4 ms·

Disagree. Folks in the 60’s thru 80’s expected global nuclear annihilation with some probability.

Fricken 3y ago
I was taught about Nuclear annihilation as well as global warming in the 80s. Fast forward to today and both are still on the table. Climate catastrophes make geopolitical conflict more likely.
- ChatGTP 3y ago
  I thought the same with all these snide comments, we still have the threat of nuclear war at almost any minute. It never went away, why people think it has? I have no idea.
  - AlexandrB 3y ago
    Mass normalization of deviance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalization_of_deviance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalization_of_deviance
ChatGTP 3y ago
Why do you think nuclear annihilation is off the table sorry? Do we not have nuclear weapons anymore?
bee_rider 3y ago
It is a different sort of doom. Slim chance of something utterly catastrophic happening all at once vs seemingly inevitable failure to respond day after day, knowingly. I mean I enjoyed having neither but then most people weren’t lucky enough to grow up in the 90’s.
- chasd00 3y ago
  > ..Slim chance.. During the cold war it was quite literally minute by minute, alive or dead. Every day was news of airspace incursions, naval confrontations, proxy conflicts etc. "Slim chance" it was not.
bluescrn 3y ago
There was also concern over population explosion back then (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb). But talking about population has become quite the taboo. Utterly unacceptable to restrict reproduction, but it's cool to take people's transport/heating/protein away to save the planet?
- faeriechangling 3y ago
  It’s not unacceptable at all to restrict population, it’s just a controversial notion. I’d go as far as to say that population restriction being good is an elite consensus.
- kwere 3y ago
  Westerners need to behave and sacrifice to atone past sins or whatever. Its all a religion with a veneer of scientism
- Faark 3y ago
  > population has become quite the taboo. Utterly unacceptable to restrict reproduction More like not necessary anymore, since birthrates tend do decline by themself in more afluent countries, once sex is decoupled from reproduction and children are not the primary retirement plan anymore. "Helping poor countries" is just easier to sell than "We must make them stop having babies".
- pixl97 3y ago
  Because the book was wrong for the most part. We really didn't do anything to restrict population in the US, and without immigration our population would collapse. China is in far worse shape, they restricted number of children for decades, and now they are presented with a demographics crisis that could halve their population in 60 years.

I was taught about Nuclear annihilation as well as global warming in the 80s. Fast forward to today and both are still on the table. Climate catastrophes make geopolitical conflict more likely.

ChatGTP 3y ago
I thought the same with all these snide comments, we still have the threat of nuclear war at almost any minute. It never went away, why people think it has? I have no idea.
- AlexandrB 3y ago
  Mass normalization of deviance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalization_of_deviance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalization_of_deviance

ChatGTP 3y ago

Why do you think nuclear annihilation is off the table sorry? Do we not have nuclear weapons anymore?

bee_rider 3y ago

It is a different sort of doom. Slim chance of something utterly catastrophic happening all at once vs seemingly inevitable failure to respond day after day, knowingly. I mean I enjoyed having neither but then most people weren’t lucky enough to grow up in the 90’s.

chasd00 3y ago
> ..Slim chance.. During the cold war it was quite literally minute by minute, alive or dead. Every day was news of airspace incursions, naval confrontations, proxy conflicts etc. "Slim chance" it was not.

bluescrn 3y ago

There was also concern over population explosion back then (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb). But talking about population has become quite the taboo. Utterly unacceptable to restrict reproduction, but it's cool to take people's transport/heating/protein away to save the planet?

faeriechangling 3y ago
It’s not unacceptable at all to restrict population, it’s just a controversial notion. I’d go as far as to say that population restriction being good is an elite consensus.
kwere 3y ago
Westerners need to behave and sacrifice to atone past sins or whatever. Its all a religion with a veneer of scientism
Faark 3y ago
> population has become quite the taboo. Utterly unacceptable to restrict reproduction More like not necessary anymore, since birthrates tend do decline by themself in more afluent countries, once sex is decoupled from reproduction and children are not the primary retirement plan anymore. "Helping poor countries" is just easier to sell than "We must make them stop having babies".
pixl97 3y ago
Because the book was wrong for the most part. We really didn't do anything to restrict population in the US, and without immigration our population would collapse. China is in far worse shape, they restricted number of children for decades, and now they are presented with a demographics crisis that could halve their population in 60 years.