• qevlarr
    link
    fedilink
    English
    611 year ago

    How about awareness that climate change will ruin us all.

    It checks out that the peak of optimism in your graph is around the 80’s and 90’s. We weren’t just “optimistic” in the 90’s. We were delusional. We were ignoring problems instead of solving them

    • @akrot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 year ago

      I feel every era had its “boogey man” issue. I doubt there was ever an era of “nothing to worry about”

      • qevlarr
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 year ago

        Understandable to think this. Maybe we did come really close to some of those disasters, such as nuclear war. It’s just survivors bias to think that it wasn’t civilization ending danger we were in back then.

        I hope we learn from that and steer clear of the danger next time, rather than think it’ll be alright because nobody happened to actually press the red button back then so I guess we worried about nothing

    • @ATDA@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -41 year ago

      They were also high as fuck on coke back then. All we got is damn fent. Of course they were peppier and riskier.

  • @vanveen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    291 year ago

    I totally agree with that conceptual knot: people who live precarious lives aren’t going to make any risky moves because they live drenched in anxiety of ending down on the street. And it’s patent that every advance in technology will benefit an handful of mega rich, and the trickle down economy was a bull****. (Very interesting about this is Varoufakis and his concept of techno feudalism). Now, having said that: the only answer is political, the governments must build consistent safety nets to allow the growth of middle class, alleviate them the angst of turning into an army of homeless, so that when the basic needs are met: a house, cures and food, one can concentrate about how to plan and thrive in the future. The only method is taxing the rich, the tragicomically rich. https://digg.com/2020/this-scrolling-visualization-of-jeff-bezos-wealth-is-breaking-our-brains

    • Troy
      link
      fedilink
      English
      101 year ago

      A digg link. Have I time traveled?

    • GigglyBobble
      link
      fedilink
      71 year ago

      Politicians don’t give a fuck about the middle class though. To get rich after holding public office, you need to get in bed with the currently rich

      Even if they are not completely corrupt: it’s easier to talk to a couple of mega corp CEOs instead of those of thousands of small companies (who employ the most people in total). So policy will always favor large corps. And that’s where the obscenely rich are.

      • @vanveen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        Until people won’t vote a socialist party things will go the way you’ve described. People can’t childishly complain about politicians when they have voted them. In America, during the elections, a meager minority go to vote. Until people won’t become politically active, why should things change?

        • GigglyBobble
          link
          fedilink
          -1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          If you think any socialist politician would behave differently, you’re just naive. Look at every socialist ever. Don’t think they care about you just because they publish a good-sounding agenda.

          • @vanveen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year ago

            Thinking that a politician is like a hero, someone who comes to save the world, that is rather naive. The politician must be checked and kept in line by his her base, his electorate.

  • @PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    291 year ago

    This makes sense if you think of “progress” since WWII, overall peoples’ lives and standard of living improved because of technology and progress in other areas.

    Today, we don’t see things like politics as being able to “progress”. The thought of technology progressing further at an exponential rate is scary because we don’t understand it and there could be some real consequences.

    And of course, the ones who control said technology like AI are the billionaires who control so many other things and have bunkers in New Zealand or what have you for when it all goes to shit - largely because of their bad decisions that got us here in the first place.

    So yeah…there was a time when “the future” was exciting. Now it’s just terrifying because it doesn’t seem like there is any practical way to avoid whatever bad thing awaits us. And those who truly could make a difference have noped the fuck out and decided that we should just all go to Mars instead of trying to improve things here….those who can afford the ticket, of course.

    • @erwan@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -11 year ago

      Don’t worry, rich people are not going to live a good life on Mars while we suffer on a borken earth. It doesn’t matter how much we fuck up the Earth, it will still be a paradise compared to Mars.

  • Exocrinous
    link
    fedilink
    English
    211 year ago

    A risk averse culture would take the climate crisis seriously. We live in a YOLO culture.

  • @SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    141 year ago

    That’s normal. Every culture goes through the usual arc:

    • One for all and all for one.

    • What’s in it for me

    • Fk you I got mine

    • KO

    It goes from a lot of solidarity as the culture just broke free of the previous ruler. Over time sentiments change and become more individualistic until the entire thing becomes very top heavy. Eventually some external force (economy, war, climate and usually a combination of those) topples the whole thing over. Some parts break away and start the process over again.

    • insomniac_lemon
      link
      fedilink
      71 year ago

      I don’t know, I think a lot of modern life things have broken the capacity/effectiveness for solidarity in a lot of ways. Infrastructure, cost-of-living, surveillance state/police brutality, corporate money/efforts, underhanded politics etc. The worst part is that wins were made in the past but were undone systemically… and without fixing the broken political system first (if that even happens), some things won’t change for generations.

      At least that’s how I feel as a broke shut-in in semi-rural USA… I’m just stuck.

      • @SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        81 year ago

        lot of modern life things have broken the capacity/effectiveness for solidarity

        It’s not just modern life. It’s a recurring theme throughout history where nobility, priests, kings or chieftains got a bit too greedy to refused to pay for upkeep and don’t want to change the system until the system fell apart. It’s the same for politicians and businesses.

        some things won’t change for generations.

        Like it’s said: “Gradually, then suddenly.” China invading Taiwan can be such a trigger for things to go suddenly but nobody can predict how things will go.

  • insomniac_lemon
    link
    fedilink
    101 year ago

    I was reminded of one of my favourite paintings: ‘Young Woman on her Deathbed.’ There’s a striking contrast between the opulence of the bed and her physical deterioration. While she lies amidst luxury, her life ebbs away in her youth. This image serves as a metaphor for our civilisation

    The only information I can see says she’s dead in the painting:

    The first is in the very originality of its subject: the portrait of a dead young woman. A short text in Latin found in the top right-hand corner on the back of the picture even specifies that it is the portrait of a young woman who died at 25 years of age, and that is was painted two hours after her death in 1621

    Source.

    Following the metaphor, is civilization already dead too but some of us just don’t know it yet while we’re being painted in a much less opulent existence?

    Also, More risk! More Risk!

  • @Wanderer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    71 year ago

    I think risks are a lot higher generally now, just in everday life.

    Back 20 years ago people were a lot more understanding and had a lot more tolerance for things.

    Now everyone is looking to get offended or make a big deal about stuff. That mentality has affected everything. The risks are higher which makes the entry higher and deflection from the status quo dangerous.

    People feel on guard just with talking. That sort of mentality will bleed into everything.

  • @dr_scientist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    11 year ago

    Dear Nitwit,

    A reduced faith in science might, hear me out here, ••might•• have something to do with science, ya know, killing the planet and what not. You wanna get some faith back? Maybe apply these new technologies to human happiness, or even, who knows human survival.

    One more thing, nimrod. The real risk averse culture? It ain’t your unwashed “zero-sum thinking Millennials” No, it’s your hyper capitalist who’s rigged the system to the point where taking financial risk is erased by government bailouts. They’re the ones who want to eliminate risk.

    And it’s that, plus their increased control of what is and is not researched in practised science that leads to our dismay. See above: “planet dying” Imagine something like pencillin, developed entirely within an academic risky environment, getting made today.

    There’s risk in true critical thinking, instead of lazy “Kids Today” hand-wringing. So, in future, take a fucking risk.

  • @tryptamine@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    01 year ago

    “over the past 60 years the West has begun to shift away from the culture of progress, and towards one of caution, worry and risk-aversion, with economic growth slowing over the same period. The frequency of terms related to progress, improvement and the future has dropped by about 25 per cent since the 1960s, while those related to threats, risks and worries have become several times more common.”

    I mean, when people are struggling to survive it’s hard to let yourself get excited about technology that will likely only benefit the most wealthy. All of the “easy” discoveries have been made. Anything else getting research funding is to further capitalism.

    • @gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      0
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      By no means do I want to dismiss the socioeconomic issues that you’re hilighting - in fact, I agree on those points. But I think this is more about the pervasive philosophy of risk avoidance that’s been created by letting lawyers, financiers, and business types run everything, instead of anthropologists, sociologists, and engineers.