2 ms·

The future was perhaps even bleaker 40 years ago. You had to be a grownup at the age of 18. Now, what is the difference with 40 years ago? I’m not saying the l

by tgv 4y ago

The future was perhaps even bleaker 40 years ago. You had to be a grownup at the age of 18. Now, what is the difference with 40 years ago? I’m not saying the logical conclusion is phones and socials, but it isn’t a feeling of doom just by itself.

watwut 4y ago
How was future bleaker in 1983? It was basically a beginning of long economic growth.
- tgv 4y ago
  Nobody knew it. We might be on the brink of a fantastic future right now. But, there was an economic crisis, there was a cold war, and there were serious worries about the environment and sustainability (Club of Rome's report). "No future" was the motto. So, my point is: a feeling of doom isn't the difference that could explain the change in attitude/perception. Phones and social media are very viable candidates, though, given the repeatedly shown effect on mental health.
- midoridensha 4y ago
  Everyone back then thought nuclear holocaust could happen any day. Of course, that's true right now too, but for a long period between 1991 and recent years, the idea of nuclear armageddon seemed like a bad memory from the Cold War.
aaomidi 4y ago
We’re more aware of how fucked the world is and how little we’re doing to fix it.
- tgv 4y ago
  You've got no way to compare them.
  - aaomidi 4y ago
    What do you even mean? Just because you’re not looking doesn’t mean the information isn’t there.
makeitdouble 4y ago
The feeling of doom is a real thing though. This reminds of this "This American Life" piece [0] focused on people who just couldn't distance themselves from the world going the way it is, the fight for the climate eating their whole lives and impacting their family and social life. That's an extreme, and the reason why it ends in a podcast, but I'd imagine a lot of people sharing part of the same path. Decades ago the main threat in the "west" was if nations went to nuclear war, with the hope that nothing drastically changes. Accessorily, not going to war for oil was also on the table. So basically, we'd be fine if we kept the status quo. Right now the main concern would be wether we can drastically change our societies, which is just so much more of an ununtainable goal than the status quo. People who are poised to be anxious about the future are just so much more fucked in the current climate that decades or centuries before, IMHO. [0] https://www.thisamericanlife.org/748/transcript https://www.thisamericanlife.org/748/transcript
- tgv 4y ago
  > Decades ago the main threat in the "west" was if nations went to nuclear war Yeah, that was unpleasant. > not going to war for oil was also on the table. The oil crisis was just over, and the effects were still there. > Right now the main concern would be wether we can drastically change our societies As was the concern 150 years and 40 years ago. The report from the Club of Rome was the OG IPCC.
  - makeitdouble 4y ago
    > As was the concern 150 years and 40 years ago. The report from the Club of Rome was the OG IPCC. The difference is on the public ingesting the information I think. The previous generation was raised in a climat of growth, and the notion of producing/consuming too much just doesn't resonate with most. A few decades ago, reports on pollutions were also met with a kind of "technology will fix that" attitude, as technology effectively fixed a lot of the existential problems they've seen in their life The current generation looking at IPCC doesn't have that background. They had the societal and environmental issues thrown at them from the start, whith adults showing a very clear "our kids can deal with it" attitude. Reports of future climate issues resonate a lot differently to the current generation IHMO.

by tgv 4y ago

watwut 4y ago

How was future bleaker in 1983? It was basically a beginning of long economic growth.

tgv 4y ago
Nobody knew it. We might be on the brink of a fantastic future right now. But, there was an economic crisis, there was a cold war, and there were serious worries about the environment and sustainability (Club of Rome's report). "No future" was the motto. So, my point is: a feeling of doom isn't the difference that could explain the change in attitude/perception. Phones and social media are very viable candidates, though, given the repeatedly shown effect on mental health.
midoridensha 4y ago
Everyone back then thought nuclear holocaust could happen any day. Of course, that's true right now too, but for a long period between 1991 and recent years, the idea of nuclear armageddon seemed like a bad memory from the Cold War.

aaomidi 4y ago

We’re more aware of how fucked the world is and how little we’re doing to fix it.

tgv 4y ago
You've got no way to compare them.
- aaomidi 4y ago
  What do you even mean? Just because you’re not looking doesn’t mean the information isn’t there.

makeitdouble 4y ago

The feeling of doom is a real thing though. This reminds of this "This American Life" piece [0] focused on people who just couldn't distance themselves from the world going the way it is, the fight for the climate eating their whole lives and impacting their family and social life. That's an extreme, and the reason why it ends in a podcast, but I'd imagine a lot of people sharing part of the same path. Decades ago the main threat in the "west" was if nations went to nuclear war, with the hope that nothing drastically changes. Accessorily, not going to war for oil was also on the table. So basically, we'd be fine if we kept the status quo. Right now the main concern would be wether we can drastically change our societies, which is just so much more of an ununtainable goal than the status quo. People who are poised to be anxious about the future are just so much more fucked in the current climate that decades or centuries before, IMHO. [0] https://www.thisamericanlife.org/748/transcript https://www.thisamericanlife.org/748/transcript

tgv 4y ago
> Decades ago the main threat in the "west" was if nations went to nuclear war Yeah, that was unpleasant. > not going to war for oil was also on the table. The oil crisis was just over, and the effects were still there. > Right now the main concern would be wether we can drastically change our societies As was the concern 150 years and 40 years ago. The report from the Club of Rome was the OG IPCC.
- makeitdouble 4y ago
  > As was the concern 150 years and 40 years ago. The report from the Club of Rome was the OG IPCC. The difference is on the public ingesting the information I think. The previous generation was raised in a climat of growth, and the notion of producing/consuming too much just doesn't resonate with most. A few decades ago, reports on pollutions were also met with a kind of "technology will fix that" attitude, as technology effectively fixed a lot of the existential problems they've seen in their life The current generation looking at IPCC doesn't have that background. They had the societal and environmental issues thrown at them from the start, whith adults showing a very clear "our kids can deal with it" attitude. Reports of future climate issues resonate a lot differently to the current generation IHMO.