upworthy

laws

Joy

17 things we accept now that future generations will find completely embarrassing

What we permit today could be an embarrassment tomorrow.

via Canva/Photos

Plastic bottle on the beach, a man getting arrested and cows on a factory farm.

If you look back 30 years in the past, it’s easy to pinpoint things that were once accepted and changed for the better. Back in 1995, it was normal to discriminate against LGBTQ people, and they sure couldn't get married. It was still common for people to smoke in restaurants and bars, and in many places, you didn’t have to wear a seatbelt.

Go back a few years before then; littering was so common that it wasn’t even frowned upon in many places. Kids routinely rode in the back of pickup trucks, and teen pregnancy was so common in the ‘80s that students would bring their babies to high school.

Looking back on things that are embarrassing in hindsight is a great invitation to look at life in 2025 and anticipate the things we accept today as completely usual that will be very embarrassing in 30 years. A Reddit user asked the AskReddit forum for people to share the “current thing that future generations will say ‘I can't believe they used to do that’?” and the answers ranged from how we treat animals to social media etiquette. There were also many who think that, even in an environmentally conscious age, a lot of things still need to be improved upon.

17 things we accept now that future generations will find embarrassing

1. Marijuana laws

"'They used to send people to prison for life for having a little bit of weed?!' Overheard from a Gen Z. It's already happening."

"People still do in certain US states."

2. Polluting the oceans

"Why we have treated our waterways and oceans as oubliettes is puzzling to me. Do people not realize, you need water to fu**ing live!"

"The way it was explained to me when I asked essentially this very question about 20 years ago is that it started back when people thought the oceans were so big that we puny little humans couldn't possibly have an impact on them. Now, it's just a bad habit perpetuated by the rich and powerful while the majority cry out for change."


plstic bottles, ocean plastic, garbage patch, pollution, water pollutionPlastic floating in the ocean.via Canva/Photos

3. Dialysis

"Isn't it basically running all the person's blood through a filtering machine and then back into the body, repeat every few days? Or am I missing some extra horror about it?"

"A filtering machine that only works as well as 10% of a functioning kidney does. It just about keeps you afloat but all sorts of chemicals aren't getting filtered properly and cause issues. It also takes a physical and mental toll on the body sitting for 5 hours 3 days a week minimum depending how bad your function is and for a lot of people they suffer from great fatigue. Not to mention the stress dialysis puts on the heart."

4. Posting your entire life online

"I honestly feel like it's gotten a bit better in some ways. Mid 2000s Facebook posts were WILDLY inappropriate by today's standards. A time when people were first learning that their actions on the internet can have real-world ramifications lol."

"Especially political opinions. People are just now starting to realise that if they posted something stupid and offensive when they were fourteen, employers will find out about it. In a job market where employers will scan through an applicant's social media and have a strict social media policy, that's very dangerous."

5. Using plastic for everything

"Plastics are a symptom of shortsightedness. In theory they were a great idea. A material that can be re-used so that we don't use finite/slower replenish-able materials instead? Get rid of cotton farms and animal wool/skins/furs? And for so much cheaper?
Unfortunately because of the cheapness of plastics, we made a lot more disposable materials (especially clothing) - more than any populace could possibly consume in a generation, never-mind in the ridiculously fast-paced season turnover of goods. And now we realize, plastics stick around for a long time, possible forever. Wood, plant and animal materials degrade and decompose. So you could poison the environment but not exploit some animals or not suck up all the water, or you could accept that unless we wanna be naked and live in far more limited environments, we're gonna have to use natural resources, even animals, for our clothing and goods."


trash, plastic utensils, pollution, plastic cups, plastic strawsPlastic waste.via Canva/Photos

6. Overuse of antibiotics

"Not just on humans, most antibiotics are used on livestock and animal agriculture. Human use only accounts for about a third of all antibiotic use."

"This is a country-specific problem. Some countries have medical systems that avoid prescribing. Some others can't get enough."

7. Terrible mental health practices

"The way the mental health system treats psych patients in hospitals and programs when you have severe symptoms. You’ll get drugged up and the whole experience is pretty traumatizing. It’s also quite surprising how little people in hospitals actually know about mental health. it’s not always specific people either, it’s just the system as a whole. getting sent home in the middle of a mental health crisis because your insurance cuts out. or losing a bed in a program because someone is 'worse' than you."

8. Marketing overkill

"The incessant inundation of marketing in our daily lives. Our technology gathers our data to tailor ads to sell us more useless trash. Your TV records you so people in an office somewhere can socially engineer ways to sell you another TV. We see something like ~5000+ advertisements a day, they’re still trying to put big ads in the night sky, it’s far too much and the future will consider us barbaric for allowing it."


ads, billboards, advertisements, American street, marketing, visual pollutionBillboards as far as the eye can see.via Canva/Photos

9. Bottled water

"Buying bottled water from another continent."

"My wife and I just watched Christmas Vacation the other night, and it struck me as funny that they had the neighbor Margo with a giant bottle of Evian water. To anyone born after 1995, this part is just wardrobe, but for those who were around in the 80s, it's meant to show how yuppie and 'hip' the neighbors are. We made fun of people who carried their own personal bottle of water."

10. School shootings

"Hopefully, things like school shootings will become something we only talk about in past tense. We’ll look at a graph over time, and this time period is just a weird uptick amidst a big downward trend."

11. 5-day workweek

"I'll never understand the 'go to the office' work when you can do it just fine from home. I've been working from home for about 7 years now, been to my local office once in that time to pickup a new laptop. You're not paying my internet or other stuff while I'm working from home. You can literally downsize your office space with people working from home. Recently, my manager was discussing it with me, and she's fine with it, but there may be some push from upper management."

12. Treatment of animals

"I really think a long time from now we’ll view how we treat animals pretty distastefully. Elephants bury their dead and can paint, dolphins have language and some are growing thumbs. They’re clearly more sentient then we give them credit for and we use our lack of understanding of consciousness to justify it."

"I fully believe that in a few hundred years, people will think that eating meat is as wrong as owning slaves. I say this as someone who eats meat."


cows, factory farm, animal farm, milk, grazing, feeding cowsCows in a factory farm.via Canva/Photos

13. Driving your own car

"Drive your own car, especially when drunk. Now, this is way, way in the future, but I can imagine a bunch of laughing drunk college students stumbling into their self-driving car and saying, 'OMG, how did they do it back in the old days? I can barely walk straight.' The correct answer would be, they died. That's how they did it in the old days, they died."

14. Circumcision

"My wife gave birth to my son recently and I insisted he wasn't to be circumcised. Her previous 2 boys were, because her ex just didn't care and it was done to him. I stood over my son in the warmer, saw this small, vulnerable, precious thing, and it completely baffled me how anyone could want to cut into their own child. It's such a barbaric and monstrous act that needs to stop. It only exists due to societal pressure and ignorance."

"Moreover, forced sex reassignment on intersex babies. Being trans, I've met so many intersex trans/non-binary people who are extremely upset their bodies were messed with without their consent shortly after they were born."

15. NFTs

"Yeah, that's next year. Like in 11 days"

"Future generations will laugh. The current generation is laughing now, but future generations will also laugh."

16. Urban design

"Current Urban design in the US. Someday we will realize that we have built cities 100% for cars with no consideration of people."

"I hate the term 'car brained' but the concept itself is so dam valid. It's very hard to convince people that car-centric design causes cities and towns to be laid out the way that they are. The amount of space that roads and parking take up now are going to shock future generations. Cars and roads are not going to disappear, but the alternative options will seem so much better to future generations."

17. Communism

"It has failed miserably dozens of times in different nations, leading to tens of millions dead , yet we still have like 50% of young people saying it's a cool idea. Why? Because communist criminals were never punished for their sins. After WW2 there were trials, there was widespread condemnation and disgust. Nothing like that ever happened to commie higher ups responsible for shooting people by hundreds of thousands. Nothing. Names like Mao and Stalin should disgust people just as much as the name Hitler, it should be unacceptable in society to express sympathy for them (like it is with Hitler)... yet it's the opposite, especially in colleges."

From Your Site Articles
history
Identity

Pennsylvania House unites in vote to erase 'homosexuality' from the state's criminal code

The vote was a unanimous 198-0.

Photo by Katherine McAdoo on Unsplash

Pennsylvania lawmakers voted to erase "homosexuality" from state criminal codes.

Despite major strides in the fight for LGBTQIA+ rights, there is always something else to fight for. Sometimes, it's creating new changes to make things a little bit safer for people. But sometimes, it's about looking back in the past and seeing how existing laws and beliefs could still harm people. Changing the way we talk about members of the community is one of the easiest ways to reduce harm, and it looks like politicians in Pennsylvania have realized that.

Recently, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives voted to erase the word "homosexuality" from the definition of prohibited acts in the state's Crimes Code. The Associated Press reported a unanimous 198-0 vote was on a bill to clean up outdated language, because, as the supporters of the change rightfully pointed out, it's not a crime to be gay.

“This bill provides a long overdue update to our crimes code to ensure nobody is prosecuted because of who they love,” said the sponsor of the bill, Rep. Todd Stephens (R-Montgomery), as reported by the Associated Press.

Stephens introduced the bill in November 2021 intending to "remove references to the term "homosexuality" within definitions of prohibited sexual acts within state law," according to an article from Patch.

"The usage of this term in the definitions of 'sexual activity' and 'sexual conduct' in Sections 5902 (relating to prostitution) and 5903 (relating to child pornography), respectively, serves no purpose as homosexual acts, in and of themselves, do not constitute a criminal offense," Stephens wrote in a co-sponsorship memo.

It is important to point out the significance of sodomy laws in the United States. Though they existed for basically as long as the country has, for much of the 19th and 20th centuries they were used specifically to target members of the LGBTQIA+ community. This is especially true regarding cisgender gay men and trans women. The use of sodomy laws against the LGBTQIA+ community became prominent (to the point where several states rewrote their laws to specifically target the community) in the late 1960s/early 1970s as the gay rights movement began to grow and take shape.

In a place like Pennsylvania, while the laws weren't rewritten to explicitly target gay people, those in charge targeted only gay people. Many of these laws don't exist anymore, but remnants of them still remain. That's why this language change in Pennsylvania is so important. It legitimizes the LGBTQ+ community lawfully, even though they will still face discrimination and unfair treatment via the law. But changing that language gives people a stronger case when they have to fight back.

Rep. Dan Frankel, a Democrat from Allegheny County, has been fighting for a long time to expand nondiscrimination protections to the LGBTQ+ community. According to the Associated Press, he said the language of the current law is “cruel and absurd” and urged his fellow lawmakers to make moves regarding anti-discrimination legislation.

“In this General Assembly, sadly, it’s a huge lift to merely agree that being gay shouldn’t be illegal,” said Frankel.

The current bill cuts "homosexuality" from a section on “obscene and other sexual materials and performances" by removing it from the definition of sexual conduct, per AP.

Frankel isn't the only one who thinks these laws are not only archaic, but also unfair. Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta (D-Philadelphia) points out that these current laws openly discriminate and keep people from holding down jobs, owning homes or having families “simply because of who they are and who they love.”

“I hope that we have these same votes for enshrining nondiscrimination protections, which we sorely need to do,” Kenyatta said.

Hopefully, this leads to more positive change, not just in Pennsylvania, but in other places where such language still likely exists.

From Your Site Articles
pennsylvania
Race & Ethnicity

South Koreans will soon be the same age as the rest of the world

Their new president is looking to change a long-standing tradition.

Photo by Markus Winkler on Unsplash

Koreans may soon be changing the tradition of how they declare their age.

Can you remember how old you are? As we get older, remembering our actual age can get harder, especially when it begins to take longer and longer to scroll and find your birth year. Now imagine having to keep track of two different ages. For many South Koreans, this is the reality. That's right, based on a tradition that dates back so far no one really knows when it started, most South Koreans are two different ages. But their new president is looking to change the tradition, to make life easier for everyone.


Currently, South Koreans have their "Korean age" and their international age. The "Korean age" is the thing that President Yoon Suk-yeol is looking to change. The way it works is that a person is considered a year old at birth, adding a year every January 1. So if you have a baby born on December 30, on January 1, they're 2 years old, even though they've only been alive two days. The Korean age is mostly used in social situations, while the international age (where you turn 1 on your first birthday) is used for legal purposes.

“If I try to fill out a form at a government office or a foreign embassy, I’m not sure what to put for my age,” Lee Jae-hye, a video producer in Seoul, told The New York Times.

It's worth mentioning there's a third, less common way of defining age: "year age," which is kind of a hybrid of the two other practices. A newborn is considered 0 at birth, but they add the first year on January 1. So again, a December 30 baby would be 2 days old and also 1 year old. This is only used for military service and elementary education. No wonder it's confusing for the citizens.

Lee Yong-ho, chief of the president-elect's transition committee, acknowledged the stress these different ages puts on citizens.

“Due to the different calculations of legal and social age, we have experienced unnecessary social and economic costs from persistent confusion and disputes over calculating age when receiving social, welfare and other administrative services or signing or interpreting various contracts,” he said in a press briefing.

For many South Koreans, keeping track of up to three ages is just too much of a pain. Having to remember the right birth certificate because you use one for the doctor's office but another one for the DMV sounds like a nightmare. While the average person understands what paperwork they need for where, the need alone is a major source of frustration. That's why so many adults are in favor of the president's decision to make the change by the end of the year.

A survey taken this past January shows that 40% of adults believe making the change will "ease conflicts within the country’s social hierarchy." As a hierarchical society, the focus on age and having multiple ages can cause confusion and unnecessary conflict. If you search "Korean age system," you'll discover multiple calculators in case you forget or don't know. Some historians and scholars worry that the change will be a detriment to society, but there's a better chance that younger generations will embrace the universal change to international age.

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
south korea
Wellness

A mother's heartbreaking story highlights the challenge of defining 'late-term abortion'

Haylie Grammer/Facebook

Part of the problem with debating abortion legislation is that there is no clear definition of what it even is. Some might say it's the termination of an unwanted pregnancy, but sometimes a pregnancy that ends in abortion was very much wanted. Some might say it's the killing of a baby in the womb, but plenty of abortions take place after a baby has already died in utero.

Merriam-Webster defines abortion as "the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus"—a definition that points to the following heartbreaking story and the reason why abortion is not as cut and dry an issue as many make it out to be.

Haylie Grammer shared her family's experience with "late-term abortion" in the death of her daughter, Embree, at 25 weeks, and it illustrates how abortion can look very, very different than what people imagine it to be.

Grammer wrote:

"I saw this article today about Senator Gary Peters and his abortion story. It reminded me why I am pro-choice and reminded me that people need to hear my story too. Some of you may have already heard my story, but I think it is a good reminder of how politics are used to control women's bodies and how everything isn't always what it seems on the surface.

4.5 years ago, I gave birth to my first born. Her name was Embree Eleanor Grammer. She was born via c-section on April 25, 2016. She weighed 4lbs 4oz. She was only 25 weeks gestation. She lived for approximately 20-30 minutes. She was born with a tumor that was roughly the size of a volleyball that was invading her body both externally and internally. It was sucking her blood supply, pushing her organs out of place, deforming her body, and overworking her heart. We found out about the tumor only 5 weeks prior. In that 5 weeks the tumor grew from about the size of a walnut to the volleyball. I grew along with it, from the tiny bump of a first time mom at 20 weeks to measuring the same as a pregnant woman who was roughly 36 weeks along. In 5 weeks.

That 5 weeks was the hardest 5 weeks of my life. We had sonograms twice weekly, traveled across the state to visit more specialists, and were told that essentially our sweet Embree would probably not make it. We had a choice to make. The state of Texas allows an abortion a time period after 20 weeks if the pregnancy is life threatening to the mother or if the fetus has "abnormalities." We qualified for this. I have always been pro-choice, but I have never been pro-abortion for myself. While I agree that women have the right to do what is best for them, I myself wasn't ever planning on getting an abortion. I also had hope. Hope that Embree would be healed. Hope that the tumor would stop growing. So we chose to push on with the pregnancy, hoping that Embree would have a chance. I was counting down to the age of viability, just hoping that if I could keep Embree cooking until then, maybe.... just maybe, modern medicine and prayers could keep her alive.

We were not only closely monitoring Embree, but doctors were closely monitoring me. Even though Embree was still alive, she was not in good shape. She was developing Hydrops and I was at a risk of developing mirror syndrome. This would be life threatening to me if it fully developed. On April 22 I went to my second sonogram of the week and my doctors were concerned with the swelling in my feet. I was told that I had a decision to make. Not only was I starting to develop the beginnings of mirror syndrome, but we were 2 weeks away from 27 weeks. This was important because at 27 weeks, I would no longer be able to deliver Embree in Texas via c-section. Why? Because according to the law, by choosing to deliver Embree this early, I would be having an abortion. And while at 24.5 weeks I was still in the grey area of Texas Abortion law where I could deliver her, at 27 weeks I would not be. Surprised this is considered an abortion? Many are. Stay with me.

We decided to schedule our c-section for that Monday. I would be 25 weeks. We made it past the age of viability, but it was becoming obvious that she would not make it. We met with NICU doctors and they reviewed our case. They decided that they would not be attempting any life saving attempts on Embree after she was delivered. This meant officially, we were choosing to have an abortion. We were giving birth to our child early, knowing full well that she would not survive. This is what 'late term abortion' looks like. Catch that political buzz word? I will explain more below.

As you can imagine, this was the worst and longest weekend of our life. We knew that in 2 days we would be meeting our daughter and letting her go. But it gets so much worse. Again, this is considered an abortion. A late term abortion. The State of Texas, like most states who have a large majority who claim to be 'pro-life,' has many restrictions in place to prevent abortions from happening. Here is the thing about abortion legislation.... it doesn't differentiate between what we were going through and what the 'pro-life' groups think they are preventing. The laws in Texas stated that in order for us to give birth to Embree and have a chance to hold her while her soul still resided in her body, we had to do the following: 1. Our doctor had to apply for permission to perform the c-section from the state. This had to be done 24 hours before the surgery. We had to go to the hospital on the Saturday before we were to give birth, in the midst of our mourning, to sign a paper requesting an abortion. Put yourself in that situation. Forever, in the records of the State of Texas, there is a piece of paper that says that I aborted my precious Embree. 2. On top of filing this paperwork for us, our doctor also had to give me a pamphlet published by the State of Texas about the consequences of abortion. By law, she was required to give me a booklet that told me that if I had the abortion I would suffer from depression and anxiety for the rest of my life, have an increased risk of breast cancer, and possible be infertile in the future. Think I'm kidding? Have a look: https://hhs.texas.gov/.../women.../womans-right-to-know.pdf

If you consider yourself "pro-life" you are probably thinking something like, "yes but your situation was different. This isn't what I'm fighting against." Or maybe you're thinking "but I don't consider this abortion." Great. But the actual definition of abortion is "the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus." So while YOU might not consider what we went through to be an "abortion," it was. I had an abortion. I had a late-term abortion.

Why am I bringing this up? Why am I telling you this? Because when lawmakers and people fight to end 'abortion,' they are talking about this too. When you hear about 'late term abortions' taking place, THIS is what is happening. It's not women who have carried babies to full term and then just deciding to have an abortion. It is women and families who are devastated that they are in a situation in which they have to decide whether to let a child suffer in the womb, or end their suffering. 'Pro-life' laws are designed to make this process difficult. They are designed to put obstacles in place. This process is already difficult enough. Even women who are deciding to have an abortion at 8 weeks. It's already a hard decision so why are we allowing people to torture them too. Every time people talk about saving the babies and being pro-life, I cringe on the inside. Not because I don't want to save babies, but because I want to save babies. Save babies from suffering that they are made to endure because some man who has no medical training has decided that he knows women's bodies better than doctors. I cringe because I know as a survivor of these terrible 'pro-life' laws that these laws are being used to trick women in America to vote against their own interest in hopes that they are saving the unborn. I cringe every time I hear people call those who vote in favor of Pro-Choice laws... 'murderers,' because they are saying I murdered my Embree.

I chose to deliver Embree on April 25, 2016 via c-section. I chose late-term abortion. I did so because it was the only way I could hold my baby girl while she was still alive. It was the only way I could encounter her soul until we are together again in heaven. This is why I am Pro-choice. Remember Embree and I when you vote."

If your first response to this story is, "But that's not abortion!" you're not just incorrect, you've also missed the point. Due to the circumstances and the laws of the state she was in, yes, this was legally considered an abortion. And if you think it shouldn't be, who do you think should make that decision? Who gets to define abortion so that it accounts for the millions of different individual circumstances that come into play? Most of us don't even want the government deciding which doctors we can go to—do we really want elected officials with no medical training making decisions about our specific, personal medical care?

Grammer isn't alone in sharing personal abortion stories that people don't think of as abortion. The families who desperately wanted a baby, who ended up having to make the rock-and-a-hard-place choice to abort because the alternative would have been a short, pain-filled life for their child. The mothers having to endure long, drawn out, potentially dangerous miscarriages and being forced to carry a dead baby inside of them because abortion restrictions gave them no other choice.

Some might say that these stories and experiences are not the norm, but they actually are when it comes to late-term abortion. Third trimester abortions are medical choices that aren't easy for any individual or family, and they are situations that medical professionals and patients need to make together, not the government. Pete Buttigieg said it beautifully: "The bottom line is, as horrible as that choice is, that woman, that family may seek spiritual guidance, they may seek medical guidance, but that decision is not going to be made any better, medically or morally, because the government is dictating how that decision should be made."

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
women's rights
Trending Stories