5 ms·

I agree that people have been reckless with population safety in past, but your comment seems to imply that the Millenial generation are somehow flawless with r

I agree that people have been reckless with population safety in past, but your comment seems to imply that the Millenial generation are somehow flawless with regards with this subject. While safety is now more stringent than in the past, I very much doubt that this is the case.

qorrect 5y ago
Yeah if anything millennial's were _taught_ to be less reckless. They didn't just come out of the womb that way :/.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
Physical safety is more stringent. You can't swing a dead cat without a horde of people with safety vests and clipboards writing you up for it. However, the planet is arguably the most ideologically polluted it's ever been. First world cultures have developed an aversion to individual and organization/group responsibility. Democracy is not doing great. Many institutions are bankrupt. Hardship is looming. We're in for a wild ride.
banana_maker 5y ago
As of 2021, out of 432 members in the house of congress, a scant 31 are millenials. In the senate, just 1. Millenials are -not- the ones responsible for disastrous policies (yet). They haven't been around long enough yet. It's mainly boomers, some gen x, and a few silents. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/02/12/boomers-silents-still-have-most-seats-in-congress-though-number-of-millennials-gen-xers-is-up-slightly/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/02/12/boomers-sil... edit: Added "(yet)" because it's not obvious, I suppose. My point here is that the actual policymakers in congress, right now, are majority "not-millenials". So stop blaming millenials and/or gen-z when they're not the ones currently writing legislature...
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  Who is the largest single voting bloc? Edit: That struck a chord with millenials, ha! Tell your friends that bitching does not help, voting does. Boomers seem to understand this and so they have a disproportionate amount of influence. You want it to stop? VOTE.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    Generations don't vote as blocks, but of the named generations the largest number of actual voters are Boomers, still. 2018 was the first election where Gen X and younger together outvoted Boomers and older.
  - banana_maker 5y ago
    It's my understanding that millenials and gen-z make up 31% [0], as of -2020-. Boomers and older still make up 44%. So sure, go ahead and blame millenials and gen-z for policies made in 2020 and onward. 0: https://catalist.us/wh-national/ https://catalist.us/wh-national/
  - blaser-waffle 5y ago
    > Edit: That struck a chord with millenials, ha! Tell your friends that bitching does not help, voting does. Boomers seem to understand this and so they have a disproportionate amount of influence. You want it to stop? VOTE. There is, still, a statistical bump in the boomers, hence the baby boom. There is just more of them, and they vote. They've only just started dying in big numbers. Plus the older voters get the more they tend to vote, for various reasons.
- vlunkr 5y ago
  So what you're saying is, millenials aren't responsible for disastrous policies yet. They'll get their turn.
  - ncr100 5y ago
    Absolutely. It's difficult to be omniscient about the impact of everything to everything else for all future outcomes. Smacks of Ageism, to my mind.
  - banana_maker 5y ago
    Correct. I've no doubt that the new generation will also make some terrible calls thanks to lobbying being legal. I believe the environment will be much more prioritized, but we'll have to see. However, I'm tired of silents/boomers/gen-xers making comments about and blaming millenials as if it's somehow our fault the boomers and silents in congress are out of touch. A quick look at voting demographics and the demographics of congress dispels that notion (for now, as of 2022).
    - ncr100 5y ago
      Good, be tired of it. The blame game is unhelpful unless a holistic explanation of Why Did You Do That is also given.
ajuc 5y ago
Compared to ignoring global warming - ignoring lead exposure is a minor negligence.
- cmrdporcupine 5y ago
  Both are a product of the same process of privileging of commodity production for profit over overall collective well-being. And yes, I'm aware that said commodity production produces wealth which also improves well-being. But there's a contradiction there in our economic model that is not serving us well. EDIT: I should add to my point above that what's common with both these is one overarching world altering product that has completely transformed the world: the automobile. Ribbons of tarmac lace the earth (it wouldn't surprise me if this is a long term environmental problem, too), even in some of the most remote sections of the planet. Cities are built around them, privileging automobile use above a bunch of other aspects of quality of life. Road transport is 75ish% of global CO2 emissions. And, yeah, leaded fuel poisoned our bodies, minds, and the environment for decades.
  - lern_too_spel 5y ago
    Economics has a term for this: negative externalities. A buys a snowblower from B, gaining 4 health for not shoveling and reducing everybody's health by 3 from pollution. B buys a leaf blower from C, gaining 4 health from not raking and reducing everybody's health by 3 from pollution. C buys a lawnmower from A, gaining 4 health from not scything and reducing everybody's health by 3. Each seller gets 4 health from the money. Every trade is beneficial to both parties by 1 health unit, but now, everybody is worse off by 1 health unit than they would be had the trades not happened. In practice, we're usually D-Z, who participated in no trades and get a net reduction in health of 9.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      That is an incredibly naive way of looking at it. The way it usually goes is "everyone is +5, except the village that shares the watershed with the mine" On anything but the shortest timeline things like like wealth, health and productivity are fungible at the societal level. If the net cumulative effect of the externalities wasn't smaller than the benefits of the progress then the progress wouldn't happen because more people would be worse off and things would grind to a halt because the gains would be more than offset.

qorrect 5y ago

Yeah if anything millennial's were _taught_ to be less reckless. They didn't just come out of the womb that way :/.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

Physical safety is more stringent. You can't swing a dead cat without a horde of people with safety vests and clipboards writing you up for it. However, the planet is arguably the most ideologically polluted it's ever been. First world cultures have developed an aversion to individual and organization/group responsibility. Democracy is not doing great. Many institutions are bankrupt. Hardship is looming. We're in for a wild ride.

banana_maker 5y ago

As of 2021, out of 432 members in the house of congress, a scant 31 are millenials. In the senate, just 1. Millenials are -not- the ones responsible for disastrous policies (yet). They haven't been around long enough yet. It's mainly boomers, some gen x, and a few silents. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/02/12/boomers-silents-still-have-most-seats-in-congress-though-number-of-millennials-gen-xers-is-up-slightly/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/02/12/boomers-sil... edit: Added "(yet)" because it's not obvious, I suppose. My point here is that the actual policymakers in congress, right now, are majority "not-millenials". So stop blaming millenials and/or gen-z when they're not the ones currently writing legislature...

rootusrootus 5y ago
Who is the largest single voting bloc? Edit: That struck a chord with millenials, ha! Tell your friends that bitching does not help, voting does. Boomers seem to understand this and so they have a disproportionate amount of influence. You want it to stop? VOTE.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  Generations don't vote as blocks, but of the named generations the largest number of actual voters are Boomers, still. 2018 was the first election where Gen X and younger together outvoted Boomers and older.
- banana_maker 5y ago
  It's my understanding that millenials and gen-z make up 31% [0], as of -2020-. Boomers and older still make up 44%. So sure, go ahead and blame millenials and gen-z for policies made in 2020 and onward. 0: https://catalist.us/wh-national/ https://catalist.us/wh-national/
- blaser-waffle 5y ago
  > Edit: That struck a chord with millenials, ha! Tell your friends that bitching does not help, voting does. Boomers seem to understand this and so they have a disproportionate amount of influence. You want it to stop? VOTE. There is, still, a statistical bump in the boomers, hence the baby boom. There is just more of them, and they vote. They've only just started dying in big numbers. Plus the older voters get the more they tend to vote, for various reasons.
vlunkr 5y ago
So what you're saying is, millenials aren't responsible for disastrous policies yet. They'll get their turn.
- ncr100 5y ago
  Absolutely. It's difficult to be omniscient about the impact of everything to everything else for all future outcomes. Smacks of Ageism, to my mind.
- banana_maker 5y ago
  Correct. I've no doubt that the new generation will also make some terrible calls thanks to lobbying being legal. I believe the environment will be much more prioritized, but we'll have to see. However, I'm tired of silents/boomers/gen-xers making comments about and blaming millenials as if it's somehow our fault the boomers and silents in congress are out of touch. A quick look at voting demographics and the demographics of congress dispels that notion (for now, as of 2022).
  - ncr100 5y ago
    Good, be tired of it. The blame game is unhelpful unless a holistic explanation of Why Did You Do That is also given.

ajuc 5y ago

Compared to ignoring global warming - ignoring lead exposure is a minor negligence.

cmrdporcupine 5y ago
Both are a product of the same process of privileging of commodity production for profit over overall collective well-being. And yes, I'm aware that said commodity production produces wealth which also improves well-being. But there's a contradiction there in our economic model that is not serving us well. EDIT: I should add to my point above that what's common with both these is one overarching world altering product that has completely transformed the world: the automobile. Ribbons of tarmac lace the earth (it wouldn't surprise me if this is a long term environmental problem, too), even in some of the most remote sections of the planet. Cities are built around them, privileging automobile use above a bunch of other aspects of quality of life. Road transport is 75ish% of global CO2 emissions. And, yeah, leaded fuel poisoned our bodies, minds, and the environment for decades.
- lern_too_spel 5y ago
  Economics has a term for this: negative externalities. A buys a snowblower from B, gaining 4 health for not shoveling and reducing everybody's health by 3 from pollution. B buys a leaf blower from C, gaining 4 health from not raking and reducing everybody's health by 3 from pollution. C buys a lawnmower from A, gaining 4 health from not scything and reducing everybody's health by 3. Each seller gets 4 health from the money. Every trade is beneficial to both parties by 1 health unit, but now, everybody is worse off by 1 health unit than they would be had the trades not happened. In practice, we're usually D-Z, who participated in no trades and get a net reduction in health of 9.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    That is an incredibly naive way of looking at it. The way it usually goes is "everyone is +5, except the village that shares the watershed with the mine" On anything but the shortest timeline things like like wealth, health and productivity are fungible at the societal level. If the net cumulative effect of the externalities wasn't smaller than the benefits of the progress then the progress wouldn't happen because more people would be worse off and things would grind to a halt because the gains would be more than offset.