When you look back at how people lived 50 years ago, in 1975, many things appear quite ridiculous through a modern lens. Back then, people used to smoke everywhere, it was common for people to throw litter out of their car windows while driving, and they rarely wore seatbelts. In retrospect, it seems like a pretty savage time.

That begs the question: what things will people do in 2025 that will appear ridiculous when those in 2075 look back on us? There are likely to be many aspects of our everyday lives that we accept without judgment, which will make people shake their heads in the future.

future, science breakthroughs, entertainment, judgments, modern lens, 1975, people
Manu00a0looks through a looking glass. Image via Canva – Photo by RichVintage

A new thread on r/TrueAskReddit posed an interesting question: “What’s something we do today that people in the future will probably think is totally ridiculous?”

Redditors started chiming in with opinions on what we’ve collectively decided is socially acceptable. They offered both a humorous and critical commentary on everything from our health practices to entertainment. It’s a captivating thought experiment to consider what our everyday habits might look like in the not-so-distant future.

1. Store it in plastic

plastic, tupperware, plastic plates, dishwashers, food, stores, microwave, packaging, reusable plastic
Man holding Tupperware. Image via Canva – Photo by shisheng ling

We not only store our food in plastic, but we also place that same food in the microwave. User u/Wolly_wompous said, Packaging all our food in plastic, drinking from (and reusing) plastic water bottles, putting plastic plates and cups in dishwashers or microwaves. Microplastics galore, running through our bloodstream.”

Mentioning how past generations dealt with the issue of lead poisoning, u/HugeTheWall responded, Plastic is the lead of our generation.”

A 2025 study on plastic in The Guardian found that microplastics were invading our blood vessels. This plastic infestation of our bodies leads to reproductive issues and developmental problems in infants.

2. Chemotherapy as a health treatment

physical health, doctors, chemotherapy, treatments, anesthesia, cancer, mortality, medicine
Receiving Chemotherapy. Image via Canva – Photo by Fatcamera

Acknowledging the challenges of treating health issues with aggressive medicine, u/ImGoingToSayOneThing felt, “I think chemotherapy is going to go in the same bucket as doctors amputating people without anesthesia, not washing hands, not sterilizing, and all the other weird medical things we stupidly did.”

In the sad but true category, u/AnaWannaPita added, “Yeah, chemo is basically hoping the cancer dies before the person does.”

Chemotherapy, when combined with other therapies, leads to improved survival rates. However, the effectiveness varies greatly based on type, treatment regimen, and individual patient factors. According to the 2025 figures published by the American Cancer Society, over a five-year period, about 69% of people survive from all cancers. That’s up from 49% which was the success rate for the 1970s.

3. Surgery for beauty

beauty standard, plastic surgery, botox, aesthetics, surgery, filles, community, status, attractiveness
Young woman receives Botox injection. Image via Canva – Photo by Prostock-studio

The need to be more aesthetically attractive by any means necessary was expressed by u/thethunder92 as, “Plastic surgery is very bizarre. I think they’ll have to have something better than putting plastic in your body.”

u/Difficult-Secret-540 added, “It’s crazy to think that the best option we have right now is basically just stuffing plastic or fillers into people.”

4. Generational complaints about the newer generation

Kids never do it right, as expressed by u/Difficult-Sevret-540, “Our parents thought we were lazy and glued to screens, and now people say the same thing about Gen Z. In a few decades, today’s kids will be ranting about how their kids never put down their neural implants. It’s just the circle of life.”

Summing up the repeated pattern was u/jackfaire writing, “My peers and I used to mock how our parents would freak out about our generation. Now my generation does the same thing about our kids. When our kids have kids, I’m sure they’ll complain too.”

5. Non-self-driving cars

self-driving car, transportation, navigation, AI, driverless, government, accidental death, road trips
Smart self-driving car. Image via Canva – Photo by RyanKing999

We have to get a driver’s license today, but the future will probably all be driverless cars, as mentioned by u/pdeichler. “I think people in the future will think we were crazy to drive on our own due to the risk of accidents/death. Also, they’ll wonder what we did on long road trips since they won’t have to drive and can do whatever they want while riding in the car.”

Stating concern over governmental control and lack of freedom was u/Sorrysafarisanfran saying, “Everything will be preprogrammed and approval will be given based on social credit units.”

6. Social media obsession

social media, camera, trending videos, healthy relationships, friends, posts, viral video, YouTube, TikTok
A social media break on campus. Image via Canva – Photo by FatCamera

People not only watch, but also try to get famous, as stated by u/Attila-t-h-452-72, “Inflict Pain and do stupid stuff that is dangerous for likes…” They continued, “Albeit they are pretty funny and sometimes just stupid like the guy who went up in a self-made parachute (I think) during the last hurricane with a camera. I don’t think the future will think it was very smart or funny.”

U/OfTheAtom mentioned the world’s obsession with social media, “Obviously it’s truly a place of understanding and getting to know each other, but future generations may have a healthier relationship with the technology to extract the good things and leave the noise.”

The United States is a bit obsessed when it comes to social media. According to a 2025 article in Demandsage, the average time people spend on daily social media is 141 minutes. That’s down two minutes a day from the 143 minutes spent by people in 2024.

7. Using fossil fuels

fosil fuels, gas, petroleum, natural gas, chemistry, electricity, cars, heat, envirnoment
Using the gas pump at the gasoline station. Image via Canvau00a0- Photo by 89Stocker

“Burning natural gas for electricity; while having plenty of other tech to do the same thing. Natural gas is a marvelous feedstock for chemistry (you know things like fertilizers that feed the world), it’s far too much valuable, and limited, to be casually burn for heat and electricity,” added u/233C, thinking about the other more beneficial uses that are wasted.

8. Using chemical pesticides

pesticides, chemicals, poison control, poison, food resources, farming, agriculture, insects
Tractor spraying pesticides Image via Canva – Photo by Slatan

The amount of poison we use to manage our food resources is frightening, as mentioned u/tboy160, “Imagine soaking your lawn in chemicals, then having your kids and dogs play in the chemicals?!?”

A 2024 study in ScienceDirect found that communities close to agricultural areas had increased levels of pesticides in the dust around their homes. It’s another example of how our behaviors infiltrate and affect all aspects of our lives.

9. Capitalism

The system of self-promotion through working hard to achieve more was questioned by u/Mioraecian, who said, “People talk about the end of capitalism being workers’ unions and wealth equality, etc. I’ll know capitalism has truly ended when our approach to consumerism and packaging has changed.”

10. Thoughts about the future and this thread

The most common consensus among these ideas is that the future will be better. “If, however, we experience some sort of catastrophe that knocks society back to the dark ages, I would imagine future generations will look back and think all the first-world bs we argued about is ridiculous while they have to fight daily for shelter, food, and water,” u/Smoth-Like-Buttah expressed an interesting viewpoint.

It isn’t easy to know exactly what the future holds, but it’s also clear these folks have strong opinions about the present. Let’s hope that when we get there, the things that need the most change evolve, what works endures, and what can’t be improved teaches us how to move forward more wisely.

  • Italian man claims to be ‘human cheetah’ with lightning-fast reflexes
    Photo credit: CanvaA man with fast reflexes.

    At first glance, this probably looks like a camera trick. Ken Lee, an Italian content creator, has built a massive online following by doing something that doesn’t quite feel real. Viewers refer to him as the “human cheetah” because it appears he has near-instant reflexes.

    Grabbing objects out of the air with uncanny precision, flicking clothespins and lighters, and throwing a blur of punches and kicks at impossible speeds, it is easy to call him unbelievable. Half the audience thinks his viral speed videos are fake. The other half is just as convinced they are watching something incredibly rare.

    Hands so fast they blur time

    In the video above, a timer runs to confirm its authenticity. In what looks like half a second, he reaches out and snags the lighter from the table. To prove it is real, he does it twice.

    Having amassed millions of followers on his TikTok page, the identity behind the mysterious influencer remains largely unknown. Active since around 2022, with almost 100 million accumulated likes, Lee has cultivated a fandom around his self-proclaimed “Superhero per Hobby!”

    Do you believe it is real? Is this person the fastest human alive? Many followers cannot wait for the next video to be posted. Plenty of his fervent fans are Italian, so sifting through the remarks takes a bit of hunting. Here are some comments that sum up how much people enjoy the fun and the spectacle:

    “Ken lee the fastest and the best”

    “Most dangerous human”

    “Is this what the lighter sees before my homie steals it”

    “It was sped up during he grabbed the lighter, if u count up with the timer u would be off by like 0,5 seconds whenever he grabs the lighter.”

    “If the flash were human”

    “How is it possible to get such powers ?”

    “I blinked and I missed it”

    People love good entertainment

    The awe of peak performance attracts people to watch elite athletes, musicians, or even dancers. There is something that deeply satisfies all of us when a human appears to push a skill to its limit. Whether it is real or fake seems to matter less than the opportunity to chime in on some good entertainment.

    How far could any of us go by practicing and repeating a particular motion over and over until it is mastered? Beneath the flashy nickname and his viral speed videos, Lee’s content has a way of drawing people in. This is not a superpower. Just repetition. Focus. Obsession. And maybe some digital wizardry.

    Testing the science of speed

    If you wish to question the validity of Lee’s performances, maybe some basic science can help. Human reaction time is not just a reflex. A 2024 study found that the nervous system can fine-tune responses in real time. Practice can make movements appear almost automatic.

    It has been well established in research that the gap between seeing something and responding has a limit. A 2025 study concluded that the most elite extremes allow for reaction times of 100 milliseconds. At that speed, the human brain can barely process that something has happened.

    Science explains Lee is not necessarily moving as fast as we might perceive him to be. And therein lies all the fun of it. We cannot prove it is real, nor can we actually prove that it is fake.

    Maybe Lee is the “fastest man alive” or the so-called “human cheetah.” Or maybe he is just a remarkable entertainer. Either way, he has clearly tapped into something strange and fascinating: a blend of human ability and fantasy that people do not want to miss.

    To give context to Lee’s videos, watch this performance on Tú Sí Que Vales:

  • Despite all the likes, literallys and dropped g’s, English isn’t decaying before our eyes
    Photo credit: LisaStrachan/iStock via Getty Images Fear not: There isn’t anything that needs saving.

    As a linguistics professor, I’m often asked why English is decaying before our eyes, whether it’s “like” being used promiscuouslyt’s being dropped deleteriously or “literally” being deployed nonliterally.

    While these common gripes point to eccentric speech patterns, they don’t point to grammatical annihilation. English has weathered far worse.

    Let’s start with something we can all agree on: Old English, spoken from approximately A.D. 450 to 1100, is pretty unintelligible to us today. Anyone who’s had the pleasure of reading “Beowulf” in high school knows how different English back then used to sound. Word endings did a lot more grammatical work, and verbs followed more complicated patterns. Remnants of those rules fuel lingering debates today, such as when to use “whom” over “who,” and whether the past tense of “sneak” is “snuck” or “sneaked.”

    The language went on to experience centuries of tumult: Viking invasions, which introduced Old Norse influence; Anglo-Norman French rule, which shifted the language of the elite to French; and 18th-Century grammarians, who dictated norms with their elocution and grammar guides.

    In that time, English has lost almost all of the more complex linguistic trappings it was born with to become the language we know and – at least, sometimes – love today. And as I explain in my new book, “Why We Talk Funny: The Real Story Behind Our Accents,” it was all thanks to the way that language naturally evolves to meet the social needs of its speakers.

    From dropping the ‘l’ to dropping the ‘g’

    The things we tend to label as “bad” or sloppy English – for instance, the “g” that gets lost from our -ing endings or the deletion of a “t” when we say a word like “innernet” – actually reflect speech habits that are centuries old.

    Take, for example, “often.” Originally spoken with the “t,” that pronunciation gradually became less favored around the 15th century, alongside that “l” in “talk” and the “k” in know. Meanwhile, the “s” now stuck on the back of verbs like “does” and “makes” began as a dialectal variant that only became popular in 16th-century London. It gradually replaced “th” whenever third persons were involved, as in “The lady doth protest too much.”

    While dropping the “l” in talk may have been initially frowned upon, today it would be strange if you pronounced the letter. And the shift makes sense: It smoothed out some linguistic awkwardness for the sake of efficiency.

    If people learned to look at language more like linguists, they might come around to seeing that there is more than one perspective on what good speech consists of.

    And yes, that absolutely is a sentence ending with a preposition – something many modern grammar guides discourage, even though the idea only took hold after 18th-century grammarian Robert Lowth intimated it was a less elegant choice based on the model of Latin.

    Though Lowth voiced no hard and fast rule against it, many a grammar maven later misconstrued his advice as an admonition. Just like that, a mere suggestion became grammatical law.

    The rise of the grammar sticklers

    Many of today’s ideas about what constitutes correct English are based on a singular – often mistaken – 19th-century view of the forces that govern our language.

    In the late 18th century, the English-speaking world began experiencing class restructuring and higher literacy rates. As greater class mobility became possible, accent differences became class markers that separated new money from old money.

    Emulation of upper-crust speech norms became popular among the nouveau riche. With literacy also on the rise, grammarians and elocutionists raced to dictate the terms of “proper” English on and off the page, which led to the rise of usage guides and dictionaries that were eager to sell a certain brand of speech.

    Another example of grammarian angst reconfiguring the view of an otherwise perfectly fine form is the droppin’ of the “g.” It became so tied to slovenly speech that it was branded with an apostrophe in the 19th century to make sure no one missed its lackadaisical and nonstandard nature.

    Up until the 19th century, however, no one seemed to care whether one pronounced it as “-in” or “-ing.”

    Evidence suggests that -ing wasn’t even heard as the correct form. Many elocution guides from the 18th century provide rhyming word pairs like “herring/heron,” “coughing/coffin” and “jerking/jerkin,” which suggest that “-in” may have been the preferred pronunciation of words ending with “-ing.” Even writer and satirist Jonathan Swift – a frequent lobbyist for “proper” English – rhymes “brewing” with “ruin” in his 1731 poem “Verses on the Death of Dr. Swift, D.S.P.D..”

    Embrace the change

    Language has always shifted and evolved. People often bristle at changes from what they’ve known to what is new. And maybe that’s because this process often begins with speakers that society usually looks less favorably on: the young, the female, the poor, the nonwhite.

    But it’s important to remember that being disliked and bad are not the same thing – that today’s speech pariahs are driven by the same linguistic and social needs as the Londoners who started going with “does” instead of “doth” or dropped the “t” in often.

    So if you think the speech that comes from your lips is the “correct” version, think again. Thou, like every other English speaker, art literally the product of centuries of linguistic reinvention.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • 10 boys and 10 girls were left alone in separate houses and the different results are just wild
    Photo credit: Ian Taylor PhotographerTwo young children play in the grass.

    It sounds like the plot of William Golding’s Lord of the Flies. However, in the mid-2000s, it was a very real and very controversial reality television experiment.

    Footage from the UK Channel 4 documentary Boys and Girls Alone is captivating audiences all over again. It offers a fascinating and chaotic look at what happens when you remove parents from the equation.

    The premise was simple but high stakes. Twenty children, aged 11 and 12, were split into two groups by gender. Ten boys and ten girls were placed in separate houses and told to live without adult supervision for five days.

    The Setup

    While there were safety nets in place, the day-to-day living was entirely up to the kids. A camera crew was present but instructed not to intervene unless safety was at risk. The children could also ring a bell to speak to a nurse or psychiatrist.

    The houses were fully stocked with food, cleaning supplies, toys, and paints. Everything they needed to survive was there. They just had to figure out how to use it.

    The Boys: Instant Chaos

    In the boys’ house, the unraveling was almost immediate. The newfound freedom triggered a rapid descent into high-energy anarchy.

    They engaged in water pistol fights and threw cushions. In one memorable instance, a boy named Michael covered the carpet in sticky popcorn kernels just because he could.

    The destruction eventually escalated to the walls. The boys covered the house in writing, drawing, and paint. But the euphoria of freedom eventually crashed into the reality of consequences.

    “We never expected to be like this, but I’m really upset that we trashed it so badly,” one boy admitted in the footage. “We were trying to explore everything at once and got too carried away in ourselves.”

    Their attempts to clean up were frantic and largely ineffective. Nutrition also took a hit. Despite having completed a cooking course, the boys survived mostly on cereal, sugar, and the occasional frozen pizza. By the end of the week, the house was trashed, and the group had fractured into opposing factions.

    The Girls: Organized Society

    The girls’ house looked like a different planet.

    In stark contrast to the mayhem next door, the girls immediately established a functioning society. They organized a cooking roster, with a girl named Sherry preparing their first meal. They baked cakes. They put on a fashion show. They even drew up a scrupulous chores list to ensure the house stayed livable.

    While their stay wasn’t devoid of interpersonal drama, the experiment highlighted a fascinating divergence in socialization. Left to their own devices, the girls prioritized community and maintenance. The boys tested the absolute limits of their environment until it broke.

    The documentary was controversial when it aired, with critics questioning the ethics of placing children in unsupervised situations for entertainment. But what made it so enduring, and why footage keeps resurfacing years later, is what it reveals about how kids are socialized long before anyone puts them in a house together. The boys weren’t born anarchists and the girls weren’t born organizers. They arrived at those houses already shaped by years of being told, implicitly and explicitly, what boys do and what girls do. Whether that’s a nature story or a nurture story is the question the documentary keeps asking without quite answering, which is probably why people are still watching and arguing about it nearly two decades later.

    This article originally appeared two years ago. It has been updated.

Explore More Culture Stories

Internet

Italian man claims to be ‘human cheetah’ with lightning-fast reflexes

Culture

Despite all the likes, literallys and dropped g’s, English isn’t decaying before our eyes

Culture

10 boys and 10 girls were left alone in separate houses and the different results are just wild

Media

9-year-old girl asks Steph Curry why his shoes aren’t in girls’ sizes. The response was perfect.