philosophy of language are necessary to address this rationale for subjectivism.

There is a cluster of other, more circumscribed arguments for subjectivism, according to which this theory best explains certain intuitive features of meaning in life. For one, subjectivism seems plausible since it is reasonable to think that a meaningful life is an authentic one (Frankfurt 1988, 80–94). If a person’s life is significant insofar as she is true to herself or her deepest nature, then we have some reason to believe that meaning simply is a function of those matters for which the person cares. For another, it is uncontroversial that often meaning comes from losing oneself, i.e., in becoming absorbed in an activity or experience, as opposed to being bored by it or finding it frustrating (Frankfurt 1988, 80–94; Belliotti 2019, 162–70). Work that concentrates the mind and relationships that are engrossing seem central to meaning and to be so because of the subjective elements involved. For a third, meaning is often taken to be something that makes life worth continuing for a specific person, i.e., that gives her a reason to get out of bed in the morning, which subjectivism is thought to account for best (Williams 1976; Svensson 2017; Calhoun 2018).

Critics maintain that these arguments are vulnerable to a common objection: they neglect the role of objective value (or an external reason) in realizing oneself, losing oneself, and having a reason to live (Taylor 1989, 1992; Wolf 2010, 2015, 89–140). One is not really being true to oneself, losing oneself in a meaningful way, or having a genuine reason to live insofar as one, say, successfully maintains 3,732 hairs on one’s head (Taylor 1992, 36), cultivates one’s prowess at long-distance spitting (Wolf 2010, 104), collects a big ball of string (Wolf 2010, 104), or, well, eats one’s own excrement (Wielenberg 2005, 22). The counterexamples suggest that subjective conditions are insufficient to ground meaning in life; there seem to be certain actions, relationships, and states that are objectively valuable (but see Evers 2017, 30–32) and toward which one’s pro-attitudes ought to be oriented, if meaning is to accrue.

So say objectivists, but subjectivists feel the pull of the point and usually seek to avoid the counterexamples, lest they have to bite the bullet by accepting the meaningfulness of maintaining 3,732 hairs on one’s head and all the rest (for some who do, see Svensson 2017, 54–55; Belliotti 2019, 181–83). One important strategy is to suggest that subjectivists can avoid the counterexamples by appealing to the right sort of pro-attitude. Instead of whatever an individual happens to want, perhaps the relevant mental state is an emotional-perceptual one of seeing-as (Alexis 2011; cf. Hosseini 2015, 47–66), a “categorical” desire, that is, an intrinsic desire constitutive of one’s identity that one takes to make life worth continuing (Svensson 2017), or a judgment that one has a good reason to value something highly for its own sake (Calhoun 2018). Even here, though, objectivists will argue that it might “appear that whatever the will chooses to treat as a good reason to engage itself is, for the will, a good reason. But the will itself....craves objective reasons; and often it could not go forward unless it thought it had them” (Wiggins 1988, 136). And without any appeal to objectivity, it is perhaps likely that counterexamples would resurface.

Another subjectivist strategy by which to deal with the counterexamples is the attempt to ground meaningfulness, not on the pro-attitudes of an individual valuer, but on those of a group (Darwall 1983, 164–66; Brogaard and Smith 2005; Wong 2008). Does such an intersubjective move avoid (more of) the counterexamples? If so, does it do so more plausibly than an objective theory?

Objective naturalists believe that meaning in life is constituted at least in part by something physical beyond merely the fact that it is the object of a pro-attitude. Obtaining the object of some emotion, desire, or judgment is not sufficient for meaningfulness, on this view. Instead, there are certain conditions of the material world that could confer meaning on anyone’s life, not merely because they are viewed as meaningful, wanted for their own sake, or believed to be choiceworthy, but instead (at least partially) because they are inherently worthwhile or valuable in themselves.

Morality (the good), enquiry (the true), and creativity (the beautiful) are widely held instances of activities that confer meaning on life, while trimming toenails and eating snow––along with the counterexamples to subjectivism above––are not. Objectivism is widely thought to be a powerful general explanation of these particular judgments: the former are meaningful not merely because some agent (whether it is an individual, her society, or even God) cares about them or judges them to be worth doing, while the latter simply lack significance and cannot obtain it even if some agent does care about them or judge them to be worth doing. From an objective perspective, it is possible for an individual to care about the wrong thing or to be mistaken that something is worthwhile, and not merely because of something she cares about all the more or judges to be still more choiceworthy. Of course, meta-ethical debates about the existence and nature of value are again relevant to appraising this rationale.

Some objectivists think that being the object of a person’s mental states plays no constitutive role in making that person’s life meaningful, although they of course contend that it often plays an instrumental role––liking a certain activity, after all, is likely to motivate one to do it. Relatively few objectivists are “pure” in that way, although consequentialists do stand out as clear instances (e.g., Singer 1995; Smuts 2018, 75–99). Most objectivists instead try to account for the above intuitions driving subjectivism by holding that a life is more meaningful, not merely because of objective factors, but also in part because of propositional attitudes such as cognition, conation, and emotion. Particularly influential has been Susan Wolf’s hybrid view, captured by this pithy slogan: “Meaning arises when subjective attraction meets objective attractiveness” (Wolf 2015, 112; see also Kekes 1986, 2000; Wiggins 1988; Raz 2001, 10–40; Mintoff 2008; Wolf 2010, 2016; Fischer 2019, 9–23; Belshaw 2021, 160–81). This theory implies that no meaning accrues to one’s life if one believes in, is satisfied by, or cares about a project that is not truly worthwhile, or if one takes up a truly worthwhile project but fails to judge it important, be satisfied by it, or care about it. A related approach is that, while subjective attraction is not necessary for meaning, it could enhance it (e.g., Audi 2005, 344; Metz 2013, 183–84, 196–98, 220–25). For instance, a stereotypical Mother Teresa who is bored by and alienated from her substantial charity work might have a somewhat significant existence because of it, even if she would have an even more significant existence if she felt pride in it or identified with it.

There have been several attempts to capture theoretically what all objectively attractive, inherently worthwhile, or finally valuable conditions have in common insofar as they bear on meaning in a person’s life. Over the past few decades, one encounters the proposals that objectively meaningful conditions are just those that involve: positively connecting with organic unity beyond oneself (Nozick 1981, 594–619); being creative (Taylor 1987; Matheson 2018); living an emotional life (Solomon 1993; cf. Williams 2020, 56–78); promoting good consequences, such as improving the quality of life of oneself and others (Singer 1995; Audi 2005; Smuts 2018, 75–99); exercising or fostering rational nature in exceptional ways (Smith 1997, 179–221; Gewirth 1998, 177–82; Metz 2013, 222–36); progressing toward ends that can never be fully realized because one’s knowledge of them changes as one approaches them (Levy 2005); realizing goals that are transcendent for being long-lasting in duration and broad in scope (Mintoff 2008); living virtuously (May 2015, 61–138; McPherson 2020); and loving what is worth loving (Wolf 2016). There is as yet no convergence in the field on one, or even a small cluster, of these accounts.

One feature of a large majority of the above naturalist theories is that they are aggregative or additive, objectionably treating a life as a mere “container” of bits of life that are meaningful considered in isolation from other bits (Brännmark 2003, 330). It has become increasingly common for philosophers of life’s meaning, especially objectivists, to hold that life as a whole, or at least long stretches of it, can substantially affect its meaningfulness beyond the amount of meaning (if any) in its parts.

For instance, a life that has lots of beneficence and otherwise intuitively meaning-conferring conditions but that is also extremely repetitive (à la the movie Groundhog Day ) is less than maximally meaningful (Taylor 1987; Blumenfeld 2009). Furthermore, a life that not only avoids repetition but also ends with a substantial amount of meaningful (or otherwise desirable) parts seems to have more meaning overall than one that has the same amount of meaningful (desirable) parts but ends with few or none of them (Kamm 2013, 18–22; Dorsey 2015). Still more, a life in which its meaningless (or otherwise undesirable parts) cause its meaningful (desirable) parts to come about through a process of personal growth seems meaningful in virtue of this redemptive pattern, “good life-story,” or narrative self-expression (Taylor 1989, 48–51; Wong 2008; Fischer 2009, 145–77; Kauppinen 2012; May 2015, 61–138; Velleman 2015, 141–73). These three cases suggest that meaning can inhere in life as a whole, that is, in the relationships between its parts, and not merely in the parts considered in isolation. However, some would maintain that it is, strictly speaking, the story that is or could be told of a life that matters, not so much the life-story qua relations between events themselves (de Bres 2018).

There are pure or extreme versions of holism present in the literature, according to which the only possible bearer of meaning in life is a person’s life as a whole, and not any isolated activities, relationships, or states (Taylor 1989, 48–51; Tabensky 2003; Levinson 2004). A salient argument for this position is that judgments of the meaningfulness of a part of someone’s life are merely provisional, open to revision upon considering how they fit into a wider perspective. So, for example, it would initially appear that taking an ax away from a madman and thereby protecting innocent parties confers some meaning on one’s life, but one might well revise that judgment upon learning that the intention behind it was merely to steal an ax, not to save lives, or that the madman then took out a machine gun, causing much more harm than his ax would have. It is worth considering how far this sort of case is generalizable, and, if it can be to a substantial extent, whether that provides strong evidence that only life as a whole can exhibit meaningfulness.

Perhaps most objectivists would, at least upon reflection, accept that both the parts of a life and the whole-life relationships among the parts can exhibit meaning. Supposing there are two bearers of meaning in a life, important questions arise. One is whether a certain narrative can be meaningful even if its parts are not, while a second is whether the meaningfulness of a part increases if it is an aspect of a meaningful whole (on which see Brännmark 2003), and a third is whether there is anything revealing to say about how to make tradeoffs between the parts and whole in cases where one must choose between them (Blumenfeld 2009 appears to assign lexical priority to the whole).

Naturalists until recently had been largely concerned to show that meaning in life is possible without God or a soul; they have not spent much time considering how such spiritual conditions might enhance meaning, but have, in moderate fashion, tended to leave that possibility open (an exception is Hooker 2008). Lately, however, an extreme form of naturalism has arisen, according to which our lives would probably, if not unavoidably, have less meaning in a world with God or a soul than in one without. Although such an approach was voiced early on by Baier (1957), it is really in the past decade or so that this “anti-theist” position has become widely and intricately discussed.

One rationale, mentioned above as an objection to the view that God’s purpose constitutes meaning in life, has also been deployed to argue that the existence of God as such would necessarily reduce meaning, that is, would consist of anti-matter. It is the idea that master/servant and parent/child analogies so prominent in the monotheist religious traditions reveal something about our status in a world where there is a qualitatively higher being who has created us with certain ends in mind: our independence or dignity as adult persons would be violated (e.g., Baier 1957/2000, 118–20; Kahane 2011, 681–85; Lougheed 2020, 121–41). One interesting objection to this reasoning has been to accept that God’s existence is necessarily incompatible with the sort of meaning that would come (roughly stated) from being one’s own boss, but to argue that God would also make greater sorts of meaning available, offering a net gain to us (Mawson 2016, 110–58).

Another salient argument for thinking that God would detract from meaning in life appeals to the value of privacy (Kahane 2011, 681–85; Lougheed 2020, 55–110). God’s omniscience would unavoidably make it impossible for us to control another person’s access to the most intimate details about ourselves, which, for some, amounts to a less meaningful life than one with such control. Beyond questioning the value of our privacy in relation to God, one thought-provoking criticism has been to suggest that, if a lack of privacy really would substantially reduce meaning in our lives, then God, qua morally perfect person, would simply avoid knowing everything about us (Tooley 2018). Lacking complete knowledge of our mental states would be compatible with describing God as “omniscient,” so the criticism goes, insofar as that is plausibly understood as having as much knowledge as is morally permissible.

Turn, now, to major arguments for thinking that having a soul would reduce life’s meaning, so that if one wants a maximally meaningful life, one should prefer a purely physical world, or at least one in which people are mortal. First and foremost, there has been the argument that an immortal life could not avoid becoming boring (Williams 1973), rendering life pointless according to many subjective and objective theories. The literature on this topic has become enormous, with the central reply being that immortality need not get boring (for more recent discussions, see Fischer 2009, 79–101, 2019, 117–42; Mawson 2019, 51–52; Williams 2020, 30–41, 123–29; Belshaw 2021, 182–97). However, it might also be worth questioning whether boredom is sufficient for meaninglessness. Suppose, for instance, that one volunteers to be bored so that many others will not be bored; perhaps this would be a meaningful sacrifice to make. Being bored for an eternity would not be blissful or even satisfying, to be sure, but if it served the function of preventing others from being bored for an eternity, would it be meaningful (at least to some degree)? If, as is commonly held, sacrificing one’s life could be meaningful, why not also sacrificing one’s liveliness?

Another reason given to reject eternal life is that it would become repetitive, which would substantially drain it of meaning (Scarre 2007, 54–55; May 2009, 46–47, 64–65, 71; Smuts 2011, 142–44; cf. Blumenfeld 2009). If, as it appears, there are only a finite number of actions one could perform, relationships one could have, and states one could be in during an eternity, one would have to end up doing the same things again. Even though one’s activities might be more valuable than rolling a stone up a hill forever à la Sisyphus, the prospect of doing them over and over again forever is disheartening for many. To be sure, one might not remember having done them before and hence could avoid boredom, but for some philosophers that would make it all the worse, akin to having dementia and forgetting that one has told the same stories. Others, however, still find meaning in such a life (e.g., Belshaw 2021, 197, 205n41).

A third meaning-based argument against immortality invokes considerations of narrative. If the pattern of one’s life as a whole substantially matters, and if a proper pattern would include a beginning, a middle, and an end, it appears that a life that never ends would lack the relevant narrative structure. “Because it would drag on endlessly, it would, sooner or later, just be a string of events lacking all form....With immortality, the novel never ends....How meaningful can such a novel be?” (May 2009, 68, 72; see also Scarre 2007, 58–60). Notice that this objection is distinct from considerations of boredom and repetition (which concern novelty ); even if one were stimulated and active, and even if one found a way not to repeat one’s life in the course of eternity, an immortal life would appear to lack shape. In reply, some reject the idea that a meaningful life must be akin to a novel, and intead opt for narrativity in the form of something like a string of short stories that build on each other (Fischer 2009, 145–77, 2019, 101–16). Others, though, have sought to show that eternity could still be novel-like, deeming the sort of ending that matters to be a function of what the content is and how it relates to the content that came before (e.g., Seachris 2011; Williams 2020, 112–19).

There have been additional objections to immortality as undercutting meaningfulness, but they are prima facie less powerful than the previous three in that, if sound, they arguably show that an eternal life would have a cost, but probably not one that would utterly occlude the prospect of meaning in it. For example, there have been the suggestions that eternal lives would lack a sense of preciousness and urgency (Nussbaum 1989, 339; Kass 2002, 266–67), could not exemplify virtues such as courageously risking one’s life for others (Kass 2002, 267–68; Wielenberg 2005, 91–94), and could not obtain meaning from sustaining or saving others’ lives (Nussbaum 1989, 338; Wielenberg 2005, 91–94). Note that at least the first two rationales turn substantially on the belief in immortality, not quite immortality itself: if one were immortal but forgot that one is or did not know that at all, then one could appreciate life and obtain much of the virtue of courage (and, conversely, if one were not immortal, but thought that one is, then, by the logic of these arguments, one would fail to appreciate limits and be unable to exemplify courage).

The previous two sections addressed theoretical accounts of what would confer meaning on a human person’s life. Although these theories do not imply that some people’s lives are in fact meaningful, that has been the presumption of a very large majority of those who have advanced them. Much of the procedure has been to suppose that many lives have had meaning in them and then to consider in virtue of what they have or otherwise could. However, there are nihilist (or pessimist) perspectives that question this supposition. According to nihilism (pessimism), what would make a life meaningful in principle cannot obtain for any of us.

One straightforward rationale for nihilism is the combination of extreme supernaturalism about what makes life meaningful and atheism about whether a spiritual realm exists. If you believe that God or a soul is necessary for meaning in life, and if you believe that neither is real, then you are committed to nihilism, to the denial that life can have any meaning. Athough this rationale for nihilism was prominent in the modern era (and was more or less Camus’ position), it has been on the wane in analytic philosophical circles, as extreme supernaturalism has been eclipsed by the moderate variety.

The most common rationales for nihilism these days do not appeal to supernaturalism, or at least not explicitly. One cluster of ideas appeals to what meta-ethicists call “error theory,” the view that evaluative claims (in this case about meaning in life, or about morality qua necessary for meaning) characteristically posit objectively real or universally justified values, but that such values do not exist. According to one version, value judgments often analytically include a claim to objectivity but there is no reason to think that objective values exist, as they “would be entities or qualities or relations of a very strange sort, utterly different from anything else in the universe” (Mackie 1977/1990, 38). According to a second version, life would be meaningless if there were no set of moral standards that could be fully justified to all rational enquirers, but it so happens that such standards cannot exist for persons who can always reasonably question a given claim (Murphy 1982, 12–17). According to a third, we hold certain beliefs about the objectivity and universality of morality and related values such as meaning because they were evolutionarily advantageous to our ancestors, not because they are true. Humans have been “deceived by their genes into thinking that there is a distinterested, objective morality binding upon them, which all should obey” (Ruse and Wilson 1986, 179; cf. Street 2015). One must draw on the intricate work in meta-ethics that has been underway for the past several decades in order to appraise these arguments.

In contrast to error-theoretic arguments for nihilism, there are rationales for it accepting that objective values exist but denying that our lives can ever exhibit or promote them so as to obtain meaning. One version of this approach maintains that, for our lives to matter, we must be in a position to add objective value to the world, which we are not since the objective value of the world is already infinite (Smith 2003). The key premises for this view are that every bit of space-time (or at least the stars in the physical universe) have some positive value, that these values can be added up, and that space is infinite. If the physical world at present contains an infinite degree of value, nothing we do can make a difference in terms of meaning, for infinity plus any amount of value remains infinity. One way to question this argument, beyond doubting the value of space-time or stars, is to suggest that, even if one cannot add to the value of the universe, meaning plausibly comes from being the source of certain values.

A second rationale for nihilism that accepts the existence of objective value is David Benatar’s (2006, 18–59) intriguing “asymmetry argument” for anti-natalism, the view that it is immoral to bring new people into existence because doing so would always be on balance bad for them. For Benatar, the bads of existing (e.g., pains) are real disadvantages relative to not existing, while the goods of existing (pleasures) are not real advantages relative to not existing, since there is in the latter state no one to be deprived of them. If indeed the state of not existing is no worse than that of experiencing the benefits of existence, then, since existing invariably brings harm in its wake, it follows that existing is always worse compared to not existing. Although this argument is illustrated with experiential goods and bads, it seems generalizable to non-experiential ones, including meaning in life and anti-matter. The literature on this argument has become large (for a recent collection, see Hauskeller and Hallich 2022).

Benatar (2006, 60–92, 2017, 35–63) has advanced an additional argument for nihilism, one that appeals to Thomas Nagel’s (1986, 208–32) widely discussed analysis of the extremely external standpoint that human persons can take on their lives. There exists, to use Henry Sidgwick’s influential phrase, the “point of view of the universe,” that is, the standpoint that considers a human being’s life in relation to all times and all places. When one takes up this most external standpoint and views one’s puny impact on the world, little of one’s life appears to matter. What one does in a certain society on Earth over 75 years or so just does not amount to much, when considering the billions of temporal years and billions of light-years that make up space-time. Although this reasoning grants limited kinds of meaning to human beings, from a personal, social, or human perspective, Benatar both denies that the greatest sort of meaning––a cosmic one––is available to them and contends that this makes their lives bad, hence the “nihilist” tag. Some have objected that our lives could in fact have a cosmic significance, say, if they played a role in God’s plan (Quinn 2000, 65–66; Swinburne 2016, 154), were the sole ones with a dignity in the universe (Kahane 2014), or engaged in valuable activities that could be appreciated by anyone anywhere anytime (Wolf 2016, 261–62). Others naturally maintain that cosmic significance is irrelevant to appraising a human life, with some denying that it would be a genuine source of meaning (Landau 2017, 93–99), and others accepting that it would be but maintaining that the absence of this good would not count as a bad or merit regret (discussed in Benatar 2017, 56–62; Williams 2020, 108–11).

Finally, a distinguishable source of nihilism concerns the ontological, as distinct from axiological, preconditions for meaning in life. Perhaps most radically, there are those who deny that we have selves. Do we indeed lack selves, and, if we do, is a meaningful life impossible for us (see essays in Caruso and Flanagan 2018; Le Bihan 2019)? Somewhat less radically, there are those who grant that we have selves, but deny that they are in charge in the relevant way. That is, some have argued that we lack self-governance or free will of the sort that is essential for meaning in life, at least if determinism is true (Pisciotta 2013; essays in Caruso and Flanagan 2018). Non-quantum events, including human decisions, appear to be necessited by a prior state of the world, such that none could have been otherwise, and many of our decisions are a product of unconscious neurological mechanisms (while quantum events are of course utterly beyond our control). If none of our conscious choices could have been avoided and all were ultimately necessited by something external to them, perhaps they are insufficient to merit pride or admiration or to constitute narrative authorship of a life. In reply, some maintain that a compatibilism between determinism and moral responsibility applies with comparable force to meaning in life (e.g., Arpaly 2006; Fischer 2009, 145–77), while others contend that incompatibilism is true of moral responsibility but not of meaning (Pereboom 2014).

• Agar, N., 2013, Humanity’s End: Why We Should Reject Radical Enhancement , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Alexis., A., 2011, The Meaning of Life: A Modern Secular Answer to the Age-Old Fundamental Question , CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
• Arpaly, N., 2006, Merit, Meaning, and Human Bondage , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Audi, R., 2005, “Intrinsic Value and Meaningful Life”, Philosophical Papers , 34: 331–55.
• Ayer, A. J., 1947, “The Claims of Philosophy”, repr. in The Meaning of Life, 2 nd Ed. , E. D. Klemke (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 219–32.
• Baier, K., 1957, “The Meaning of Life”, repr. in The Meaning of Life, 2 nd Ed. , E. D. Klemke (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 101–32.
• Barnes, H., 1967, An Existentialist Ethics , New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
• Belliotti, R., 2019, Is Human Life Absurd? A Philosophical Inquiry into Finitude, Value, and Meaning . Leiden: Brill.
• Belshaw, C., 2021, The Value and Meaning of Life , London: Routledge.
• Benatar, D., 2006, Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2017, The Human Predicament , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Bennett-Hunter, G., 2014, Ineffability and Religious Experience , Oxford: Routledge.
• Blumenfeld, D., 2009, “Living Life over Again”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 79: 357–86.
• Bradford, G., 2015, Achievement , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Brännmark, J., 2003, “Leading Lives”, Philosophical Papers , 32: 321–43.
• Brogaard, B. and Smith, B., 2005, “On Luck, Responsibility, and the Meaning of Life”, Philosophical Papers , 34: 443–58.
• Calhoun, C., 2018, Doing Valuable Time: The Present, the Future, and Meaningful Living , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Campbell, S., and Nyholm, S., 2015, “Anti-Meaning and Why It Matters”, Journal of the American Philosophical Association , 1: 694–711.
• Caruso, G. and Flanagan, O. (eds.), 2018, Neuroexistentialism: Meaning, Morals, and Purpose in an Age of Neuroscience , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Cooper, D., 2003, Meaning . Durham: Acumen Publishing.
• Cottingham, J., 2005, The Spiritual Dimension: Religion, Philosophy and Human Value , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2016, “Meaningfulness, Eternity, and Theism”, in God and Meaning , J. Seachris and S. Goetz (eds.), New York: Bloomsbury Academic: 123–36.
• Craig, W., 1994, “The Absurdity of Life Without God”, repr. in Exploring the Meaning of Life: An Anthology and Guide , J. Seachris (ed.), Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013: 153–72.
• Danaher, J., 2017, “Will Life Be Worth Living in a World Without Work? Technological Unemployment and the Meaning of Life”, Science and Engineering Ethics , 23: 41–64.
• Darwall, S., 1983, Impartial Reason , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Davis, W., 1987, “The Meaning of Life”, Metaphilosophy , 18: 288–305.
• de Bres, H., 2018, “Narrative and Meaning in Life”, Journal of Moral Philosophy , 15: 545–71.
• Dorsey, D., 2015, “The Significance of a Life’s Shape”, Ethics , 125: 303–30.
• Egerstrom, K., 2015, “ Practical Identity and Meaninglessness ”, PhD Dissertation, Syracuse University.
• Ellin, J., 1995, Morality and the Meaning of Life , Ft. Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
• Evers, D., 2017, “Meaning in Life and the Metaphysics of Value”, De Ethica , 4: 27–44.
• Feinberg, J., 1980, “Absurd Self-Fulfillment,” repr. in Freedom and Fulfillment: Philosophical Essays , Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992: 297–330.
• Ferracioli, L., 2018, “Procreative-parenting, Love’s Reasons, and the Demands of Morality”, The Philosophical Quarterly , 68: 77–97.
• Fischer, J. M., 2009, Our Stories: Essays on Life, Death, and Free Will , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2019, Death, Immortality, and Meaning in Life , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Frankfurt, H., 1988, The Importance of What We Care About , New York: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2004, The Reasons of Love , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Gewirth, A., 1998, Self-Fulfillment , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Goetz, S., 2012, The Purpose of Life: A Theistic Perspective , New York: Continuum.
• Goldman, A., 2018, Life’s Values: Pleasure, Happiness, Well-Being, and Meaning , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Greene, P., 2021, “It Doesn’t Matter Because One Day It Will End”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 24: 165–82.
• Hanfling, O., 1987, The Quest for Meaning , New York: Basil Blackwell Inc.
• Hare, R. M., 1957, “Nothing Matters”, repr. in Applications of Moral Philosophy , London: Macmillan, 1972: 32–47.
• Hauskeller, M. and Hallich, O. (eds.), 2022, “Would It Be Better if We Had Never Existed? David Benatar's Anti-Natalism”, special issue of The Journal of Value Inquiry , 56: 1–151.
• Hooker, B., 2008, “The Meaning of Life: Subjectivism, Objectivism, and Divine Support”, in The Moral Life: Essays in Honour of John Cottingham , N. Athanassoulis and S. Vice (eds.), New York: Palgrave Macmillan: 184–200.
• Hosseini, R., 2015, Wittgenstein and Meaning in Life: In Search of the Human Voice , New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Kahane, G., 2011, “Should We Want God to Exist?”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 82: 674–96.
• –––, 2014, “Our Cosmic Insignificance”, Noûs , 48: 745–72.
• Kamm, F. M., 2013, Bioethical Prescriptions: To Create, End, Choose, and Improve Lives , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Kass, L., 2002, Life, Liberty, and the Defense of Dignity: The Challenge for Bioethics , San Francisco: Encounter Books.
• Kauppinen, A., 2012, “Meaningfulness and Time”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 82: 345–77.
• Kekes, J., 1986, “The Informed Will and the Meaning of Life”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 47: 75–90.
• –––, 2000, “The Meaning of Life”, in Midwest Studies in Philosophy, Volume 24; Life and Death: Metaphysics and Ethics , P. French and H. Wettstein (eds.), Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers: 17–34.
• Kraay, K. (ed.), 2018, Does God Matter? Essays on the Axiological Consequences of Theism , New York: Routledge.
• Landau, I., 1997, “Why Has the Question of the Meaning of Life Arisen in the Last Two and a Half Centuries?”, Philosophy Today , 41: 263–70.
• –––, 2017, Finding Meaning in an Imperfect World , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Le Bihan, B., 2019, “The No-Self View and the Meaning of Life”, Philosophy East and West , 69: 419–38.
• Levinson, J., 2004, “Intrinsic Value and the Notion of a Life”, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism , 62: 319–29.
• Levy, N., 2005, “Downshifting and Meaning in Life”, Ratio , 18: 176–89.
• Lougheed, K., 2020, The Axiological Status of Theism and Other Worldviews , New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Mackie, J. L., 1977, Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong , repr. London: Penguin Books, 1990.
• Markus, A., 2003, “Assessing Views of Life, A Subjective Affair?”, Religious Studies , 39: 125–43.
• Martela, F., 2017, “Meaningfulness as Contribution”, Southern Journal of Philosophy , 55: 232–56.
• Matheson, D., 2017, “The Worthwhileness of Meaningful Lives”, Philosophia , 48: 313–24.
• –––, 2018, “Creativity and Meaning in Life”, Ratio , 31: 73–87.
• Mawson, T., 2016, God and the Meanings of Life , London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
• –––, 2019, Monotheism and the Meaning of Life , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• May, T., 2009, Death , Stocksfield: Acumen.
• –––, 2015, A Significant Life: Human Meaning in a Silent Universe , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• McPherson, D., 2020, Virtue and Meaning: A Neo-Aristotelian Perspective , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Metz, T., 2002, “Recent Work on the Meaning of Life”, Ethics , 112: 781–814.
• –––, 2013, Meaning in Life: An Analytic Study , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2019, God, Soul and the Meaning of Life , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Mintoff, J., 2008, “Transcending Absurdity”, Ratio , 21: 64–84.
• Moreland, J. P., 1987, Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity , Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.
• Morris, T., 1992, Making Sense of It All: Pascal and the Meaning of Life , Grand Rapids, MI: Willliam B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
• Mulgan, T., 2015, Purpose in the Universe: The Moral and Metaphysical Case for Ananthropocentric Purposivism , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Murphy, J., 1982, Evolution, Morality, and the Meaning of Life , Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.
• Nagel, T., 1970, “The Absurd”, Journal of Philosophy , 68: 716–27.
• –––, 1986, The View from Nowhere , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Nozick, R., 1974, Anarchy, State and Utopia , New York: Basic Books.
• –––, 1981, Philosophical Explanations , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 1989, The Examined Life , New York: Simon and Schuster.
• Nussbaum, M., 1989, “Mortal Immortals: Lucretius on Death and the Voice of Nature”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 50: 303–51.
• Olson, N., 2016, “Medical Researchers’ Ancillary Care Obligations”, Bioethics , 30: 317–24.
• Pereboom, D., 2014, Free Will, Agency, and Meaning in Life , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Pisciotta, T., 2013, “ Determinism and Meaningfulness in Lives ”, PhD Dissertation, University of Melbourne.
• Purves, D. and Delon, N., 2018, “Meaning in the Lives of Humans and Other Animals”, Philosophical Studies , 175: 317–38.
• Quinn, P., 2000, “How Christianity Secures Life’s Meanings”, in The Meaning of Life in the World Religions , J. Runzo and N. Martin (eds.), Oxford: Oneworld Publications: 53–68.
• Raz, J., 2001, Value, Respect, and Attachment , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Repp, C., 2018, “Life Meaning and Sign Meaning”, Philosophical Papers , 47: 403–27.
• Ruse, M. and Wilson, E., 1986, “Moral Philosophy as Applied Science”, Philosophy , 61: 173–92.
• Scarre, G., 2007, Death . Stocksfield: Acumen.
• Schinkel, A., De Ruyter, D., and Aviram, A., 2015, “Education and Life’s Meaning”, Journal of Philosophy of Education , 50: 398–418.
• Seachris, J., 2011, “Death, Futility, and the Proleptic Power of Narrative Ending”, Religious Studies , 47: 141–63.
• –––, 2013, “General Introduction”, in Exploring the Meaning of Life: An Anthology and Guide , J. Seachris (ed.), Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell: 1–20.
• –––, 2016, “From the Meaning Triad to Meaning Holism: Unifying Life’s Meaning”, Human Affairs , 29: 363–78.
• Singer, I., 1996, Meaning in Life, Volume 1: The Creation of Value , Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Singer, P., 1995, How Are We to Live? Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
• Smith, Q., 1997, Ethical and Religious Thought in Analytic Philosophy of Language , New Haven: Yale University Press.
• –––, 2003, “Moral Realism and Infinite Spacetime Imply Moral Nihilism”, in Time and Ethics: Essays at the Intersection , H. Dyke (ed.), Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 43–54.
• Smuts, A., 2011, “Immortality and Significance”, Philosophy and Literature , 35: 134–49.
• –––, 2018, Welfare, Meaning, and Worth , New York: Routledge
• Solomon, R., 1993, The Passions: Emotions and the Meaning of Life , Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
• Street, S., 2015, “Does Anything Really Matter or Did We Just Evolve to Think So?”, in The Norton Introduction to Philosophy , G. Rosen et al. (eds.), New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.: 685–95.
• Svensson, F., 2017, “A Subjectivist Account of Meaning in Life”, De Ethica , 4: 45–66.
• Swenson, D., 1949, “The Dignity of Human Life”, repr. in The Meaning of Life, 2 nd Ed. , E. D. Klemke (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 2000: 21–30.
• Swinburne, R., 2016, “How God Makes Life a Lot More Meaningful”, in God and Meaning , J. Seachris and S. Goetz (eds.), New York: Bloomsbury Academic: 151–63.
• Tabensky, P., 2003, “Parallels Between Living and Painting”, The Journal of Value Inquiry , 37: 59–68.
• Tartaglia, J., 2015, Philosophy in a Meaningless Life , London: Bloomsbury.
• Taylor, C., 1989, Sources of the Self , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 1992, The Ethics of Authenticity , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Taylor, R., 1970, “The Meaning of Life”, in Good and Evil , repr. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Boooks, 2000: 319–34.
• –––, 1987, “Time and Life’s Meaning”, The Review of Metaphysics , 40: 675–86.
• Thomas, J., 2018, “Can Only Human Lives Be Meaningful?”, Philosophical Papers , 47: 265–97.
• –––, 2019, “Meaningfulness as Sensefulness”, Philosophia , 47: 1555–77.
• Thomson, G., 2003, On the Meaning of Life , South Melbourne: Wadsworth.
• Tooley, M., 2018, “Axiology: Theism Versus Widely Accepted Monotheisms”, in Does God Matter? Essays on the Axiological Consequences of Theism , K. Kraay, (ed.), New York: Routledge: 46–69.
• Trisel, B. A., 2002, “Futility and the Meaning of Life Debate”, Sorites , 14: 70–84.
• –––, 2004, “Human Extinction and the Value of Our Efforts”, The Philosophical Forum , 35: 371–91.
• –––, 2016, “Human Extinction, Narrative Ending, and Meaning of Life”, Journal of Philosophy of Life , 6: 1–22.
• Velleman, J. D., 2015, Beyond Price: Essays on Birth and Death , Cambridge: Open Book Publishers.
• Visak, T., 2017, “Understanding ‘Meaning of Life’ in Terms of Reasons for Action”, The Journal of Value Inquiry , 51: 507–30.
• Waghorn, N., 2014, Nothingness and the Meaning of Life: Philosophical Approaches to Ultimate Meaning through Nothing and Reflexivity , London: Bloomsbury.
• Wielenberg, E., 2005, Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Wiggins, D., 1988, “Truth, Invention, and the Meaning of Life”, rev. edn. in Essays on Moral Realism , G. Sayre-McCord (ed.), Ithaca: Cornell University Press: 127–65.
• Williams, B., 1973, “The Makropulos Case: Reflections on the Tedium of Immortality”, in Problems of the Self , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 82–100.
• –––, 1976, “Persons, Character and Morality”, in The Identities of Persons , A. O. Rorty (ed.), Berkeley: University of California Press: 197–216.
• Williams, C., 2020, Religion and the Meaning of Life: An Existential Approach , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Wolf, S., 2010, Meaning in Life and Why It Matters , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• –––, 2015, The Variety of Values: Essays on Morality, Meaning, and Love , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2016, “Meaningfulness: A Third Dimension of the Good Life”, Foundations of Science , 21: 253–69.
• Wong, W., 2008, “Meaningfulness and Identities”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 11: 123–48.
• Buber, M., 1923, I and Thou , W. Kaufmann (tr.), New York: Simon & Schuster Inc., 1970.
• Camus, A., 1942, The Myth of Sisyphus , J. O’Brian (tr.), London: H. Hamilton, 1955.
• James, W., 1899, “What Makes a Life Significant?”, in On Some of Life’s Ideals , New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1900.
• Jaspers, K., 1931, Man in the Modern Age , E. Paul and C. Paul (tr.), New York: Routledge, 2010.
• Kant, I., 1791, Critique of the Power of Judgment , P. Guyer and E. Mathews (tr.), New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
• Kierkegaard, S., 1849, The Sickness unto Death , H. V. Hong and E. H. Hong (tr.), Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980.
• Marx, K., 1844, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts , in Karl Marx Selected Writings, 2 nd Ed. , D. McLellan (ed., tr.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
• Nietzsche, F., 1885, Thus Spoke Zarathustra , in The Portable Nietzsche , W. Kaufmann (ed., tr.), New York: Viking Press, 1954.
• Sartre, J.-P., 1946, Existentialism Is a Humanism , P. Mairet (tr.), London: Methuen & Co, 1948.
• Schlick, M., 1927, “ On the Meaning of Life ”, P. Heath (tr.).
• Schopenhauer, A., 1851, Parerga and Paralipomena: Short Philosophical Essays, Volume 2 , E. F. J. Payne (tr.), New York: Oxford University Press, 1974.
• Tolstoy, L., 1884, A Confession , L. Maude and A. Maude (tr.).
• Wittgenstein, L., 1929, Lecture on Ethics , E. Zamuner et al. (eds.), Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2014.
• Benatar, D. (ed.), 2016, Life, Death & Meaning, 3 rd Ed. , Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
• Cottingham, J. (ed.), 2007, Western Philosophy: An Anthology, 2 nd Ed. , Oxford: Blackwell: pt. 12.
• Garcia, R. and King, N. (eds.), 2009, Is Goodness Without God Good Enough? Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
• Klemke, E. D. and Cahn, S. M. (eds.), 2018, The Meaning of Life: A Reader, 4 th Ed. , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Kolodny, N. (ed.), 2013, Death and the Afterlife , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Leach, S. and Tartaglia, J. (eds.), 2018, The Meaning of Life and the Great Philosophers , London: Routledge.
• Morioka, M. (ed.), 2015, Reconsidering Meaning in Life , Saitama: Waseda University.
• ––– (ed.), 2017, Nihilism and the Meaning of Life , Saitama: Waseda University.
• Seachris, J. (ed.), 2013, Exploring the Meaning of Life: An Anthology and Guide , Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Seachris, J. and Goetz, S. (eds.), 2016, God and Meaning: New Essays , New York: Bloombsury Academic.
• Baggini, J., 2004, What’s It All About?: Philosophy and the Meaning of Life , London: Granta Books.
• Belliotti, R., 2001, What Is the Meaning of Life? , Amsterdam: Rodopi.
• Belshaw, C., 2005, 10 Good Questions About Life and Death , Malden, MA: Blackwell.
• Cottingham, J., 2003, On the Meaning of Life , London: Routledge.
• Eagleton, T., 2007, The Meaning of Life: A Very Short Introduction , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Fischer, J. M., 2019, Death, Immortality, and Meaning in Life , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Ford, D., 2007, The Search for Meaning: A Short History , Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Hauskeller, M., 2020, The Meaning of Life and Death: Ten Classic Thinkers on the Ultimate Question , London: Bloomsbury Academic.
• Martin, M., 2002, Atheism, Morality, and Meaning , Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
• Messerly, J., 2012, The Meaning of Life: Religious, Philosophical, Transhumanist, and Scientific Approaches , Seattle: Darwin and Hume Publishers.
• Ruse, M., 2019, A Meaning to Life , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Young, J., 2003, The Death of God and the Meaning of Life , New York: Routledge.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Delon, N., 2021, “ The Meaning of Life ”, a bibliography on PhilPapers.
• Metz, T., 2021, “ Life, Meaning of ”, in Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy , E. Mason (ed.).
• O’Brien, W., 2021, “ The Meaning of Life: Early Continental and Analytic Perspectives ”, in Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy , J. Fieser and B. Dowden (eds.).
• Seachris, J., 2021, “ Meaning of Life: The Analytic Perspective ”, in Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy , J. Fieser and B. Dowden (eds.).

afterlife | death | ethics: ancient | existentialism | friendship | love | perfectionism, in moral and political philosophy | value: intrinsic vs. extrinsic | well-being

Copyright © 2021 by Thaddeus Metz < th . metz @ up . ac . za >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

• Lesson Plans
• Teacher's Guides
• Media Resources

Then and Now: Life in Early America, 1740–1840

Boy's frock or gown, 1800s.

Wikimedia Commons

Have you ever heard the expression, "The more things change, the more they stay the same?" Do you agree? Do your students? Does that old adage correctly characterize changes in America since the time of the Revolution? Using archival materials, re-creations, and classroom activities, help your students think about which aspects of everyday life — and the people who've lived it — have changed and which have stayed the same in the last 200 years.

Guiding Questions

In what ways is everyday life today significantly different from everyday life 200 years ago?

Learning Objectives

Compare the lives of people 200 years ago and people today.

Evaluate how changes in household tools, communication, transportation, recreation, and technology have changed the way people live and work.

Lesson Plan Details

NCSS.D2.His.1.6-8. Analyze connections among events and developments in broader historical contexts.

NCSS.D2.His.2.6-8. Classify series of historical events and developments as examples of change and/or continuity.

NCSS.D2.His.3.6-8. Use questions generated about individuals and groups to analyze why they, and the developments they shaped, are seen as historically significant.

NCSS.D2.His.4.6-8. Analyze multiple factors that influenced the perspectives of people during different historical eras.

NCSS.D2.His.5.6-8. Explain how and why perspectives of people have changed over time.

NCSS.D2.His.14.6-8. Explain multiple causes and effects of events and developments in the past.

NCSS.D2.His.15.6-8. Evaluate the relative influence of various causes of events and developments in the past. 

NCSS.D2.His.16.6-8. Organize applicable evidence into a coherent argument about the past.

• Review each lesson in this unit and select archival materials you'd like to use in class. Bookmark these materials, along with other useful websites, if possible; download and print out selected documents and duplicate copies as necessary for student viewing. URLs are provided for direct access to the images used in the lesson; simply click on the link to access any image. Home page URLs also are provided to credit sources and to allow for further exploration as desired.
• This unit consists of a series of brief lessons. Lessons could be conducted as whole-class activities, or students could work independently at stations. Where sufficient technology is available, computers can serve as learning centers. The five images in Activity 2 can be displayed in five windows on one computer screen or separately on five or even ten computers (for five or ten groups). In a computer lab, a few of the activities can be conducted simultaneously. If desired, adult aides or older students could be assigned to stations to assist students.
• The activities are organized chronologically and would be most effective presented that way. The first seven activities represent aspects of everyday life from about 1740 to the early 1800s. The last five activities represent aspects of everyday life from the late 1700s to the mid-1800s. These two sets of activities could be used at different times during the year, depending on your curriculum. If desired, pick and choose from among the activities, using any particular lesson when it is appropriate for your class.
• Dried corn husks (the inner husks are better than the outer ones)
• Cotton string
• Water and container for it
• Small piece of corncob, horse chestnut, large wooden bead, ping pong ball or styrofoam ball (optional)
• A read-aloud activity is often a great way to establish an anticipatory set. One book particularly pertinent to this unit is Turn of the Century , written by Ellen Jackson and illustrated by Jan Davey Ellis (Charlesbridge Publishing, 1998; ISBN: 088106369X; Reading level: Ages 9-12, younger for reading aloud).
• Refer to the complementary EDSITEment lesson Reading, Writing, and 'Rithmetic in the One-Room Schoolhouse , which encourages students to compare and contrast school life in the one-room schoolhouse of the 19th century with the modern schools of today.

Activity 1. What Would Change in This Picture? (mid-1700s)

Share with your students an artist's rendering of Life in London Town from the EDSITEment-reviewed website Learning from London Town . If someone were to photograph the exact same street today, what would be different? Depending on the class, students can brainstorm the differences in a whole-group setting, work in small groups to create a list of changes, or create a contemporary update of the picture through drawing or cutting and pasting directly on the picture (enlarged, if possible). Create a class list of the items that would change in the picture and how they would be updated.

Activity 2. The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same (1750–1800)

Have students list the differences, if any, between the following common objects from 1750–1800, all featured on the EDSITEment resource At Home in the Heartland Online , and similar objects we use today:

• An armchair
• A copper pot (or cauldron)

Activity 3. Getting Dressed in the 18th Century

Note: The interactive activity featured in this lesson focuses on 18th-century girls' clothing. For more information, including facts about boys' clothing, consult Children's Clothing and A Colonial Child's Clothing: A Glossary of Terms , both available on the website of Colonial Williamsburg , a link from the EDSITEment resource Internet Public Library. The activity can be completed online and/or offline using the doll and its accessories, which can be downloaded and printed out. When using the game online, the correct images must be chosen in order. If the images in the game dissolve when dragged, open a second window. Each time you toggle back to the window with the game, the images should be in place.

If using the game offline, print out copies of the doll and clothing for each student, have each student dress the paper doll and then compare the order of clothing items each student chose. The teacher can then demonstrate the correct order, and the class can discuss the purpose of each item of clothing. In this interactive activity — Eighteenth-Century Paper Doll Game — students will see all the steps it took for an 18th-century girl to get dressed. What steps in the process are the same today? What is completely different about getting dressed in the 18th century? What kind of outfit is this girl wearing? Do you think all children during this time period dressed in such fancy clothes?

Activity 4. You Gotta Make a Living (1750–1800)

Have students view the following images from the website of Colonial Williamsburg , a link from the EDSITEment resource Internet Public Library, of 18th-century people at work:

As a class or working in small groups, brainstorm what each picture reveals. What does the person do for a living? What is the person doing in the picture? Which of these jobs no longer exist? Which jobs exist in another form? Which jobs are very much the same? An alternative activity would be to have students match the early American job with a picture of a similar modern job. How was the 18th-century job different?

Activity 5. Let's Go Shopping (1750–1800)

Ask your students to write about or illustrate how they shop for medicine, shoes and/or clothing. After scrutinizing the images listed below, from the website of Colonial Williamsburg , a link from the EDSITEment resource Internet Public Library, have students brainstorm and create a list of the differences in the process.

• An apothecary shop
• Buying shoes
• Buying a dress

Activity 6. Bet You Can't Guess! (late 1700s to early 1800s)

Have students carefully observe the following images of items from the late 18th and early 19th centuries, all available on The Five Points Site , a link from the EDSITEment resource ArchNet , and form a hypothesis about the purpose of each object. A "hint" question is provided with each image link to help students guess the purpose of each of the items.

• Dessert glass with pattern-molded ribbing, 18th century How do you like your pudding served?
• Salt Cellar, late 18th century Got salt?
• Medicine Bottles, late 18th century Time to take your medicine?
• White granite chamber pot and lid What do you do when you have to go to the bathroom in the middle of the night?
• Clay and Glass Marbles, probably from the early19th century Did somebody lose their marbles?
• Red Earthenware Bank Where do you keep your money?

Now reveal the true function of each object. How close were the students' guesses? Note: For learning stations, the answer, something akin to the riddle-like questions above, or a picture of the modern equivalent of each object, could be attached to the back of the downloaded images.

Activity 7. Bet You Can't Guess! -- Part 2 (c. 1800–1840)

Have students carefully observe the following images of items from the early 19th century, all available on the EDSITEment resource At Home in the Heartland Online , and form a hypothesis about the purpose of each object.

• Candle Mold In 1800, you would need this even when you weren't getting ready for someone's birthday.
• Milk Pan (for separating the cream from the milk) Here's where the cream rises to the top.
• Lamp All the better to see you with!
• Yarn Winder Now you know how much yarn you have!

Now reveal the true function of each object. How close were the students' guesses? Note: For learning stations, the answer, something akin to the riddle-like questions above, or a picture of the modern equivalent of each object could be attached to the back of the downloaded images.

Activity 8. The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same - Part 2 (c. 1800–1840)

Have students list the differences, if any, between the following objects from 1800–1840, all available on the EDSITEment resource At Home in the Heartland Online , and similar objects we use today.

• Spoon (made from horn)

The teacher can select a few of the objects and explain the context and uses for them. For instance, the milk pan can be used to explain the process of getting milk from cows and making cream, butter, etc., both in the past and with today's dairy farms and supermarkets, refrigerated trucks, pasteurization, etc. The yarn winder can be used to explain how clothes were made, then and now. The teacher can explain the processes of shearing sheep or picking cotton, carding, spinning, etc. The teacher can relate the yarn winder to the spinning wheels depicted in the tales of Sleeping Beauty and Rumpelstiltskin .

Activity 9. Digging Up the Past

How do we know about everyday life in early America? Students can be "online archaeologists" through the EDSITEment resource Learning from London Town's Virtual Dig . Using the inventory chart , students can determine the functions of the objects they find. Using the EDSITEment resource, Learning from London Town , the teacher can describe what an archaeologist does: learns about past cultures by studying the remains left behind by people. Teachers can introduce students to the idea of archaeology by having students perform " Digging the Cellar at Rumney's Tavern ," an interactive activity in which students become archaeologists and "dig" in the cellar by moving their mouse over the diagram of the drawing of the profile of the cellar dig at Rumney's Tavern. When the mouse arrow turns into a hand, a message appears at the bottom of the computer screen identifying the found object. Students then click on the screen to see a picture of their discovery.

Teachers can then ask: "How do these objects compare to the objects seen in the previous lessons? Where do these objects come from? How do we find objects from the past?" After completing Lessons 7 and 8, "Bet You Can't Guess!" and Lessons 2 and 9, "The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same," teachers can use this complementary lesson to bring up overarching questions such as, "What do objects tell us about how the people who used them lived? How do we go about finding out what life was like at other points in history? Which objects from the past have remained part of our everyday life today?"

This interactive activity reinforces previous lessons about change and continuity from past to present and introduces the concepts of the archaeologist and of learning about earlier ways of life by uncovering objects of the past.

Activity 10. An Early American Game (1800–1840)

Give your students the opportunity to play an early American game. Games for both indoor and outdoor play may be found at Games to Try on Historic Latta Plantation , a link from the EDSITEment resource Women of the West Museum .

Activity 11. An Early American Toy (1800–1840)

Your students can create their own ball from corn husks and string. Instructions and background information may be found at Corn Husk Ball on Historic Latta Plantation , a link from the EDSITEment resource Women of the West Museum . After the students have had the chance to make and use the ball, encourage discussion. Did students find it challenging or difficult to make the corn husk ball? Do they have to work as hard for their toys today? Is the corn husk ball a fun toy to play with?

Activity 12. The Match Game

Culminate the lesson with a discussion based on the guiding question presented at the beginning of the unit: In what ways is everyday life today significantly different from everyday life 200 years ago? Attempt to arrive at a conclusion. Has everyday life changed radically, or is it basically the same? For example, is play essentially the same because students still throw and catch balls, or has such play radically changed since we use different balls? Have students represent their findings graphically. Using a bulletin board, computer, or some other type of display, students can post images of early American objects beside contemporary objects. They can even invite other classes to attempt to match the images.

For the Match Game, download the "Then and Now" chart, print it out, and and make copies for your students ( Download chart, which is Word format ).You can provide magazines for students to cut and paste images, or they can draw their own pictures, in the appropriate spaces on the chart. For each object, students can answer the questions, "What is it?" and "What is it used for?" Their responses can become the basis for a class discussion comparing life in the 18th and 19th centuries with life today.

• If you plan to invite other classes to your classroom, as suggested in Activity 12, make a celebration of it. Hold an Early American Fair, in which students display and/or demonstrate some of the objects they encountered in this lesson in booths.
• Students could be challenged to write stories with a time travel theme. What would happen if one of them were whisked back to early America? What would happen if someone from early America were whisked to modern times?

Selected EDSITEment Websites

• The Five Points Site
• At Home in the Heartland Online
• National Archives Education
• The Betsy Ross Homepage
• Carol Hurst Children's Literature Page
• Colonial Williamsburg
• Encyclopedia Britannica Online
• Learning from London Town
• Le Musée des arts et métiers, Paris
• Whole Cloth
• Notable Women Ancestors
• Historic Latta Plantation

Other Resources: Recommended reading from Carol Hurst Children's Literature Page , a link from Internet Public Library

• Hall, Donald. Ox-Cart Man . Illustrated by Barbara Cooney. (Audience: Grade 1)

Materials & Media

Then and now: life in early america: worksheet 1, related on edsitement, mission us: for crown or colony the game, american colonial life in the late 1700s: distant cousins, mapping colonial new england: looking at the landscape of new england, colonial broadsides and the american revolution.

• Listening Tests
• Academic Tests
• General Tests
• IELTS Writing Checker
• IELTS Writing Samples
• Speaking Club
• IELTS AI Speaking Test Simulator
• Latest Topics
• Vocabularying
• 2024 © IELTS 69

Life in the past and now. When it was better?

IELTS essay Life in the past and now. When it was better?

• Structure your answers in logical paragraphs
• ? One main idea per paragraph
• Include an introduction and conclusion
• Support main points with an explanation and then an example
• Use cohesive linking words accurately and appropriately
• Vary your linking phrases using synonyms
• Try to vary your vocabulary using accurate synonyms
• Use less common question specific words that accurately convey meaning
• Check your work for spelling and word formation mistakes
• Use a variety of complex and simple sentences
• Check your writing for errors
• Answer all parts of the question
• ? Present relevant ideas
• Fully explain these ideas
• Support ideas with relevant, specific examples
• ? Currently is not available
• Meet the criteria
• Doesn't meet the criteria
• 6 band Life now and in the past. When was it better? There is no doubt, that word has changed a lot for the recent 40 years. That’s why the older generation tends to claim that they used to live better than now. In this essay I try to suppose why they consider like that and give you my point of view. As for me, I am convinced that this opinion of some ...
• 7 band deforestation What are the primary causes of deforestation? to what results may it lead. Nature provides us with fresh air and aids in maintaining harmony of the environment, however, in the recent years chopping of plantation has resulted in harmful effects on our habitat. There are various reasons that are causing explanation which ultimately leads to extinction, which I will discuss ...
• Learn a language, and you’ll avoid a war. Arab Proverb
• 5.5 band Global interdepence and its affects on the economy Recently, The world has been more globalized than ever, which has been significantly beneficial for the global economy. However, some people still argue that globalization is a negative development, and that the world was better off when countries didn’t interdepend on each other. So, was globalizat ...
• 5.5 band Globnal interdepence and the things it brought forth Recently, The world has been more globalized than ever, which has been significantly beneficial for the global economy. However, some people still argue that globalization is a negative development, and that we were better off when countries didn’t inter dependon each other. So, was globalization a ...
• If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to him in his own language, that goes to his heart. Nelson Mandela
• 5.5 band Animal rights and animal explotitons. Animals should not be exploited by people and they should have the same rights as humans. They have their own rights and people should respect that. Today animal rights are better than past. Nowadays, most people respect animal rights and activists defend animal rights. Despite this, some people do ...
• 6 band discus both views and giving opinion There is no doubt that at some period of humans's lives there is the happiest moment even though it depens from one to another which is a conflict point. Some people believe that the chilhood is the best time while others admit that hapiness came when they became matures. However, I think that the g ...
• Language is not a genetic gift, it is a social gift. Learning a new language is becoming a member of the club – the community of speakers of that language. Frank Smith

Essay On Life Now And Then The 1960's

Is life better now then the 1960’s, Life now is so much different from back then, in time now we have phones,tvs and xbox and more but back then they did not have none of that i mean they had tvs but they was in black and white and they didn’t have iphones like us they used the phone called rotary phone which those kind of phones are like you put your hand on the number and spin it all the way around that would be annoying sometimes if you ask me. The prices back then was very cheap because restaurant-ing through history eggs cost like $0.55 and sweet corn was like $0.05. To go out to eat the meal cost like $3.50 now these days to go out to eat it’s not really expensive but i mean if you don’t have the money then it is the cost to go out to eat now is like 10.00 or more. Did you know if you ordered pizza …show more content…

Back then there rules are different from now cause when you see them street lights come on you better be in the house or your in trouble now these days the time kids better be in is 10:00 on weekdays and 11:00 on weekends there hair styles are really not that pretty i mean they think it is cause that was the look back then but i rather wear a bun or my hair straight cause that's the style these days. This is reasons why i think that time now is better than time back then. In time now people get piercings and tattoos people back then aint allowed to do that i mean they was but they would get

Similarities Between 70 And 70

Life in the 70’s was very different than it is today. When you compare the 1970s to 2017 you can see the huge differences, and maybe some similarities. A lot has changed since the 70’s, including the style, lifestyle, pop culture, and more. Since the 70’s a lot has changed, we have changed in some ways and are similar in more ways than one. Here are the differences and similarities between the 70’s and today, 2017.

Essay on Book Review: Daily Life in the United States, 1920-1940

The way Americans lived their lives was drastically changed between the years of 1920 and 1940. Many different events and advances in technology happened within the country during this time period. Events such as the stock market crash in 1929, the dust bowl of the 1930’s, and, due to an increase in urbanization, the uprising of major cities. Also advances in technology transpired, such as the invention of the radio and Henry Ford’s assembly line. These events and advances are all illustrated in great detail in the novel, Daily Life in the United States, 1920-1940 by David E. Kyvig. His thesis explains that during the two decades, the American life style was changed in such a

Social Development of Late Adulthood Essay

In middle adulthood there are many changes that occur physically, psychologically, and socially as explained in the above passages. Yet, some say that this is the best time of their life, they experience enhanced self-confidence, great sex lives, career success, and enhanced brain functions. Middle age adults are better equipped to make better life choices and decisions and not worry so much about the negative parts of life. Their problem solving skills are greater which allows them to reason more creatively. They are able to enjoy sex freely without the worries of getting pregnant and they feel more confident with their partners. In general they are happier about life and look forward to enjoying the rest of their lives.

Teenagers In The 1960s Essay

During the 1950s, teenagers were starting to create their own identity. Compared to how teenagers acted in previous generations, teenagers in these years were different. Teenagers in this time period gained freedom and independent. Teenagers were able to have fun during these years. They also rebelled against being conservative and conforming into what the adult society wants them to act. Their beliefs and attitudes were distinct from what their parents thought. Teenagers had different groups that they belonged to. Hipsters, rockers, beatniks, squares and teeny-boppers were the five diverse groups of fifties teenagers. Also, they did not follow what their parents like. The way they talked, music and fashion evolved and became a part of the youth culture. Rock and roll became a great influence in a teenager’s life. Many parents did not approve of this music as they described it as revolting, vulgar and thought it was influencing their child in a terrible way. This created a generation gap between parents and the teenagers. The teenagers were starting to mark, able to express who they are, which had many

Back in 1950, most people lived in an urban city. Now, more than half of the United States population lives in the suburbs. (Doc. 2) People aren’t as friendly and outgoing as they were back then. In the 1950’s, everyone was friends with everyone. We don’t have as many neighborhood shops today. They can’t compete with the big chain stores and restaurants. (Doc. 3)

Transition To Adulthood In The 1970's

Despite lowering the age to vote and drink in the 1970’s, Australia continued the practice of giving a key too 21-year-olds on their birthday, symbolising their “coming of age”, and with it, the underlying expectation of respect and the adherence of social norms, just as how to act appropriately in public. Between the eighteenth and twentieth centuries, the transition to adulthood was defined by, and adult identity rooted in, the attainment of “spousal status” with the formation of a family to follow (Kenyon & Heath 2001b). “Adulthood” was steeped in the achievement of material symbols; marriage, houses and children (McNamara & Connell 2007). While it was evident in my interviews that the attainment of such material symbols are no longer defined

The Civil Rights Movement in the 1960’s Essay

African Americans have been struggling for equality for many decades. It only seems that during the 1960?s is when there were actual significant advances made. This was about the same time that civil rights came into the political scene. Throughout the South, Blacks were still in the majority, but had no political power what so ever. The Civil Rights Movement gave African Americans a voice and a chance to make a difference. The 1960's helped open up hope and expectations for Black Americans.

Life During the 1960’s Essay

The 1960s was crammed full of many impacting events and important figures. From Hitchcock releasing one of the greatest thrillers of all time, Psycho, to Marilyn Monroe’s untimely death, to the infamous Woodstock festival. This era changed history completely and made the United States think twice about its youth. Events of the 1960s are still impacting our country as we know it today. The sudden pull from the conservative ‘50s changed America’s views on all aspects of life, including fashion, entertainment, and lifestyles.

The Next Generation Of Teenagers In The 1960's

SEX/ RELATIONSHIPS: The 1960 style of dating was very proper compared to now. A guy calls you or asks you in person on a date and back then for a girl meant him picking you up, hanging out with him, walking you home and maybe giving you a kiss goodnight. Lots of first dates started off as a group dates. They would hang out at ice skating rinks or maybe go to the movies. If it is a dinner date the guy wills open doors for the girl, help her with her coat, pull out her chair and pay for dinner. We still do these activities in the year 2014 but some can argue that it’s not as romantic. Not a lot of things were done in the “proper “way. For instance now since we have more technology than they did back then, they flirt with the girl through social

Essay on Late Adulthood

The journey through late adulthood can be experienced in different ways. One particular movie entitled “The Bucket List” exhibits an astounding portrayal of late adulthood. In fact, there are many accounts that the movie entails about late-adulthood. This includes the illustration of Erickson’s late adulthood stage – “Ego Integrity vs. Despair,” wisdom, marriage, friendship, parent-child relationship, and death and dying in late adulthood.

Pleasantville Essay

There are many differences between the 1950s and modern day culture as illustrated by the

Social Issues of the Seventies Essay

• 3 Works Cited

The 1970s can be best understood as a transitional period in America. Starting in the 1950s, the power of the youth was on the rise, through civil rights activism and anti-war protests. This decade’s ideal citizen seemed to be the person helping others. Then the 1980s are more financially centered and individualistic. This decade’s ideal citizen is the one who measured success by how much money they made. The 1970s proved to be a time of bitterness, cynicism, and increased interest in one’s self for most of the people in America. Some of the events that contributed to this were the Kent State Massacre, Roe v. Wade, and the economic stagflation that happened in the latter part of the decade.

Essay on The Civil Rights Movement in the 1950's

Black Americans were discriminated against on a daily basis creating all sorts of difficulties in life, so the Civil Rights movements in the 1950s sparked optimism in many Black Americans.

Acceleration Of Just About Everything Essay

In 1999, James Gleick, exploring everyday life in contemporary American soci-ety, noted the “acceleration of just about everything”: love, life, speech, politics,

My Life In High School Essay

Any senior right now will honestly ask themselves how they could have possibly made it this far knowing how stressful high school can be. To finally come to this point in my life it feels amazing. Many seniors have their own way of making it to this place in time. I will give the reader my advice and thoughts on how to make the most of your life in high school.

Related Topics

• United States

• Free Essays
• Citation Generator

Life in the Past and Life Now-Comparison.

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

Read britain's industrial advantages and the factory system by edward baines, report.

Many things at this time advanced like canals were built and railways were made. This was time for people to get transportation to places that they need to go. Also at this time the government was improving and trying to find the right government. I believe that the new advantages were not worth the turmoil that some of the people had to go through. People died working and did not have time to have time with their families and have any…

What Factors Contributed To The Market Revolution In 1860

Economically, means of transportation and communication systems improved drastically. Railroads were created, which became a better alternative to ships. They took less time to build, less money to pay workers, and things were cheaper to transport on them then…

Essay On The Eight Foot Statue Of Wright Brother's Memorial

what used to take days. Flight made it easier to visit other places, be exposed to the culture of…

The Comparison of Lives

The ruins her and her family visited were dedicated to all the people in her past and took ten years to be complete.…

How Did The World Change Throughout The 20th Century

Throughout the 20th century there has been a series of events that no man could ever hope to overlook. These events have changed the lives of so many that it is impossible to count up to the number in one life time. It is these occurrences in the past that have altered the way we, as humans, look at modern civilization today. An extraordinary amount of dire and both fortunate and unfortunate events have happened causing life-changing results in both the past and in modern society. In the 20th century, events such as these have had both a devastating and a great impact in the world.…

The Jetsons Research Paper

There are flying cars and machines that make breakfast, lunch, and dinner in under five minutes. The kids travel to school by tube and sit in hovering desks. Traveling tubes are similar to elevators but go in more directions than up and down. that took you from one destination to the next. Picture sitting at the bank and you put your money in the machine and it goes from your car into the bank. It was like that. Also people didn’t walk, they either rode on treadmills or flying scooters.…

1970 Up The Present Research Paper

Nowadays, it is commonly said that life is better than it was 50 years ago, but… is it a reality? In fact, the different lifestyles cannot be defined as superior or inferior, but it is a truth acknowledged that there are many changes from 1970 up the present.…

How Times Have Changed Research Paper

Having been born to older parents, my grandparents were alive during the turn of the 20th century. They knew what life was like with very little interventions. They lived off of the land and lived in the same area for all of their lives. On the other hand, I was born in the early 1960s and have seen and enjoyed the many conveniences and advancements in technology over the years. How times have changed is evident when looking at the technology of yester-year and current times, especially in the areas of communication, entertainment, and commerce.…

Standard of Living over Time

Today's Standard of Living have change a lot. My grandfather told me that many things aren't invention when he was young. Such as smartphone, HDTV, computer, xbox and so on. But today almost young people have these things. He said people have a big problem about food. There were severe famine in his hometown. People didn't have enough food, let alone go out to eat. I can't imagine how hard the life is in that years. The technology was underdeveloped in that years, so they didn't have AC. And things were very cheap because people's wage was so low. it just 2 RMB per day. Because the wage was so low, so people didn't have much money for entertainment. They always went to forest to hunt. He said this is the most happy thing for entertainment when he was young. When i asked him was there anything better about life back then, he told me the environment and people's health. Even though technology is so advanced at today, but more pollution are existing. He think today's standard of living is higher than he was my age, because people can use more advanced technology, buy a lot of goods to make the life be comfortable. And a lot of place can use for entertainment.…

F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Things They Carried

Today in our society everything seems normal to us, all the technology, the way people talk, our economy, everything. But you might be surprised to know that things weren't always like this, infact all of this happened in the last 100 years or so. In the last 100 years our Technology, War, and Society has drastically changed.…

Age Of Progression Analysis

If you look back to a year from today, there is a good chance you will wince. You will acknowledge your flaws and the ways you have changed. History is no different. Within this new year, within this new class, we have studied a selection of eras. All of them falling within the 14th century, to the 21st century. When comparing these eras we often find a similar occurrence: progression. The time period of 1450 to 2016 should be described as the Age of Progression, as we have experienced clarity, separation and a change of intelligence.…

Need and Technology

Modern society has been changing more and more every year. It changes a little more every year but it has changed tremendously over the past fifteen to twenty years. The main thing that has changed is technology and the way it is used. Technology has had a big effect on the way people do things. The view of technology that I agree with is, technology solves problems and makes life better.…

The Changing World

The world is has never been the same. People living a century ago, can never imagine the world we are living in. Over the last one hundred years we have seen extraordinary changes in technology. We had been on the foul smelling four leg carts and now at the foul smelling gas consuming four wheels. We wished to be like birds flying here and there, now we are visiting planets and isolated areas. We dreamed to go “Around the world in Eighty Days” and now we communicate across the world in seconds. The culture of the people changes accordingly with the devolvement in science and technology. From the literature to living styles, every thing changes shape with the passage of time.…

Life Yesterday & Today

Living life now is so much more different than how it was back then. The way the puritans used to live was a lot harder and they were a little foolish. Their way of living was so much different than it is now, most Americans can’t really remember or they simply just don’t know anything. There were many flaws in the Puritan Era, and America has developed and grown throughout the years and for the better.…

The Best Time: Life in the Modern World

The world is evolving faster every year. Technology is the biggest and most remarkable form of evolution for the human being. Even though, a lot of people think that technology is the only thing that us, the human beings, have evolved they are wrong. Now we live in a better world, not just material things, we have improved many things, for example, education. Old people say that their time was better, and young people say that their time is better. We cannot know which time was better because we are not young two times in our life. Every generation has its pros and cons, that is why everybody should think just in the present and should not compare with other years, but still I think the time we live now is better than any other time. The time we live in now is better than my grandparents in technology, education, human rights, but is worse in health, family union.…

Related Topics

• 2000s music groups
• Differences

We use COOKIES to make your user experience better.

By staying on our website, you fully accept it. Learn more » It's OK

• How it works
• Coursework |
• Research Proposal |
• Research Paper |
• Reaction Paper |
• Term Paper |
• Lab Report |
• Annotated Bibliography |
• Case Study |
• Excel Assignment |
• Discussion Board Post |
• Interview |
• Article Critique |
• Business Plan |
• White Paper |
• Questions Answers |
• Case Brief |
• Literary Analysis |
• Capstone Project |
• Marketing Plan |
• Blog Article |
• PPT Presentation and Poster |
• PDF Poster |
• Article Review |
• Statistics Research Project |
• Motivation Letter |
• Dissertation |
• IB Extended Essay |
• Thesis Proposal |
• Movie Review |
• Literature Review |
• Film Critique |
• Grant Proposal |
• Book Review |
• Rewriting |
• Article Writing |
• Formatting |
• Proofreading |
• Business Report |
• Concept Map |
• Problem Solution Essay |
• Do My Math Homework |

Technology Now and Then

The modern societies have changed drastically over the past fifty years in regard on technology. The societies have become an information world where technology is almost everything as opposed to the past. Technology has changed and advanced a great deal presently compared to the earlier periods. Nowadays, it affects human life in different areas; for instance, it brings social change, educational change, agricultural change, and change in leisure activities among others.

Industrial Revolution and Technology

Get a price quote

Trade and Technology

In the past, the majority of the businesses were done locally and counting done manually. Technology has quickly changed the way people trade since the business people nowadays use internets, calculators, telephone, mobile forms, and airplanes (Klein, 2008). In the past, carrying goods to the marketplaces were done by people themselves or by use of animals such as donkeys, camels, and even cows (Klein, 2008). Presently, the trade industry has improved a great deal due to technology changes because traders can use vehicles and airplanes to transport and supply goods to the consumers. Starting a business in the past needed no registration since the technology was in its minimal form. On the other hand, when starting a business presently, registration is done in the local business registration offices, and a business name is applied using the computers with internets. In addition, with the birth of the internet, businesspersons can conduct international trade while they are in their countries without traveling all the way. This could not be done in the past as it forced the traders to travel all the way in order to take their goods and interact with the consumers.

Agriculture and Technology

Get paper of the TOP quality

with 15% OFF for your 1st order!

Education and Technology

Compared to the past, technology has estimably changed education. Teaching methods have advanced from ancient times to nowadays. In the past, science was taught through recitation method where learners memorized the machines without seeing them. But now, technology has led to the invention of laboratory, observation method, and fieldwork method with adequate laboratory facilities where science students can now observe the machines. In the past, some subjects were not included in the syllabus; for example, Information Technology. But due to advancement in technology, these topics have been added in the syllabus today. With this knowledge, the students now learn how to use computers (Zelkowitz, 2006). Thanks to technology advancements, students in schools around the world can learn using the computers. In the past, the students had to attend classes in person since there were no computers or laptops. Presently, with the invention of e-learning, students are able to learn online which is easier compared to the past (Hutchby, 2001).

Transport and Technology

In the past, people used animals such as camels, donkeys, horses, and cattle to travel from one area to another. This has changed with the Technology Revolution. Today, technology has invented machines, which make travelling easier than before, as they are quick and save time. Moreover, advancement in technology has led to the development of vehicles and trains, which people can use to travel to far places (Klein, 2008). There are also motorcycles and bicycles, which help people to travel on land. Presently, there are airplanes, jets, rockets, and airstrips, which people use to travel on air unlike in the past. In the past, people used boats, which were locally made to travel on water. These boats took a lot of time and needed a lot of energy to operate. But today, with the technology, many machines such as steamboats, ships, engine boats, and ferries have been invented (Klein, 2008). The invented machines now save time and energy and carry people as opposed to the earlier periods.

Communication and Technology

The types of medium people use to converse with one another have been advancing during the past years. The modes of communication have changed depending on the times, individual’s living situation, and advancement in technology (Klein, 2008). In the past, the types of communication technology devices have evolved from smoke signals and carrier pigeons to letters and telegrams. Later, in the 1800s, there was the invention of telegraphs, which brought about generational change in communication. Telegraph was the first main landmark in the development of communication technology (Zelkowitz, 2006). Today, people use efficient means of communication: mobile phones, e-mails, telephones, radio, cable television, and internet, which are faster than the ones used in the earlier periods. Nowadays, communication plays an important role in the public and private spheres as opposed to the past (Zelkowitz, 2006). Today, communication worldwide is at the tip of the finger and is factual. People use computers, Ipads, Blackberry playbooks, Tablets, and wireless internet to communicate instantly with the use of e-mail, text messaging, instant messaging, and video chats. Current technology makes communication continuous as it allows individuals to inarticulate themselves with a click of a button (Zelkowitz, 2006). People in the past were not exposed to the kind of technology that enabled face-to-face communication as today (Zelkowitz, 2006). Nowadays, people are able to communicate face to face despite the distance. For instance, one can have face-to-face communication through the application of 3G calls, Skype, and webcam (Hutchby, 2001). In ancient times, televisions were usually in optical screens, white and black images with few channels and with an antenna attached at the backs (Zelkowitz, 2006). But nowadays, there are varieties of televisions which appear in liquid crystal and plasma display. They have great sound systems and flat screens with clearer vision (Hutchby, 2001). The televisions also come in multitouch screens meaning we can control everything while watching. In conclusion, our everyday tasks have changed in one way or another due to technological advancement, and they are quickly becoming the norm. Numerous technological innovations have occurred since the beginning of humanity and contributed to the modern ones. The technological changes from the past to present always relate to survival needs like shelter, defense, or food. The technology revolution from the past to now helps in many aspects of our lives such as the economy, education, and health (Hutchby, 2001). Technological changes have positively driven civilization and changed cultural systems as it shapes and reflects the system’s values.

Our unique features

• Money-back guarantee
• Plagiarism-free papers
• Free revision according to our revisions policy
• Perfect formatting (APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard and others)
• 24/7 Customer Support

Testimonials

for more than 15 pages --> --> --> -->

for more than 50 pages --> -->

Get for free

• FREE Revision (within 2 days) $18
• FREE Plagiarism-free papers $11
• FREE Plagiarism report (on request) $11
• FREE Reference page $11
• FREE Title page $13
• FREE Outline page (on request) $13

Total saving: $77

Affiliate Program

Say your friend to use OUR Services and Get 10%

Paper design

• Over 300 words/page
• Single or double-spaced
• Text aligned left
• One-inch margins
• 12 point font size
• You choose font face

Childhood Then Vs Now: Difference Between Kids in 90’s and 2000’s

Every Generation people observe old things and define them in a new way. For every century and generation somewhere down the line people’s childhood memories, things are getting changed. In the olden days, kids used to spend their maximum time with friends outside by playing various types of outdoor games. But in the current generation, kids are spending their highest amount of time in front of gadgets and playing virtual games.

Want to recall all your old memories and know what present generation kids are missing? Then, step into this article and get the full clarity on the difference between Kids in 90’s and 2000’s. By referring to this article you all will definitely memorize your childhood things, funny games, enjoyable time, and many more.

After seeing these 90’s Vs 2000’s differences recreate any of the things that you’d love to do at present with your kids or parents. Okay, let’s dive into the Difference Between Children in then and now!

Difference Between Kids in 90’s and 2000’s

People from 80’s, 90’s to the ones from the 2000’s have seen so many drastic differences in Childhood timings. So, to make them feel their childhood memories again and to educate the ones in 2000’s kids about old fun games, and joyful life let’s take a look at the difference between children in 90’s and 2000’s.

Here we are discussing a few most exciting childhood differences from then to now. So, let’s get started now,

1. Games in 90’s and 2000’s

In 90’s, kids used to play a lot of outdoor games like cricket, shuttle, kho-kho, lock and key, hide and seek, cut the cake, etc. and make joyful memories with their friends.

In 2000s, kids play mobile games like temple run, candy crush, fruit ninja, PUBG, video games, etc. and becoming inactive for other things.

2. Making Class Notes Then and Now

Children in the 90’s always attentive and on point in preparing their notes with pencils/ink pen/gel pen/ballpoint pens/ while classes and study hours.

In 2000s, kids are growing without any correct guidance and becoming addicted to the latest technology and asking their friends to mail the notes instead of preparing on their own before studies.

3. Mobile Phones in 90’s and 2000’s

Those days kids are not even seen phones up to their secondary education and for them holding a mobile phone is big deal.

But nowadays, even months babies are using mobile phones for entertainment, and kids are handling and using them maximum time for playing games, chatting with friends, sharing photos and videos in social media apps, and for studying.

4. Hanging out with Friends Then and Now

At 90’s girls won’t step out from their houses for playing, movies, parties, etc. but boys do step out for playing games only within 500 meters from their houses.

Right in this generation, kids are not even listening to their parent’s words, 10-12-year-old kids are hanging out in malls and go for movies alone without any fear.

5. Birthday Gifts to Friends in 90’s & 2000s

90’s People in their childhood gifted their friends Rs. 11 or Rs. 21 in an envelop or chocolates on their birthdays and wishes them with their heart touching lines, love, and affection.

2000s kids plan their friend’s birthday parties and gift them a minimum 500 cost of branded items or accessories.

6. Punishments for 90’s and 2000’s Kids

Whenever kids get punishments for silly mistakes they used to not play with their friends in the evening times after their homework.

In the 2000s, parents punishing their kids by banning the use of mobile gadgets, tablets, PlayStation, and Xbox for 2 days.

7. Movies From Then to Now

At times of the 90’s, kids are watch movies rarely and then only went for their favorite actors or actress movies like Tollywood actors: NTR, ANR, Chiranjeevi, Bala Krishna, Bollywood Actors – Shah rukh khan, Aamir Khan, Salman Khan.

In the 2000’s, kids love to watch all languages movies like English, Telugu, Hindi, Tamil, Kannada, Malayalam. Now, mostly their favourite actors are Jim Carrey, Gerard Butler, Robert Downey Jr., Leonardo DiCaprio, etc.

For more differences between 90’s and 2000s, please go through this video and cherish your childhood things now and encourage your kids to enjoy your childhood things by recreating those things with your kids.

Well, there are plenty of things that are different between kids in 90s and 2000s. Stay tune to our site for more difference between then and now in childhood. Also, We would love to know your feelings and changes that you’ve seen like these at your times via the below comment section. However, you can get many exciting and interesting articles like this on our website Versionweekly.com 

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Transparency through our essay writing service

Transparency is unique to our company and for my writing essay services. You will get to know everything about 'my order' that you have placed. If you want to check the continuity of the order and how the overall essay is being made, you can simply ask for 'my draft' done so far through your 'my account' section. To make changes in your work, you can simply pass on your revision to the writers via the online customer support chat. After getting ‘my’ initial draft in hand, you can go for unlimited revisions for free, in case you are not satisfied with any content of the draft. We will be constantly there by your side and will provide you with every kind of assistance with our best essay writing service.

Customer Reviews

How to Write an Essay For Me

Read our research on: Gun Policy | International Conflict | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

Political typology quiz.

Notice: Beginning April 18th community groups will be temporarily unavailable for extended maintenance. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation.

Where do you fit in the political typology?

Are you a faith and flag conservative progressive left or somewhere in between.

Take our quiz to find out which one of our nine political typology groups is your best match, compared with a nationally representative survey of more than 10,000 U.S. adults by Pew Research Center. You may find some of these questions are difficult to answer. That’s OK. In those cases, pick the answer that comes closest to your view, even if it isn’t exactly right.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

• How to watch in the US
• How to watch outside the US
• How to watch with a VPN

UFC 300 live stream: How to watch Pereira vs. Hill

When you buy through our links, Business Insider may earn an affiliate commission. Learn more

It's been a long time coming, but UFC 300 is finally here. Alex Pereira will defend his light heavyweight title against Jamahal Hill in Las Vegas as Saturday night's main event. No matter where you are in the world, we've put together everything you need to know about the fight, including how to watch a UFC 300 live stream and who's on the fight card.

The landmark event presents one of the most stacked fight cards in UFC history. While Pereira holds the title, Hill is a past champion looking to regain his glory. In addition to Pereira and Hill's ultimate smack-down, Zhang Weili and Yan Xiaonan will compete for the women's strawweight championship.

Check out everything you need to know about the fights below, including how to watch it in the US, UK, and Canada (as well as VPN options). Plus, you'll find full cost breakdowns and tips for US savings.

• See also: Watch US Golf Masters | Watch Monte Carlo Tennis Masters | Watch free MotoGP

How to watch UFC 300 in the US

American UFC fans know the drill by now. UFC 300's main event will be available to stream tonight at 10 p.m. ET on ESPN+ . To see the main fight, you'll need to pay for an ESPN+ subscription (for $10.99 a month, if you don't already have one) as well as an $80 pay-per-view fee. 

There are savings in store for those who don't already subscribe to ESPN+ and are looking to get an annual plan with UFC 300. You can purchase the streamer's PPV Package, which is a one-year ESPN+ subscription with the next UFC PPV fight (in this case, UFC 300) for $134.98. Annual plans typically cost $109.99 a year, plus the $80 PPV fee, so this is a major savings opportunity. Once the promo year is up, ESPN+ will renew at the regular annual rate unless you decide to cancel. This will only get you UFC 300, and you'll need to pay the PPV fees for future UFC fights. 

ESPN+ members can order UFC pay-per-events for $79.99. You must be an ESPN+ subscriber ($10.99/month) to be eligible to order.

ESPN+ is the home of UFC PPV events, meaning that fans need to purchase a subscription in addition to buying the one-off cards. ESPN is offering a bundle for both new subscribers and monthly subscribers to purchase a specific UFC PPV event along with a year-long subscription to the streaming service.

Fortunately, the prelims and early prelims will be available at 8 p.m. and 6 p.m. ET, respectively, with just an ESPN+ subscription (no PPV fees necessary). You can also catch the prelim and early prelims on regular ESPN, which comes with live TV packages like Sling TV Orange (at $40 a month) and Hulu + Live TV (at $76.99 a month). Keep in mind that these will not get you the main card, since that is only available with the PPV fee.

Where to watch UFC 300 everywhere else

There are a few international viewing options for UFC 300 for those who aren't in the US. You can catch the fight in the UK with TNT Sports, which costs £30.99 a month as part of a Premium Discovery+ sub . Fortunately, most UFC fights in the UK don't have extra PPV fees because they're on so late in this region.

In Canada, UFC 300 will be available as a PPV fight through most major TV services. You can also access the fight directly through UFC Fight Pass for $65. UFC 300 is available in many other regions, and you should check your local listings for more information.

You can also try using a VPN (virtual private network) to access the event through some of these streaming services. In addition to allowing you to use your subscription services while abroad, VPNs are also solid ways to boost your online privacy. Our go-to is ExpressVPN , a beginner-friendly option with a 30-day money-back guarantee. You can check out our ExpressVPN review to learn more.

With its consistent performance, reliable security, and expansive global streaming features, ExpressVPN is the best VPN out there, excelling in every spec and offering many advanced features that makes it exceptional. Better yet, you can save up to 49% and get an extra three months for free today.

How to watch UFC 300 with a VPN

• Sign up for a VPN if you don't already have one.
• Install it on the device you're using to watch UFC 300.
• Turn it on and set it to the location of your chosen streaming service, like  ESPN+ (USA) or Discovery Plus (UK) .
• Subscribe and pay the local PPV or subscription fee.
• Watch the UFC 300 online.

UFC 300 Fight Card : Pereira vs. Hill

Main card - 10 p.m. et.

• Alex Pereira vs. Jamahal Hill (Light heavyweight championship)
• Zhang Weili vs. Yan Xiaonan (Women's strawweight championship)
• Justin Gaethje vs. Max Holloway (Lightweight)
• Charles Oliveira vs. Arman Tsarukyan (Lightweight)
• Bo Nickal vs. Cody Brundage (Middleweight)

Prelims - 8 p.m. ET

• Jiří Procházka vs. Aleksandar Rakić (Light heavyweight)
• Calvin Kattar vs. Aljamain Sterling (Featherweight)
• Holly Holm vs. Kayla Harrison (Women's bantamweight)
• Sodiq Yusuff vs. Diego Lopes (Featherweight)

Early Prelims - 6 p.m. ET

• Jalin Turner vs. Renato Moicano (Lightweight)
• Jéssica Andrade vs. Marina Rodriguez (Women's strawweight)
• Bobby Green vs. Jim Miller (Lightweight)
• Deiveson Figueiredo vs. Cody Garbrandt (Bantamweight)

Note:  Using VPNs is illegal in certain countries, and using VPNs to access region-locked streaming content might constitute a breach of the terms of use for certain services. Insider does not endorse or condone the illegal use of VPNs.

You can purchase logo and accolade licensing to this story here . Disclosure: Written and researched by the Insider Reviews team. We highlight products and services you might find interesting. If you buy them, we may get a small share of the revenue from the sale from our partners. We may receive products free of charge from manufacturers to test. This does not drive our decision as to whether or not a product is featured or recommended. We operate independently from our advertising team. We welcome your feedback. Email us at [email protected] .

• Main content

Screen Rant

90 day fiancé: debbie aguero vs debbie johnson feud explained.

90 Day Fiancé's Debbie Johnson and Debbie Aguero are jumping down each other's throats after Mike used Johnson to serve Natalie her divorce papers.

• Debbie Johnson served Natalie Mordovtseva divorce papers on camera, causing a dramatic showdown with Debbie Aguero over Mike Youngquist's decision to end their marriage.
• Aguero criticized Johnson for her actions, calling her a "Judas" for supporting Mike's public divorce announcement during the Tell All.
• The confrontation escalated as Johnson mocked Aguero for lying about her age and Aguero hit back by bringing up Johnson's relationship with Colt.

It was the battle of two Debbies on the 90 Day: The Single Life season 4 Tell All as Debbie Aguero and Debbie Johnson engaged in a war of words over Natalie Mordovtseva ’s divorce. The final Part 5 of the longest reunion in the history of 90 Day Fiancé was full of laughter, anger, tears, and surprises with Mike Youngquist showing up to the set armed with divorce papers for his estranged wife. Mike revealed details about his new girlfriend Sara while confirming he wanted to get married to her and have babies, which he could only do after divorcing Natalie.

Mike’s shocking decision resulted in Natalie’s breakdown and made enemies out of Aguero and Johnson. Most of the cast members turned against Aguero to support Johnson , presumably because of her long-time association with the franchise as a cast member, while newbie Aguero hardly received any backup. It’s now time for 90 Day Fiancé fans to decide which Debbie they will choose to team up with – Miss Debbie, Mama Debbie, or none.

20 Best Reality TV Shows Right Now

Debbie johnson served natalie her divorce papers, mike used debbie as the process server.

Mike decided to divorce Natalie on television just because they got married on camera in April 2020. Mike decided to serve Natalie the divorce papers through Johnson , who acted as the legal third party. Mike announced he had started the divorce process during the Tell All after revealing that he had been seeing a new woman since December 2022. Mike looked at Johnson and asked her to get the “piece of paper.” Mike’s decision caught the cast by surprise as Natalie exclaimed, “ You came to divorce me .” Johnson hugged Natalie as the latter went through the papers.

“I’m so sorry.”

Johnson apologized to Natalie, while Mike explained he gave the papers to Johnson because he needed someone to serve Natalie. Mike had divorce papers drawn up two weeks before filming the Tell All. Natalie immediately started to sign the papers but was stopped by her co-stars, including Mike, who told her she didn’t have to sign right away and had 90 days to respond. Natalie was devastated by what was happening around her. Mike didn’t give her the time to process the divorce, nor did he confront her. Aguero was felt for Natalie and lashed out at Johnson for supporting Mike.

Aguero Called Johnson "Judas"

Was miss debbie in the wrong for taking natalie's side.

Johnson kept apologizing to Natalie, but Aguero turned to Johnson to call her out for her “ Judas move .” Aguero asked Natalie to take a deep breath. Her motherly instincts took over as she asked Natalie to take control of her life. Aguero didn’t want Natalie to sign any documents until she got professional advice.

“This was extremely cruel.”

Aguero didn’t hold herself back from slamming Mike. Aguero told Mike that he should have done it privately. She thought it was cruel that he waited until the Tell All to serve her, especially after Natalie had been “ traumatized” by Josh Weinstein at the reunion.

“But look at her. She’s really shook up.”

Aguero noticed how Natalie was not in any shape to sign anything. While Natalie knew that she had the divorce coming for years, Aguero insisted Mike shouldn’t have done it on national TV. Their marriage was a happy event, but he had disappointed Natalie by serving her in front of the cameras.

“Don’t pick on Mike, this is none of your business.”

Johnson finally decided to take a stand for herself and Mike against Aguero. Aguero continued calling her namesake “ Judas. ” She accused Johnson of coming to the Tell All and being nice to everybody while having malicious intentions.

90 Day Fiancé: Ruben Doesn't Really Love Debbie (Will She End Up All Alone?)

Johnson said aguero was a "b**" & a "clown", mama debbie kept pushing miss debbie's buttons.

Aguero said Mike could have asked anyone on set to do it.

“At least she knows I care about her.”

Johnson told Aguero she didn’t care about her opinion. She said her serving the papers to Natalie was better than some stranger who didn’t care about Natalie doing it on behalf of Mike. Aguero accused Johnson of being cruel. Aguero told “ Mama Debbie ” Johnson that her actions didn’t look very motherly to her. “ You’re a f****** bitch, ” Johnson yelled at Aguero. She proceeded to call Aguero “ Miss Debbie Clown of the Century. ” Meanwhile, Natalie revealed she never wanted a divorce from Mike.

Aguero Calls Out "Mean Girls Club" At The Tell All

Johnson & her friends piled on aguero.

Aguero and Johnson came face to face backstage during their break time. Johnson got along well with Veronica Rodriguez, who revealed she was constantly in touch with “ Mama Debbie ” after Jamal Menzies broke up with her, and she needed someone to talk to. Chantel added some unnecessary fuel to the fire by telling Johnson about how Aguero had mocked and judged her for not wearing panties under her dress in Greece. Chantel thanked Johnson for praising her twerking skills.

“Miss Debbie is commenting on your outfit? Really. The clothing expert from hell?”

Aguero said Johnson was coming after her and calling her a clown because she defended someone who was emotionally fragile. Johnson insisted she knew Natalie a lot longer. As Aguero observed 90 Day Fiancé stars Veronica and Chantel both supporting the older cast member , she commented, “ There’s a mean girls club going on. ”

Johnson Mocks Aguero For Lying About Her Age

Johnson needs a better comeback.

Johnson’s next move was to mock 90 Day Fiancé 's Aguero for lying about her age to get a date. Aguero asked Johnson to go ahead and have at it. Aguero insisted that she felt fine being 68 and being in good health, which she was using to help other people. Veronica interrupted the conversation to reveal how “ Mama Debbie ” had helped her a lot in the past year with the Jamal drama. Veronica used to send Debbie an email or give her a call. However, Aguero snapped that she didn’t need friends who served court papers and said that they weren't doing Natalie a favor.

Aguero Slams Johnson For Her Relationship With Colt

Aguero hits a raw nerve.

Tyray Mollett supported Aguero, saying he wouldn’t have wanted someone he knew to give him the papers. Aguero defended Natalie, who she thought didn’t know how to react because of the pain she was going through. She accused Johnson of making a “ freakshow and a circus ” out of the situation. Aguero said the only thing she’d done wrong was lie about her age and Johnson had insulted her by calling her a clown. Johnson exasperatedly told Aguero that she didn’t want to talk to her because she was pathetic. However, Aguero was in no mood to quiet up.

“I saw how you acted in your son’s personal affairs and no wonder they wanted you out of the house.”

"Get My Name Out Of Your Mouth, Woman"

Debbie aguero gets singled out by the cast.

Aguero had now hit Johnson where it hurt the most. Johnson asked Aguero not to comment on her family matters, which she knew nothing about. Aguero was referring to Colt and Vanessa Guerra not wanting to live with Johnson under the same roof due to her interfering in their relationship. Aguero said Johnson was a very demanding and destructive woman.

“Then get my name out of your mouth, woman.”

Aguero didn’t want to engage with Johnson anymore. Aguero talking about Colt made Johnson tear up, and she started spewing expletives at Aguero. Johnson tried to taunt Aguero about her romancing a younger man.

Veronica tried to defuse the situation by saying both “ mama bears,” Aguero and Johnson had an incredibly strong love for their sons. Aguero agreed with Veronica, but she said she believed in respecting other people. The 90 Day: The Single Life ended on a sour note for the cast members because Aguero left without saying goodbye to the cast, except Tyray. Aguero didn’t get any support from the other women. She also didn’t seem to have any faith in the future of her relationship with Ruben The Cuban , proving that the Tell All was “ ugly ” for the Georgia woman.

90 Day: The Single Life airs Mondays at 8 p.m. EDT on TLC.

Source: 90 Day Fiancé /Instagram, 90 Day Fiancé /YouTube

90 Day: The Single Life

90 Day: The Single Life is one of TLC's many spinoffs of 90 Day Fiancé . In this companion show, singles are pulled back into the dating world after their previous relationships ended in disaster. The Single Life follows couples as they start relationships with new people but struggle to move on from past romantic partners completely.

• Share full article

For more audio journalism and storytelling, download New York Times Audio , a new iOS app available for news subscribers.

• April 17, 2024   •   24:52 Are ‘Forever Chemicals’ a Forever Problem?
• April 16, 2024   •   29:29 A.I.’s Original Sin
• April 15, 2024   •   24:07 Iran’s Unprecedented Attack on Israel
• April 14, 2024   •   46:17 The Sunday Read: ‘What I Saw Working at The National Enquirer During Donald Trump’s Rise’
• April 12, 2024   •   34:23 How One Family Lost $900,000 in a Timeshare Scam
• April 11, 2024   •   28:39 The Staggering Success of Trump’s Trial Delay Tactics
• April 10, 2024   •   22:49 Trump’s Abortion Dilemma
• April 9, 2024   •   30:48 How Tesla Planted the Seeds for Its Own Potential Downfall
• April 8, 2024   •   30:28 The Eclipse Chaser
• April 7, 2024 The Sunday Read: ‘What Deathbed Visions Teach Us About Living’
• April 5, 2024   •   29:11 An Engineering Experiment to Cool the Earth
• April 4, 2024   •   32:37 Israel’s Deadly Airstrike on the World Central Kitchen

The Sunday Read: ‘What I Saw Working at The National Enquirer During Donald Trump’s Rise’

Inside the notorious “catch and kill” campaign that now stands at the heart of the former president’s legal trial..

By Lachlan Cartwright

Read by David Linski

Produced by Jack D’Isidoro and Aaron Esposito

Narration produced by Anna Diamond

Edited by John Woo

Original music by Aaron Esposito

Engineered by Corey Schreppel and Steven Szczesniak

Listen and follow The Daily Apple Podcasts | Spotify

At the center of the criminal case against former President Donald Trump in Manhattan is the accusation that Trump took part in a scheme to turn The National Enquirer and its sister publications into an arm of his 2016 presidential campaign. The documents detailed three “hush money” payments made to a series of individuals to guarantee their silence about potentially damaging stories in the months before the election. Because this was done with the goal of helping his election chances, the case implied, these payments amounted to a form of illegal, undisclosed campaign spending. And because Trump created paperwork to make the payments seem like regular legal expenses, that amounted to a criminal effort at a coverup, argued Alvin Bragg, the district attorney of Manhattan. Trump has denied the charges against him.

For Lachlan Cartwright, reading the indictment was like stepping through the looking glass, because it described a three-year period in his own professional life, one that he has come to deeply regret. Now, as a former president faces a criminal trial for the first time in American history, Cartwright is forced to grapple with what really happened at The Enquirer in those years — and whether and how he can ever set things right.

There are a lot of ways to listen to ‘The Daily.’ Here’s how.

We want to hear from you. Tune in, and tell us what you think. Email us at [email protected] . Follow Michael Barbaro on X: @mikiebarb . And if you’re interested in advertising with The Daily, write to us at [email protected] .

Additional production for The Sunday Read was contributed by Isabella Anderson, Anna Diamond, Sarah Diamond, Elena Hecht, Emma Kehlbeck, Tanya Pérez, Frannie Carr Toth and Krish Seenivasan.

Corey Schreppel leads the technical team that supports all Times audio shows, including “The Daily,” “Hard Fork,” “The Run-Up,” and “Modern Love.” More about Corey Schreppel

Advertisement