anchor.diff:   - by the age of 27, I would see WWI starting
    - by the age of 30, I would see Russian revolution, the collapse of Russian empire and emergence of the new states
   in my late 30s and 40s, I would live through Stalin's repressions and genocide
  - - by the age of 52, I would see the start of WWII that would last 6 years
  + - by the age of 52, I would see the start of WWII that would last six years
    - by the age of 60, I would witness the start of the Cold War (and would probably die before it ends)
   if I could live untill the age of 104 years I would see the collapse of the Soviet Union
   I think that it's valuable to map scale of one's life to the history. 
  
positive.code: The answer lies in my background and my comprehension of history, states, society, institutions, etc. 
  It seems to me that my colleagues believe in the stability and immutability of the existing system they live in. 
  Consciously or not they bet that in 40-60 years the system they live now would remain unchanged: 
  the United States would still exist as a country; banks and financial institutions would not go bankrupt; 
  laws to protect savings of the regular people still would be in place; 
  balance of social power would remain similar to the one we have today and middle class would still exist in similar 
  proportion and have some political voice. 
  It is a tough bet to make in my opinion, the probability of change in each system might not be high, 
  but overall probability of general change is much higher - because it's multiplication of individual probabilities.
  
  To be fair, I'm happy that my colleagues can hold such belief in the system's stability and predictable future. 
  To some extent, I would like all of us to have this belief because it is much easier to live when uncertainties are low.
  
  However, my background does not allow me to believe in such story even if I wanted too.
  
  I think this belief in the unpredictability of the future is quite common for the Eastern Europeans. 
  And there are historical reasons for that.
  
  Here are the facts.
  
negative.code: 
  Another Eastern European - Zygmunt Bauman - describes our times as "liquid modernity." 
  Those are the times of chaotic change. 
  We change ourselves constantly; we flow through the life-changing places, jobs, life partners and even values. 
  If we are changing ourselves, how could we expect large systems - states, banks, culture, etc - 
  to remain stable and even exist in half a century?
  