14 ms·

No clear answers? The world is teetering on the edge of world war, young people will never own a home or anything really, wealth inequality continues to get wor

• dangond 2y ago
  What makes you say teetering on the edge of world war? Is there some recent news I've missed?
  • aurareturn 2y ago
    It’s the constant China fear mongering and 24/7 hour coverage of wars like Ukraine, Israel. Fear gets clicks and views.
    • reducesuffering 2y ago
      There is a more than likely chance that China will invade Taiwan by 2030 and US will possibly intervene to stop that slaughter. Is that fear mongering?
      • BirAdam 2y ago
        The US will likely intervene to make money for defense contractors who fund political campaigns.* FTFY.
        • reducesuffering 2y ago
          Do you really see no value in helping other people not be conquered and killed?
          • BirAdam 2y ago
            Helping either side will still kill people, and likely kill more people, and likely lengthen the war. The USA should not involve itself in the affairs of others. Period. It’s just a modern form of colonialism where the UsA views itself as superior and a possessor of all knowledge and goodness and therefore the rest of the globe needs its help. This is not the case.
            • reducesuffering 2y ago
              You should read Leviathan and World Order. When order breaks down, it opens up short term opportunistic destruction instead of correctly resolving the prisoners' dilemnas. See the Azerbaijani assault on Nagorno-Karabakh for what happens when Russia doesn't have the focus to maintain order. The US got a lot of shit for not preventing the Rwandan genocide. But according to you, nonintervention was a good thing.
      • aurareturn 2y ago
        Case in point, your post.
        • reducesuffering 2y ago
          You're not helping your point by not making any substantive argument. The same full time think tank analysis that predicted the Russian invasion by months is also predicting the same here. Your track record is worse unless you can point me to any coverage of the impending Russian invasion you have...
      • jodrellblank 2y ago
        > Is that fear mongering? Yes. There's no source, no nuance, no justification, no explanation, no analysis, no hope, no details, it's as pure a jolt of dense negative emotion in one sentence as you can manage. You're choosing emotionally charged words like 'slaughter'. You're speculating that something halfway around the world will involve the reader's home country, because that makes it feel closer and more scary. It's absolutely fearmongering.
        • reducesuffering 2y ago
          So if someone https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1473362460673515527 https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1473362460673515527 told Ukrainians in 2021 that they were going to be invaded by Russia, which would mean 100,000+ of them killed and maimed, would you also say they were "fear mongering?" There were many people on HN, like you, the Russian government, and Snowden literally saying people were "fear mongering" because they were warning about the fact of the Russian invasion. https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1770800449777549672 https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1770800449777549672 Do you have any evidence or track record to support your position? Any Russian invasion predictions you called successfully? If not, I'd leave dismissals of current US Gov. understanding of the situation to the full time geo-pol pro's who do successfully predict things.
          • jodrellblank 2y ago
            "FEARMONGERING meaning: 1. the action of intentionally trying to make people afraid of something when this is not necessary" > "told Ukrainians in 2021 that they were going to be invaded by Russia, which would mean 100,000+ of them killed and maimed, would you also say they were "fear mongering" Maybe, this depends if they were commenting with good evidence because they were trying to get Ukranians to fight or escape, or if they were commenting because they wanted to make Ukranians afraid. The Ukrainian government saying "imminent invasion, 100,000+ of us will die, here's what we need to be doing" might not be fearmongering, Russia saying "we're imminently invading, 100,000+ of you will die" might be fearmongering. Americans telling each other "Russia will invade Ukraine, 100,000+ people will die, the world is ending, mass slaughter!, NATO will fall, Europe is history! Russia will move onto Georgia and then Poland!" absolutely would be fearmongering. > "Do you have any evidence or track record to support your position?" My position is that your comment is fearmongering. My evidence is your comment. > "If not, I'd leave dismissals of current US Gov. understanding of the situation to the full time geo-pol pro's who do successfully predict things." I'm not dismissing US Gov understanding of the situation, I'm criticising your fearmongering echoing of things. Do you have any track record of helping stop China invading Taiwan? If not, stop spreading fear for upvotes and leave the warfare preparations to the pros.
  • yetihehe 2y ago
    Several nuclear threats from Russia every month perhaps?
    • N19PEDL2 2y ago
      They have made so many that it is hard to take them seriously now.
      • miroljub 2y ago
        What should they do to be taken seriously? Just hit the Washington D.C once? On the other hand, do you really think any nuclear power, be it Russia, USA, China, would allow being defeated in an existential war and just dissolve without bringing down the whole world?
  • danielbln 2y ago
    I also don't know what a world war looks like in the nuclear age. Proxy wars are bad enough, to be sure, but a world war seems difficult when many nations can glass the planet.
    • naravara 2y ago
      We were closer to nuclear war in the 1960s and 1970s than we are today. Sure we don’t have it as good as they did in the ‘90s and 2000s but you wouldn’t know it from the depression and anxiety stats over time, which suggests that the geopolitical situation isn’t the main driver here.
    • orbisvicis 2y ago
      We don't have enough firepower to glass the planet, and nuclear winter itself may be exaggerated: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter#Criticism_and_debate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter#Criticism_and... Just like magic... if enough people stop believing in nuclear winter, then it becomes a nuclear free for all.
      • NoGravitas 2y ago
        I'm pretty sure that the research showing the risk of nuclear winter being exaggerated is specifically intended to make nuclear war "thinkable" in a way it wasn't towards the end of the Cold War. It's one small part of a broader trend in elite consensus-making over the last 10 years or so. As a member of the Posadist 4th International, I approve, of course.
  • lgeorget 2y ago
    Among other things, perhaps the recent bombing of the Iranian section of a consulate in Damas, Syria by Israel, to which Iran responded by war threats.
    • dangond 2y ago
      I did in fact miss this, thanks. I'm not as convinced by other commenters' references to Putin's nuclear threats, but the Middle East erupting into a broader conflict with the US joining in seems at least somewhat plausible to me. Another comment mentioned the potential of the US entering a war in defense of Taiwan, which also seems quite plausible to me given China really wants Taiwan back and Taiwan is much more critical to the US than, say, Ukraine.
  • throw1234651234 2y ago
    Russia supported by Iran vs Ukraine supported by every major Western Power. China vs Taiwan standoff. China recently built a Taipei city center mock up in the desert. Taiwan controls 90%+ of global microchip production. Recent Armenia vs Azerbaijan (supported by Turkey) war. More tension on border. Israel levelled Gaza and killed 30,000 Palestinian civilians, and is striking Lebanon and Syria. Iran posturing back. Posturing in Africa by Russia, France, and China. North Korea being noisy as usual. This is literally just the tip of the iceberg.
    • asylteltine 2y ago
      [dead]
    • BirAdam 2y ago
      To support this, all of these proxy wars have covert units by the major nuclear powers conducting efforts directly against the other side. If these are ever exposed directly, political pressures will likely escalate the war. The moment one side starts to lose decidedly, nuclear war will likely occur.
    • dangond 2y ago
      > Recent Armenia vs Azerbaijan (supported by Turkey) war. More tension on border. I completely missed the Armenia/Azerbaijan conflict, but from what I can tell, tensions there don't seem likely to pull many other countries into it. Curious if you have thoughts on that. > Posturing in Africa by Russia, France, and China. Can you explain why this would lead to a potential world war? Most of what I can find about this is foreign countries vying for economic influence, which seems unlikely to burst into conflict, especially one that would become a world war.
      • throw1234651234 2y ago
        See what BirAdam said - he is correct. Armenia / Azer is a direct cause of Russia being drawn into Ukraine, insofar that Russia "guaranteed" peace and had a contingent of "peacekeepers" in Armenia. What you see is an acceleration on conflicts in areas that were held back by global stability before. Now that Russia couldn't react, Azer backed by Turkey (and arguably other powers in the West) pushed Armenia out of Nagorny Karabakh. If Russia wasn't in Ukraine, this would likely look like Georgia in 2008 where Russia would use this as an excuse to take some land. Instead they did nothing, because they are busy. Africa is too much to summarize - basically look into what Wagner and US PMCs were doing there. It's just more proxy conflict.
  • mikercampbell 2y ago
    A lot of historians are drawing parallels between recent events and the events leading up to WW1. I’m not an expert, but it isn’t absurd to say that it could happen.
    • nprateem 2y ago
      That's like investors trying to predict a crash. You can only ever make sense of things retrospectively.
      • hiddencost 2y ago
        First land war in Europe since WW2, 500K casualties, idk what you want in terms of empiricism here, but, uh ...
        • Izkata 2y ago
          Don't forget how alliances/treaties/etc kept pulling more countries in, turning a local conflict into WWI. I think that's the bigger parallel.
        • nprateem 2y ago
          What? If they could have predicted the severity of WWII, Chamberlain and the rest wouldn't have tried to appease Hitler or delay. Predicting the severity of events in advance is difficult. I wouldn't listen to what historians predict today. Every catastrophe is different, but despite this people like to pretend (after the fact) all the signs were there and were obvious. For all we know Ukraine will stay confined and China will just keep being belligerent but take no action.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
• jvanderbot 2y ago
  I think you hit it on the head, but not the issues: the sentiment. Everywhere I turn I see a macro version of poor self talk. Keep in mind the article's target age group just barely excluded me and includes most my friends. Its not like we're scolding kindergarten kids here.
  • silverquiet 2y ago
    It's the children who are wrong?
    • jvanderbot 2y ago
      TFA is about people under 35 and mostly discusses college campuses. Yes that is precisely the age group that is trying to reconcile their world view, life goals, and relationship with the world.
• halflings 2y ago
  > The world is teetering on the edge of world war The world probably has never been as peaceful as in the last 50 years or so. Same goes for access to drinkable water, food, decent shelter, gender equality, freedoms, technology, etc. But I suppose your comment is a good illustration of the problem at hands (that so many people deeply believe that things are fucked)
  • credit_guy 2y ago
    > The world probably has never been as peaceful as in the last 50 years or so. You are probably living in a different world than the rest of us.
    • asylteltine 2y ago
      [dead]
    • tossandthrow 2y ago
      can you elaborate? I am under the same belief as the parent commenter. though, the fact that there are no real issues could indeed be an issue.
      • credit_guy 2y ago
        The parent is intentionally conflating the last 2 years with the prior 5 decades. Right now there is a war going on, of a magnitude not seen since WW1 and WW2.
        • tossandthrow 2y ago
          [dead]
      • rambojohnson 2y ago
        [flagged]
        • 2y ago
• p0w3n3d 2y ago
  I would rather say - constant comparation to those who show themselves as dapper/beautiful/rich/crazy on social media. There are a lot of psychology papers on social media's influence on a young mind.
• EMIRELADERO 2y ago
  How come then that the suicide stats for teens in Europe seem much better, given their closer proximity to the supposed hotspot of the recent conflict?
  • throwaway44773 2y ago
    Kids spend too much time thinking about social issues that they are not ready to deal with because they are used as pawns in the culture wars or manipulated to feel like they need to consume more. Society has a responsibility to stop manipulating our children and giving them problems they have control over and can deal with. In plain english: stop telling kids to fix global warming and that they need plastic surgery and start telling them to clean their room and prepare healthy meals for themselves. Help them feel like they have control over their own lives and their environment and they will stop killings themselves.
  • lioeters 2y ago
    Better social support so they aren't facing homelessness if they lose their jobs or get sick.
  • JansjoFromIkea 2y ago
    Doubt it would totally cover for it, but less access to the most effective means of suicide might play a factor?
• chasd00 2y ago
  > There are no clear answers because everything seems fucked. Doom and despair sells like hotcakes. Stop consuming so much media, you’re too valuable, and way more than some addiction pushing tech corporation’s product.
  • betaby 2y ago
    How not consuming 'so much media' going to fix homeless situation all across Canada?
  • readyman 2y ago
    It is simply a fact that wealth inequality is worse than it has ever been many times over. Those at the bottom know this first hand. They dont need media to tell them.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  • orbisvicis 2y ago
    If usage reports of social media are to be believed... disconnect from their main form of social interaction?
• financltravsty 2y ago
  The utter inanity of it all just hit me: news pieces are not for disseminating info, but for manipulating public perception. Suicide rates are up by around ~2.6%. In 2021, 48,183 people were recorded to die from suicide. While in 2022 it was 49,449. Meanwhile, ~650,000 people die each year in the U.S from heart disease. This is all considering that the U.S has 330 million people. The rate of people that die from suicide each year is barely a single basis point in relation to the total population. And now you have HN, where everyone mainlines these propaganda pieces everyday, for years on end. The amount of time I've wasted.
  • hiddencost 2y ago
    ??? You realize that for every person that commits suicide, there are many many more who attempt or almost attempt? It's a good proxy indicator, and one of many that are in trouble.
    • financltravsty 2y ago
      Yes, and? I'm of the opinion empathy and consideration is finite, so when you spread it to larger and larger collections of people it becomes too diffuse, and the ones most closest to us (friends, loved ones, people in the community, etc.) do not receive it sufficiently. Likewise, none of us are in any position to do anything at all about this issue, but armchair theorize and feel moved by it for a few minutes -- as well as have our perception of the world tilted negatively (for what purpose?). I should really go for a walk, instead of absorbing this junk food.
• dr_ 2y ago
  we’ve been here before though, circa ww1, the Great Depression, ww2 etc etc. the only difference is how much of what is going on is amplified today, compared to the past.
• ThrowawayR2 2y ago
  That stuff is peanuts compared to the 1960s-1980s certainty of World War III and all of civilization being nuked into glowing cinders (a well justified fear after two world wars with tens of millions of deaths and major cities bombed to rubble preceded by decades of war after war before that between major powers), wealth inequality (yeah, it was incredibly bad back then too), bad economy (e.g. the stagflation and oil crisis of the '70s), and pollution (ah, the sweet smell of exhaust from leaded gasoline literally everywhere, how I don't miss it, and don't forget rivers catching on fire from industrial pollution). Mate, you don't even know what "fucked" (quoting the parent post) looks like.
  • BadHumans 2y ago
    The generation this article is concerned about killing themselves didn't live during that time. They have no frame of reference for how things were worse back then and are better now. The only thing they now is that things are bad now. In fact, saying that "we had it way worse" is probably a sentiment that leads to people stuffing their feelings because "what do I have to complain about" until it gets to the point that they off themselves.
  • NoGravitas 2y ago
    Things in the 20th century were fucked, but almost everyone believed at a bone-deep level that things were getting better. That whatever problems society was facing would eventually be solved, and that for individuals, there was a path to improving their lives. Even dissidents who didn't believe in their society's mythologies believed that a better world was possible. Young people today don't have that belief. And they're probably correct. Our society is visibly committed to not solving any of the problems facing it, and the levers of decision-making are very clearly out of the hands of anyone who cares about solving them.