7 ms·

Critical reflections about the ecological impact/carelessness of modern society was an already booming genre during that time, so the response they were prepari

Critical reflections about the ecological impact/carelessness of modern society was an already booming genre during that time, so the response they were preparing for was surely part of HM's decision to publish in the first place, not just some insight gleaned from how convincing the work felt or whatever. And these books were consistently controversial and politicized at the time, which is why sales and discussion were high yet still lead to our 2020's society being only marginally more ecologically responsible than the that of 1960's (if that). Nothing much has changed. In the way you're referencing, the US was extremely divided in the 1960's and is extremely divided again now. Practiced media companies know how to "prepare" for that by exploiting it for sales, and today's publishers do it just the same -- sometimes on ecological topics like this, sometimes on other controversial topics du jour.

UncleOxidant 3y ago
> Nothing much has changed. In the way you're referencing, the US was extremely divided in the 1960's and is extremely divided again now. The deep divisions mostly came later in the 60s. The early 60s was the calm before the storm. The Vietnam war was barely on anyone's radar in 1962 - there were only ~9,000 US troops there in '62 and these were being referred to as 'advisors' - the vast majority of Americans didn't even know where Vietnam was or that we had any troops there at that point. Kennedy had not yet been assassinated. The Civil Rights movement was in progress, but again, not on the radar for most Americans yet. Most Americans felt that the Soviet Union was the existential threat - not a lot of division about that at the time. Silent Spring certainly seems to have had some major impact at the time it came out - by 1970, eight years later, we had the EPA and Earth Day. Again, it's hard to imagine any kind of book or film coming out today that would have a similar impact on the culture at large since we now have a collection of subcultures each with their own preferred media outlets. In '62 you got your news from your local newspaper and the networks (mostly CBS & NBC at that point, with ABC as sort of the upstart) - while newspapers did often have a political slant, broadcasters mostly all had the same political slant (or lack of one) due to the fairness doctrine. > discussion were high yet still lead to our 2020's society being only marginally more ecologically responsible than the that of 1960's (if that). I think this has more to do with Reagan and the rise of the right wing in the 80s and into the current era. That led to backsliding on ecological progress that was made in the 60s through the 70s. Jimmy Carter was probably our most ecologically-minded president - he even began to sound the alarm on climate change towards the end of his administration.
- swatcoder 3y ago
  McCarthy's red scare, rising resistance to the oppressive Hollywood production code, Beat and motorcycle culture, Brown v Board of Education, the pre-1962 NY Times bestseller lists, etc all suggest deep division through the 1950's that would only crescendo during the Vietnam War and disperse for a while afterwards. Because TV was ripe and widespread at that point, you can also personally survey talk show and comedy/variety show material of the 1950's and early 1960's to experience the state of the culture. While the fairness doctrine did constrain what could stated by whom and with what kind of counterpoint, capitalists and comedians found plenty of ways to reflect the actual cultural tensions, which (like today) were not small and (like today) were on track to get further heightened.
  - UncleOxidant 3y ago
    McCarthy was roundly discredited by about '56. He was out of office by '57. By the early 60s he was largely viewed as an extremist. The election of 1964 (LBJ vs Goldwater) was very conclusive: Goldwater was easy to paint as an extremist - he only got 38% of the vote, it was a landslide for LBJ. (In reality, Goldwater, or at least the Goldwater he evolved into, was nowhere near as extreme as many in his party today - he was more of a libertarian and warned against having religious extremists control the party - the GOP did not heed his warnings)
- oceanplexian 3y ago
  Carter was repeatedly wrong about environmental issues, some quotes..“Unless profound changes are made to lower oil consumption, we now believe that early in the 1980s the world will be demanding more oil than it can produce.” “World oil production can probably keep going up for another six or eight years. But some time in the 1980s it can’t go up much more. Demand will overtake production. We have no choice about that.” The guy was both wrong and extremely unpopular and defeated by Reagan in a landslide. He was president during a period of unprecedented inflation, multiple geopolitical flubs, unpopular mandates (Like executive orders forcing everyone to set their thermostat at a certain temperature). Don't forget his other legacy, among others Corn-based ethanol, which is both worse for the environment than gasoline, subsidized by our taxes, and has a negative impact on food prices. Carter was a nice guy but a terrible leader.
parineum 3y ago
> Nothing much has changed. In the way you're referencing, the US was extremely divided in the 1960's and is extremely divided again now. Don't believe the hype. There were bombings and assassinations in the 60s. Partisanship has increased in recent memory but we don't come close to replicating the division caused by the ripples of the red scare, a draft for the vietnam war and a burgeoning and sometimes violent civil rights movement. These days, people talk the talk but they fail to walk the walk like they did then.
- tremon 3y ago
  I'm not sure what argument you're making, but if you measure social division purely by looking at public displays of violence you're going to miss all the warning signs until it's too late.
  - parineum 3y ago
    "Warning signs" are for the future. The comment was equating the extreme division of the 60s with now, not the future. You can make the argument that the present division is a warning sign of a future that will be equivalent to the division of the 60s but that's a very different argument.
- Animats 3y ago
  "Partisanship has increased in recent memory but we don't come close to replicating the division caused by the ripples of the red scare, a draft for the Vietnam war and a burgeoning and sometimes violent civil rights movement. These days, people talk the talk but they fail to walk the walk like they did then." That may be because there are no longer large numbers of people protesting the same thing. Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter never got organized enough to push through a political agenda. Q-Anon was a hoax. The GOP, having won on guns and abortion, now lacks a coherent issue. Organized labor, once very powerful, isn't organized enough any more to push hard for anything. Nobody has enough mass to form a mass movement.

UncleOxidant 3y ago

> Nothing much has changed. In the way you're referencing, the US was extremely divided in the 1960's and is extremely divided again now. The deep divisions mostly came later in the 60s. The early 60s was the calm before the storm. The Vietnam war was barely on anyone's radar in 1962 - there were only ~9,000 US troops there in '62 and these were being referred to as 'advisors' - the vast majority of Americans didn't even know where Vietnam was or that we had any troops there at that point. Kennedy had not yet been assassinated. The Civil Rights movement was in progress, but again, not on the radar for most Americans yet. Most Americans felt that the Soviet Union was the existential threat - not a lot of division about that at the time. Silent Spring certainly seems to have had some major impact at the time it came out - by 1970, eight years later, we had the EPA and Earth Day. Again, it's hard to imagine any kind of book or film coming out today that would have a similar impact on the culture at large since we now have a collection of subcultures each with their own preferred media outlets. In '62 you got your news from your local newspaper and the networks (mostly CBS & NBC at that point, with ABC as sort of the upstart) - while newspapers did often have a political slant, broadcasters mostly all had the same political slant (or lack of one) due to the fairness doctrine. > discussion were high yet still lead to our 2020's society being only marginally more ecologically responsible than the that of 1960's (if that). I think this has more to do with Reagan and the rise of the right wing in the 80s and into the current era. That led to backsliding on ecological progress that was made in the 60s through the 70s. Jimmy Carter was probably our most ecologically-minded president - he even began to sound the alarm on climate change towards the end of his administration.

swatcoder 3y ago
McCarthy's red scare, rising resistance to the oppressive Hollywood production code, Beat and motorcycle culture, Brown v Board of Education, the pre-1962 NY Times bestseller lists, etc all suggest deep division through the 1950's that would only crescendo during the Vietnam War and disperse for a while afterwards. Because TV was ripe and widespread at that point, you can also personally survey talk show and comedy/variety show material of the 1950's and early 1960's to experience the state of the culture. While the fairness doctrine did constrain what could stated by whom and with what kind of counterpoint, capitalists and comedians found plenty of ways to reflect the actual cultural tensions, which (like today) were not small and (like today) were on track to get further heightened.
- UncleOxidant 3y ago
  McCarthy was roundly discredited by about '56. He was out of office by '57. By the early 60s he was largely viewed as an extremist. The election of 1964 (LBJ vs Goldwater) was very conclusive: Goldwater was easy to paint as an extremist - he only got 38% of the vote, it was a landslide for LBJ. (In reality, Goldwater, or at least the Goldwater he evolved into, was nowhere near as extreme as many in his party today - he was more of a libertarian and warned against having religious extremists control the party - the GOP did not heed his warnings)
oceanplexian 3y ago
Carter was repeatedly wrong about environmental issues, some quotes..“Unless profound changes are made to lower oil consumption, we now believe that early in the 1980s the world will be demanding more oil than it can produce.” “World oil production can probably keep going up for another six or eight years. But some time in the 1980s it can’t go up much more. Demand will overtake production. We have no choice about that.” The guy was both wrong and extremely unpopular and defeated by Reagan in a landslide. He was president during a period of unprecedented inflation, multiple geopolitical flubs, unpopular mandates (Like executive orders forcing everyone to set their thermostat at a certain temperature). Don't forget his other legacy, among others Corn-based ethanol, which is both worse for the environment than gasoline, subsidized by our taxes, and has a negative impact on food prices. Carter was a nice guy but a terrible leader.

parineum 3y ago

> Nothing much has changed. In the way you're referencing, the US was extremely divided in the 1960's and is extremely divided again now. Don't believe the hype. There were bombings and assassinations in the 60s. Partisanship has increased in recent memory but we don't come close to replicating the division caused by the ripples of the red scare, a draft for the vietnam war and a burgeoning and sometimes violent civil rights movement. These days, people talk the talk but they fail to walk the walk like they did then.

tremon 3y ago
I'm not sure what argument you're making, but if you measure social division purely by looking at public displays of violence you're going to miss all the warning signs until it's too late.
- parineum 3y ago
  "Warning signs" are for the future. The comment was equating the extreme division of the 60s with now, not the future. You can make the argument that the present division is a warning sign of a future that will be equivalent to the division of the 60s but that's a very different argument.
Animats 3y ago
"Partisanship has increased in recent memory but we don't come close to replicating the division caused by the ripples of the red scare, a draft for the Vietnam war and a burgeoning and sometimes violent civil rights movement. These days, people talk the talk but they fail to walk the walk like they did then." That may be because there are no longer large numbers of people protesting the same thing. Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter never got organized enough to push through a political agenda. Q-Anon was a hoax. The GOP, having won on guns and abortion, now lacks a coherent issue. Organized labor, once very powerful, isn't organized enough any more to push hard for anything. Nobody has enough mass to form a mass movement.