A great debate has always been sparked between the living standard, security, and a flexible and comfortable livelihood between us (the early 2000s) and our ancestors regarding who lived the best of the best lives. If I think about those days, a sense of nostalgia often hits me, which imagines earlier ages as simpler, slower, and more authentic. A time when life was slow-paced to the point where one realises that we are living the moments, experiences and creating memories, but if I pinch myself to get me back to the current state, life seems to be fast, emotionless, and running towards unambiguous progress. As if days are just running out of hand, simply wake up, work and sleep. One cannot process how fast time continues to slip from our hands.
The most immediate difference between today’s lifestyle and those lived by our forefathers and their forefathers was modernisation. (According to Britannica: modernisation, in sociology, is the transformation from a traditional, rural, agrarian society to a secular, urban, industrial society.) Though it resolves our life on these terms: hunger and food insecurity, disease and short lives, limited access to knowledge, rigid social roles, physical hardship, isolation, it at the same time makes us vulnerable to these factors: lifestyle diseases, mental strain, loneliness, time pressure, environmental damage, inequality, distraction and information overload, loss of tradition.
The essay here compares and contrasts ancient lives by taking examples of past civilisations (Indus Valley, Egypt, Greece, Asian subcontinent including India) as well as present living standards, norms and practices based on factors such as diet, labour, health, social relationships, and knowledge and leisure, subsequent problems accompanied by these factors, health hazards and longevity of humans.
The most immediate difference between the two eras lies in food.
In the ancient period, diet and availability of food were governed by geography and season. (Cereals formed the nutritional foundation across much of the ancient world: bread and beer in Egypt, barley and wheat in Mesopotamia, and a combination of grain, olive oil, and wine in the Roman Mediterranean.) Food in ancient India depended purely on region and season as well. Wheat and barley were always considered staples in the Indus Valley and during the Vedic period, while rice and millets were consumed in large quantities in the east and south. People ate lentils, vegetables, and fruits such as mangoes, dates, and bananas, and dairy products like milk, curd, and ghee. Honey and jaggery were the only sources of sweetness then, accompanied by spices such as pepper, ginger, and turmeric.
My grandma mentioned the fact that meat was eaten infrequently by most people and was often associated with festivals, sacrifice, or elite status. It was then a sign of the wealth of one’s family if they could afford meat.
Contemporary food systems have largely overcome these constraints. Global trade, refrigeration, and industrial agriculture allow everyday access to a wide range of foods and the variety available to any ordinary consumer. This abundance, however, has generated a different nutritional problem. The widespread availability of inexpensive, energy-dense, ultra-processed food is now associated with rising rates of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. Hence, shifted from scarcity to excess and poor quality.
Historians estimated that the great majority of people in ancient Indian societies, perhaps 80 to 90 per cent, worked in agriculture. Occupation was determined largely by birth, family, and social rank, and hence space for changes was limited. Occupations in ancient India were organised mainly through the varna system, hereditary jatis (occupational groups), and guilds.
For example: Brahmins were usually identified as priests, teachers, and scholars. Kshatriyas were rulers, warriors, and administrators; Vaishyas were farmers, cattle-rearers, traders, and moneylenders; and Shudras were servants, labourers, and some artisans.
But today, approximately a quarter of the global workforce is employed in agriculture, and if discussing India, about 43% of India’s workers are employed in agriculture, but the proportion is under 5% in high-income economies. The rest of the people work in services and industry sectors, which is the product of industrialisation and modernisation. And yes, they do enjoy greater occupational choice, legal protection, and hence can shift to better working opportunities.
Yet modern workers are subject to a stricter temporal discipline and work cultures than their ancient counterparts. The standardisation of clock time, a transformation famously analysed by E. P. Thompson in relation to industrialisation, has replaced the flexible rhythms with fixed schedules that are indifferent to season and daylight globally.
The gap in health and sanitation-related management outcomes between the two eras is wider still. Ancient medicine was not without achievement: the Sushruta Samhita in India describes a range of surgical procedures. In Ayurveda, health was seen as a balance of three doshas (vata, pitta, kapha), managed through diet, herbs, massage, yoga, and cleansing therapies. In China, acupuncture and herbal medicine, based on the flow of qi and the balance of yin and yang, and the Hippocratic tradition in Greece emphasised careful clinical observation.
As compared to today’s modern health tools and machinery, modern health management combines science, technology, and prevention. Vaccines, antibiotics, and surgery form the foremost basis of any treatment, while check-ups catch diseases early. Recent technological advancements like fitness trackers and health apps help people monitor their habits.
Exact records from ancient India do not exist, but historians estimate that life expectancy was only about 20 to 30 years, and around half of all children died before reaching 15. Today, Indians live to about 72 on average, and roughly 25 in every 1,000 babies die in their first year. This means a child today has roughly ten times better odds of surviving childhood.
These better results came from the better management of health services like availability of early vaccines, cleaner water, and better medical facilities. Also, a shift can be seen from infectious illness towards non-communicable conditions, including cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and mental health disorders.
Focusing on the sanitation and hygiene domain, Mohenjo-daro possessed brick-lined wells and covered drainage channels along its streets, while Rome maintained aqueducts, public latrines, and bathhouses that also served as centres of social life, as compared to present sanitation. Modern sanitation safeguards health without compromising hygiene through science and various health-related organised systems.
Sewers and treatment plants carry waste and clean it before release, while chlorine and filters give assurance of potable and safe water. Sanitisation and washing hands with soap, better food management practices, and regular garbage collection eventually reduce the risk of disease. Clean water and toilets also give children a basic and must-have right. In India, programmes like the Swachh Bharat Mission have expanded toilet access.
As mentioned earlier, ancient cities such as Mohenjo-daro did build impressive drains, but at the end of the day, they lacked germ theory.
A similar pattern appears in the sphere of knowledge and leisure-related activities. In ancient times, knowledge was categorised as a privilege, something which the elite or upper class enjoyed. Only priests, scribes, and wealthy families learned to read, and their ideas travelled slowly through handwritten scrolls and spoken stories or books of knowledge, giving limited access to other common people.
Leisure was shared: Romans filled the Colosseum, Greeks watched plays together, and Indian families listened to the Ramayana and Mahabharata. The advantage of that world was closeness. Learning through a teacher built strong personal bonds. The drawback was exclusion. Most people, especially the poor and women, had almost no chance to study, and knowledge could be lost when a single library burned.
Research also suggests that some differences in modern culture have deep historical roots. Gerard Roland, in his research on the historical roots of modern culture, suggests that institutional differences dating back to antiquity contributed to cultural patterns that can still be seen today, particularly differences between individualism and collectivism. This also gives another perspective on the difference between the community-oriented social life of ancient societies and the more individualised lifestyle seen today.
Today, a phone gives a student more information than any ancient scholar had, and entertainment is available anytime, usually alone. The biggest pro is access. Education is cheaper, faster, and open to far more people, whatever their background. The con is distraction. Digital screens often replace real conversation, leaving many people lonely though connected at the same time.
The comparison between ancient and modern lifestyles therefore does not provide a simple conclusion on which one is better. Ancient societies faced hunger, disease, short lives, and difficult but rigid practices, but modern societies have overcome many of these hardships, yet at the same time face their own difficulties in chronic illness, time pressure, competition for resources and even survival, and lack of emotional connection.
A more productive approach can be to think of what each can contribute to the other. The ancient world offers examples of seasonal eating, regular physical activity, communal connection, and easy yet disciplined schedules, whereas the modern world offers medicine, universal education, and a far greater degree of individual freedom.
By: Tanzila Basir
Write and Win: Participate in Creative writing Contest & International Essay Contest and win fabulous prizes.
About the Author
