Boomers: The Evil Generation!

[Patine]

economic data is mathematics. economic theories are social sciences.

hh

It's not that simple or cut and dried. You've declared another inappropriate black and white absolute.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I'm just enjoying seeing several people who usually enjoy vilifying other demographics with broad stereotypes getting the same treatment here and realising how annoying it is. I wonder if anyone "feels bullied" yet.

 

[Patine]

I'm just enjoying seeing several people who usually enjoy vilifying other demographics with broad stereotypes getting the same treatment here and realising how annoying it is. I wonder if anyone "feels bullied" yet.

Well, I'm not someone who enjoys such vilification. It is always annoys me. No matter who it's against. It's the absolutism and over-simplistic thinking that gets to me.

 

[metalhead]

You know what else boomers did? They reproduced. You owe your existence to the fact that at least two (possibly four; you give the impression of being fairly young) boomers opted to have children. At least acknowledge that.

It's pretty close to peak Boomer to demand acknowledgment and thanks from us for satisfying your own selfish desire to reproduce, exactly as every species on Earth has been doing since the first prokaryotes emerged from the primordial ooze.

Well played.

 

[Kaitzilla]

It's pretty close to peak Boomer to demand acknowledgment and thanks from us for satisfying your own selfish desire to reproduce, exactly as every species on Earth has been doing since the first prokaryotes emerged from the primordial ooze.

Well played.

The 20 years raising the next generation deserves at least a head nod.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Interesting. The boomers are now aged 55 to 73. Most are still working. We are the wealthiest seniors in history and a pretty big group to boot. Estimates put the collective wealth of US boomers at $30 trillion. As we die off in the next couple of decades, what do you think will happen to all that money? Some of it it will go to taking care of ourselves in nursing homes. But all the rest gets passed on. Nobody is taking it with them. The children and grandchildren of the boomers will get it. Maybe your parents are boomers.

I see that you are new here. Certainly one way to establish your identity is to show up and toss Molotov cocktails into discussions and wait to see what happens. It is not a great strategy though. Mostly because such posts are usually a demonstration of ignorance. If you want to criticize the boomers, please do so, but really you should try to be more thoughtful and at least make a half hearted effort to support your thinking with something other than whining. You might try reading some of the posts in this thread that talk directly about boomers and what has happened since they took the reigns of power in the 90s.

I'm curious how we have squandered all our riches.

EDIT: Here is a different take on Millenials: https://qz.com/1491389/millennials-are-getting-richer/

A disgustingly large chunk of that wealth is going straight to the capitalists that run our health care system.

 

[Hamid.H]

It's not that simple or cut and dried. You've declared another inappropriate black and white absolute.

are you really suggesting that data such as,

millennials have a much lower net worth compared to boomers when they were the same age.

and

millennials are financially much worse off than their parents although they are far more educated.

isnt an absolute? now youre just being contrarian. i hate to break it to you but the jurys been out on this for awhile.

hh

 

[yung.carl.jung]

You know what else boomers did? They reproduced. You owe your existence to the fact that at least two (possibly four; you give the impression of being fairly young) boomers opted to have children.

wow thanks for overpopulating the planet, much appreciated. can't believe how much worse life would be if there were less human beings around

this whole raising the finger and saying "I made you in my image!" shtick is becoming boring. if there truly was a god I'm sure he'd be in a constant state of shock and seeking PTSD treatment in order to cope with his "children".

it was your (I don't mean You valka, pls don't take this the wrong way ) selfish decision to have kids and no kid owes anything to his parents. no one gets to chose where, to whom and in what environment to be born. and as good as most boomer intentions probably were when having kids, turned out it wasn't that great of an idea.

in case I'm not being clear enough: I'm saying that mine (and many other peoples') existence is a fluke. looking at it "big picture style" we'd definitely, definitely be better off if there were less people like me around.

I'm very glad more people are deciding not to make kids now. I'm also glad the social pressuring of women is less acute now than it was decades ago, and I'm sure you would agree?

after all it's a pretty meaningful choice and no one should have kids just because why not or to fulfill some dumb societal expectation or, worst of all, to "pass on your genes"

people who adopt are literal saints

I'm just enjoying seeing several people who usually enjoy vilifying other demographics with broad stereotypes getting the same treatment here and realising how annoying it is. I wonder if anyone "feels bullied" yet.

Manfred is enjoying other peoples' demise. Now that's something new and refreshing! keep me posted with those updates, Manfred!

The 20 years raising the next generation deserves at least a head nod.

Actually giving birth and raising is what I'm thankful for, not the act of procreation or the idea of "hey lets have kids i'm kinda bored"

I wouldn't want to burden anyone with raising.. or teaching me. What a horror that musta been.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

@Hamid.H Why do you always speak in absolutes and as though your stereotypes are 100% correct without exception, and then become highly defensive - even hostile - when others speak the same way? How do you justify such constant hypocrisy and the moral self-righteousness you take in it? I'm just curious here.

he's just speaking in hyperbole. it's easy to decode for the most part. must say I've actually quite enjoyed his posts.

most peoples opinions on here are much too tame for my taste. nothing significant ever changed due to timidity. I have a feeling once the younger generations stop to complain (looking at you, zoomers) then we know we're knee deep into it.

much of the world is too comfy, too sedated, too introverted, too obsessed with their own lives, their self, career, fulfillment, worst offender: "happiness". too satisfied. much of our outrage is now done online, in echo chambers or in places like here, instead of in the streets. if we can't be radical here, then how are we going to be radical at all?

The social sciences are NEVER black and white. They are NEVER binary. Anyone who views them as such walks a dangerous path to either extremism to ruin, in all likelihood.

This is obviously true and anyone who says otherwise knows nothing of academia.

I've never trusted economics or economists anyway. funding and all..

I'm afraid to think what will happen to written English (and whatever other languages may be relevant at the time).

 

[El_Machinae]

Interesting. The boomers are now aged 55 to 73. Most are still working. We are the wealthiest seniors in history and a pretty big group to boot. Estimates put the collective wealth of US boomers at $30 trillion. As we die off in the next couple of decades, what do you think will happen to all that money? Some of it it will go to taking care of ourselves in nursing homes. But all the rest gets passed on. Nobody is taking it with them. The children and grandchildren of the boomers will get it. Maybe your parents are boomers.

Okay, so my biases on the table. I will sometimes frame my blame around 'the Boomers'. But that's just because I am referring to a collective group of people who just (mostly) didn't do good well enough to satisfy me. But this is from retrospect, and I have high standards for others! (It's hard to type 'people should eat healthy' while I eat ice-cream. But you know what? I manage. Because I care.)

But this little bit that you wrote here needs a bit of a reframing.

The Boomers have wealth. They're going to dispose of that wealth in order to buy things. And (as you know) wealth is paper. So, they're going to spend in order to boost their quality of life. They're going to spend paper to get stuff. This means that those who collect paper are forgoing 'stuff' to get it. So, as Boomers retire, my ability to buy things for myself will go down but my ability to 'get paper' will go up. Materially, I will be worse off. Financially, I will be better off. This is just the normal economy, it's just going to be a bit more imbalanced, because the Boomers will get the 'stuff' and we're going to notice. We should actually get real-world economic growth of the working economy during that period as well, so my quality of life should improve even as Boomers are outcompeting me for the leisure goods I'd like to buy.

Remember, production doesn't move forward in time. Just because you had $5 last year and can buy a loaf of bread this year doesn't mean that you're just eating the loaf of bread that already exists. It's being produced now, and you're just capable of eating it while someone else cannot. We treat money as if its production moves forward in time, but it doesn't. It actually mostly works as a concept ... until it doesn't. The Boomers didn't 'store bread'. They just created the situation where they had a better claim on today's bread.

The Problem: is that the Boomers are going to spend their wealth into the system they created. So, the 'paper wealth' that they spend in order to outcompete me will not be distributed equally. It's going to increasingly go to the top 0.1%. So, it's not like we can look at that $30 trillion (call it $1 million per capita) and think we're going to get it. Or even have a shot at getting it. As the money is being spent, the top 0.1% are going to own even more of the economy than they did previously. So, as the Boomers die and move out of their houses ... those houses will be occupied (obviously). But the people moving in are going to be renting them, not owning them.

Right now, you'll give me $5 for a loaf of bread (that I cannot eat). After I pay my bills, I'll have $4, and the top 0.1% will own $1. And (unlike the Boomers) they will not trade the wealth for stuff. They'll only buy more of the wealth.

The Boomers thought that lower taxes (and lower wages for others!) would lead to higher growth and thus it would be easier to afford their retirement. "No Mr. wage-earner, you should let 'the rich' own the money, they'll created faster growth so that there's more loaves of bread in the future". It might even be true. But then at the end of the day, we're told that we don't own that bread. We get the privilege of borrowing to buy it. After I sold you a loaf, I have $4, and I need to borrow a $1.01 from those who are happy to lend it to me so that I can outcompete the Boomer on that purchase. Even Boomers got screwed. Poorer Boomers were promised 'faster growth', and then later told that 'we cannot afford you, because that would involve more taxes now. And don't you prefer faster growth (that you don't own?)'

 

[metalhead]

The 20 years raising the next generation deserves at least a head nod.

What if they did a really crappy job though?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Okay, so my biases on the table. I will sometimes frame my blame around 'the Boomers'. But that's just because I am referring to a collective group of people who just (mostly) didn't do good well enough to satisfy me. But this is from retrospect, and I have high standards for others! (It's hard to type 'people should eat healthy' while I eat ice-cream. But you know what? I manage. Because I care.)

But this little bit that you wrote here needs a bit of a reframing.

The Boomers have wealth. They're going to dispose of that wealth in order to buy things. And (as you know) wealth is paper. So, they're going to spend in order to boost their quality of life. They're going to spend paper to get stuff. This means that those who collect paper are forgoing 'stuff' to get it. So, as Boomers retire, my ability to buy things for myself will go down but my ability to 'get paper' will go up. Materially, I will be worse off. Financially, I will be better off. This is just the normal economy, it's just going to be a bit more imbalanced, because the Boomers will get the 'stuff' and we're going to notice. We should actually get real-world economic growth of the working economy during that period as well, so my quality of life should improve even as Boomers are outcompeting me for the leisure goods I'd like to buy.

Remember, production doesn't move forward in time. Just because you had $5 last year and can buy a loaf of bread this year doesn't mean that you're just eating the loaf of bread that already exists. It's being produced now, and you're just capable of eating it while someone else cannot. We treat money as if its production moves forward in time, but it doesn't. It actually mostly works as a concept ... until it doesn't. The Boomers didn't 'store bread'. They just created the situation where they had a better claim on today's bread.

The Problem: is that the Boomers are going to spend their wealth into the system they created. So, the 'paper wealth' that they spend in order to outcompete me will not be distributed equally. It's going to increasingly go to the top 0.1%. So, it's not like we can look at that $30 trillion (call it $1 million per capita) and think we're going to get it. Or even have a shot at getting it. As the money is being spent, the top 0.1% are going to own even more of the economy than they did previously. So, as the Boomers die and move out of their houses ... those houses will be occupied (obviously). But the people moving in are going to be renting them, not owning them.

The Boomers thought that lower taxes would lead to higher growth and thus it would be easier to afford their retirement. "No Mr. wage-earner, you should let 'the rich' own the money, they'll created faster growth so that there's more loaves of bread in the future". It might even be true. But then at the end of the day, we're told that we don't own that bread. We get the privilege of borrowing to buy it. Even Boomers got screwed. Poorer Boomers were promised 'faster growth', and then later told that 'we cannot afford you, because that would involve more taxes now. And don't you prefer faster growth (that you don't own?)'

I think the source of the critiques in this thread is almost universally a complete failure to recognize the real timeline. I have a lot of respect for your ability El_Mac, and your positions are usually very well reasoned, but this time you are fully down the same rabbit hole that has engulfed most of the younger posters.

You said "the Boomers are going to spend their wealth into the system they created." There has been some degree of acknowledgement and complaint that this spending of their wealth is mostly going to dump it into the bottomless pockets of the health care industrialists, and that complaint is very much valid. The error is in blaming the boomers for creating that system. This error is made glaringly obvious when some bombthrower complained of the boomers calling themselves "the greatest generation," because that system was created before any boomer gave it a moment's thought by the generation that did in fact call itself the 'great generation,' a title they claimed that they earned by surviving the depression and winning world war two. Another thing they claim to have earned is the right to be taken care of in enjoyable old age by their children through the inefficient intervention of the state, whether their children like it or not, which allowed them to turn out the massive baby boom generation without taking any responsibility for raising them or providing them with a single reason why they should feel inclined to care for their parents. The system of "working class supports the retired class in splendor" was foisted on the boomers, not invented by them.

A very good examination of social forces, unfortunately titled Great Expectations and thus impossible to locate through the haze of the far better known fiction, examined the impacts of the boomer generation in youth, and predicted the impacts it would have in age, based on a single factor; relative size. It frequently used the simple metaphor that the boomers are, demographically, the 'egg in the snake.' The analysis came down to the simple fact that this was what would distinguish the boomers. Not some unique maliciousness, or amazing feature; just the weight of overwhelming numbers. It drove the education boom as the boomers went to school. It drove massive production growth as the boomers flooded into the workforce. It drove massive growth of crime, and the response to that growth of crime. It drove US imperialism as it had to be fed with resources on a planetary rather than national scale, and the weight of it flooding into the military made the requisite wars possible. Just on weight of numbers it has driven pretty much every aspect of political and social development in the USA for decades.

That weight allowed for creation of a wealthy retired class, because our predecessors were so small in number, relatively speaking, that when spread across the backs of the boomers their weight was negligible. It was obvious as early as the seventies that such a system would be untenable in the long term. If the boomers had been as prolific as the preceding generation and created a broad enough field of backs to similarly ride on Malthus would have won. Since we were not as prolific the system was doomed to collapse under our weight of numbers.

But it isn't a system that we built, it's a system that was built on us and not for us. The fact that our children are also caught in the collapse of that system is saddening, and maddening...but perhaps the most irritating part is that they blame us for creating it.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Similarly, anti-climate change policies are being bankrolled by the wealthy donors and corporate interests and can't be blamed on boomers entirely. Recycling movements did pick up steam with them and they are responsible for the genesis of a lot of the individual environmental movements.

Having said all of that, it is still true that by and large the boomers have voted for politicians over the last 20 years that have taken extremely regressive stances on these issues. There is also in my opinion a pretty wide lack of empathy toward younger generations from the boomers. This may be my bias speaking but there seems to be more than a bit of denial that the problems we're facing are in fact problems and that economic circumstances for younger generations have changed in many ways for the worst.

My frustration caused by my own personal experience with that lack of empathy here and in real life have fed back into my negative biases and created a lot of hostility on the subject that I hope to leave behind me going forward.

I'll stay off your lawn if you stop griping about my goddamn avocado toast.

Recycling movements are cool and all, but who led the corporations that introduced plastic bags, plastic cups, plastic everything and made them a normal part of our life? Who are the people that made a huge profit off of trash? Who are the people responsible for us being irresponsible with trash, and who benefitted? Who are the people responsible for those new and revolutionary ways of packaging, that ensure better food security, but are currently transforming the planet into a giant trash heap?

Similiarly, the boomers were the ones who started both the anti-nuclear movement and climate change awareness. But they were, at the same time, the ones who built and operated nuclear plants. The people who founded aluminum factories in Africa. The people who came up with fracking. The people who came up with a new system of industrializing meat production (and methane, as a byproduct) at levels we have never, ever, seen before.

I can point fingers all day, but it's utterly useless. In two or three decades there wont be (m)any boomers around and me and my hypothetical kids have to deal with this (literal) garbage. This makes boomer condescension even worse imho. It gives me zero statisfaction to say "but well, it wasn't my fault at least!"

And it also gives me no satisfaction to say that these problems are not inherent to boomers in any way, shape or form. The opposite is the case. Half of the world's history can be neatly summed up by "We came, we screwed things up, we left other to deal with it".

 

[Birdjaguar]

That is a rather ignorant claim. Or perhaps, more accurately, it's an ill-informed and unexamined belief that can only be held by people who equate Marxism with Soviet-style systems or something.

Marxism is one way to look at the world. It's underpinnings of class struggle and the unsustainability of capitalism are appealing to many. It is an intellectual and philosophical approach most suitable for the classroom. What history has clearly demonstrated is that attempts to carry out a classless society at a meaningful scale haven't worked. Are there any success stories? I actually don't think that people want such a society. What they do want is to not feel left out, to have a chance for something better. The 80s moved capitalism into a mode of "we can be super rich" and and amass huge piles of excess capital that surpass anything we have ever seen. That has been unchecked and enhanced by the boom in technology. I think the solutions lie in taxing wealth, limiting the accumulation of excess wealth and constraining income or redirecting it to beneficial paths.

 

[El_Machinae]

But it isn't a system that we built, it's a system that was built on us and not for us. The fact that our children are also caught in the collapse of that system is saddening, and maddening...but perhaps the most irritating part is that they blame us for creating it.

It's a broad brush, and I don't like it. But I think that putting the blame on other generations is too much. There was a period of time when the Boomers were the most significant and powerful political cohort. And there was an opportunity to fix things. Now, obviously, the 'failure to fix' is the outcome and not a statement on any individual effort. Waaaaay earlier, I don't really ascribe much blame. A series of people were doing what they thought was a mixture of acting in their own best interests and acting in a way that created a good outcome.

Talking about 'Boomers' is just too large of a group to ascribe moral blame. I'm not. I'm only talking about the sum of the consequences being less good than it could have been.

Hell, liberals haven't been able to convinced themselves that climate change is worth acting upon. I mean, 'the Boomers' made it worse than it needed to be, and they passed on a broken system to the next generation. But it's not like young liberals have done anything other than a sub-acceptable mix of acting in their own best interests with a nod to caring about the problem overall.

Keep in mind, I don't mind that the Boomers own more. That's just a simple expansion of an underlying demographic change. I'm just pointing out that the disposal of the wealth isn't actually going to benefit the younger generations, and it shouldn't be framed this way. We're gonna get paper and not get stuff. The Boomers will get stuff. There's not enough stuff to go round, but that's just the way a demographic shift will happen.

The problem is that the disposal of this wealth is going to aggravate the underlying wealth imbalance.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

wow thanks for overpopulating the planet, much appreciated. can't believe how much worse life would be if there were less human beings around

I was reminding the poster that he owes his personal existence to the fact that at least two boomers had sex, one of them got pregnant, carried the pregnancy to its conclusion, and presto! there he was. Presumably they also raised him (or he might have been adopted by other boomers or boomers' children, depending on his age) and had him taught to read, write, and type so he could post all that whining ranty <stuff>.

I personally am not responsible for even one extra human on this planet, thankyouverymuch. I decided over 30 years ago that I would not have children, and have kept to that decision.

this whole raising the finger and saying "I made you in my image!" shtick is becoming boring. if there truly was a god I'm sure he'd be in a constant state of shock and seeking PTSD treatment in order to cope with his "children".

Actually, it's the "go forth and multiply" that's the problem. Some of us prefer not to multiply and are chastised and financially penalized for it.

it was your (I don't mean You valka, pls don't take this the wrong way ) selfish decision to have kids and no kid owes anything to his parents. no one gets to chose where, to whom and in what environment to be born. and as good as most boomer intentions probably were when having kids, turned out it wasn't that great of an idea.

As long as it's understood that I personally am not part of the overpopulation problem except in having been born, and as you say, I didn't ask to be born. In fact, there are times when I think that my mother was irresponsible to have let this happen given the family medical history, but then I remind myself that she was a teenager who never finished high school, got married mostly to escape an abusive home (her father - the man I knew as "Grandpa" - was physically abusive to her, a fact I only found out after she died and my aunt told me some of the dirty family laundry), and it was the early '60s when society would have looked down on her if she did not have children.

Fortunately, 20 years later, I could freely make the choice not to have children even if I did marry (never did that, either). But it still doesn't stop some of my age-peers and former classmates from reacting like "You never married? You don't have kids? Why? You should have, what's wrong with you?". Even here on CFC I was called selfish for not having kids, like I was depriving the world of my offspring. I don't happen to think that I owe the world my offspring. I did feel bad about depriving my dad of human grandchildren (fortunately he was content with having grandcats) and my grandparents (the ones who raised me) of great-grandchildren - no regrets whatsoever of depriving my mother's side of the family of my offspring, btw; why should I let abusive people get anywhere near any kid I might have? It wasn't an easy decision to make when I realized that I would be the last of the North American branch of the family, but I think given the family medical situation and other factors, that I made the right decision.

(Of course it was impossible to convince my mother of that; she was still whining about wanting to be a grandmother even when I pointed out that I was close to 40 and considered myself too old for having kids even if I'd wanted them; finally I held up my cat and said, "This is your grandcat. This is the only grandchild you will ever have.")

in case I'm not being clear enough: I'm saying that mine (and many other peoples') existence is a fluke. looking at it "big picture style" we'd definitely, definitely be better off if there were less people like me around.

I'm very glad more people are deciding not to make kids now. I'm also glad the social pressuring of women is less acute now than it was decades ago, and I'm sure you would agree?

Yes, as explained above. But I still get asked about children by the home care nurses who have been coming to help me with some things after my hospitalization a couple of months ago and post-surgery. Most of the time it's not a problem, but the agency they're from is Catholic Social Services, so of course they look at everything from a Catholic point of view. They've referred to "heaven" when talking about my dad, and think it's really sad that I don't have siblings or children (both my dad and I were "only" children).

(and no, we never get into discussions of religion and I have not told them I'm atheist; as long as we stick to the business at hand and conversation revolves around non-contentious things, everything is working out)

I wouldn't want to burden anyone with raising.. or teaching me. What a horror that musta been.

Have you ever asked your parents about this?

much of the world is too comfy, too sedated, too introverted, too obsessed with their own lives, their self, career, fulfillment, worst offender: "happiness". too satisfied. much of our outrage is now done online, in echo chambers or in places like here, instead of in the streets. if we can't be radical here, then how are we going to be radical at all?

It's getting dangerous to do it in the streets, now that cops are turning out armed for a war zone, against unarmed women, children, and disabled people (still thinking of the shameful overreaction they had toward the G20 protesters in Canada).

That said, I've gone to protest rallies, done a peace march, and now that I'm no longer very mobile, I do my thing online and over the phone (had my say to a representative for my incumbent MLA who is seeking re-election, and to the Conservative who wants to be MLA; guess which one I'm voting for - anyone who has paid attention to my political posts over the years should find that easy). There are a couple of all-candidates' forums coming up next month and I intend to go to at least one of them.

Yes, I know what that means, but it explains nothing about why or what can be done about it. In this case a picture is not worth anything remotely in the neighborhood of 1000 words.

I can point fingers all day, but it's utterly useless. In two or three decades there wont be (m)any boomers around and me and my hypothetical kids have to deal with this (literal) garbage. This makes boomer condescension even worse imho. It gives me zero statisfaction to say "but well, it wasn't my fault at least!"

So you don't use plastic at all? You've never littered, never thrown anything away that could still be used or repurposed?

I still have crossword puzzle books that are 40 years old, because I haven't finished all the puzzles yet (I used to take them to school with me and do them during the breaks when we had 2-hour classes; depending on how I felt that day I would either take a short catnap or do a puzzle).

 

[Birdjaguar]

In general I think you just simply don't understand the critique that is being offered. It is in some ways a direct critique of the actual reality of those developments included in the narrative of progress-- agriculture, industrialism, capitalism, urbanization, the state-- but the primary critique is against the way that the narrative is developed and used. This whole argument began because somebody claimed that the state was an inevitable development of human society. This is patently false but when this narrative was questioned the evidence provided essentially amounted to "Well we all live in states right now, don't we?"

Yes, we all live in states, but that is completely unrelated to the argument that was brought up. It didn't even originally involve any volume of moral evaluation of the state, but rather a skeptic rejection of the baseless assertion that the state is inevitable. Rather than analyzing in ANY way the development of the state, or the conditions involved, the argument became one of the value of living in states-- a question of their function. This is called teleology, analysis of developments that ignores their conditions but retroactively makes assumptions based on the current function of those developments. It is generally considered poor reason. Whenever history, or the material conditions of development, or the processes by which those developments occurred, were mentioned at all, they were moralized by the invocation of the functions of the modern state.

"I don't like the state, and I believe we should live in a society without one."
"You're out of luck, because the state is an inevitable development of human society."
"I disagree. There were many specific conditions that states developed as a result of, and a lot of history that led to the development of modern statehood."
"Well, modern statehood is actually a good thing."
"What makes it so good?"
"Well it must be pretty great since everybody lives in one."

I’ve thought about your points above regarding the state. The auto discussion is interesting, but not dealt with here. Maybe later. I see that you are taking a philosophical approach to the discussion and that we should divorce the discussion from reality and dwell in the more nebulous realm of philosophical argument. Is that a fair assessment? You want to talk about whether a world without states is possible. I don’t find the rigorous rationality of non-evidence based discussion particularly stimulating. The fact that one can create an argument for a non-state world is pretty so what for me. Such arguments can, however, make interesting fiction if the character development goes well.

When you say that the statement “that the state is inevitable is patently false” my response is: given our world and human nature, the evidence shows clearly there are very few circumstances where a state will not develop and those will probably be transitory. I’d rather discuss finding ways to deal with this reality. If you can chart a practical path from today to a stateless wonderland, I would certainly listen.

You want to argue that agriculture was not inevitable. OK go ahead. Such an argument flies in the face of facts, but people do like intellectual exercises that demonstrate their ability put words together even if the facts don’t support the assumptions.

These points are almost completely unrelated. The entire question and critique of "progress" does no more than point this out. If you wanted to simply argue that the state is a good thing then you could have directly done that, but instead you have framed the existence of the state as something inevitable to human society that could never go away.

I will give you credit for at least openly transitioning your argument from one of advocacy of the narrative of progress to just blatant advocacy for the modern status quo. But the problem is that there are essentially two completely different points at hand, both of which are then used circularly to prove one another.

If you wanted to simply argue that the state is a good thing then you could have directly done that, but instead you have framed the existence of the state as something inevitable to human society that could never go away.

(1) The history of human society can be seen as a linear series of inevitable developments.
(2) The history of human society has generally occurred in a way that benefits the majority of individuals living in it.

Both are contentious; both also implicitly support the status quo, despite the fact that neither directly defends it.

I have no interest in arguing that the state is somehow a “good thing”. I will argue that it is what we have to deal with. I am certainly not a blatant advocate of the status quo, but I do accept that the status quo is where we are now. As I see things, if you cannot accept where we are now, there is no way you will be able steer change to move us in a different direction. If you don’t know and understand where you are, you can never chart a path to where you want to be.

You include two statements. The first is certainly true. It has enough conditionals that someone who does not accept free choice might believe it. It can also be true if you leave vague what the inevitable outcomes are. Certainly many Christians believe the statement to be true.

The second would be more true if you changed “individuals living in” to “the human species”. I would rephrase both more like this and add a third.

1. There is a strong case for a linear view of human history where changes build upon one another and drive change in one direction rather than others.
2. Humans tend to accept changes that they perceive will benefit them and their offspring even if those changes have risks and the potential for bad outcomes.
3. Change is not always peaceful.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Have you ever asked your parents about this?

I was exaggerating and yes, I am very curious as to how I was as a child and we've talked about it often. could've been much worse

It's getting dangerous to do it in the streets, now that cops are turning out armed for a war zone, against unarmed women, children, and disabled people (still thinking of the shameful overreaction they had toward the G20 protesters in Canada).

That said, I've gone to protest rallies, done a peace march, and now that I'm no longer very mobile, I do my thing online and over the phone (had my say to a representative for my incumbent MLA who is seeking re-election, and to the Conservative who wants to be MLA; guess which one I'm voting for - anyone who has paid attention to my political posts over the years should find that easy). There are a couple of all-candidates' forums coming up next month and I intend to go to at least one of them.

that's very respectable!

Yes, I know what that means, but it explains nothing about why or what can be done about it. In this case a picture is not worth anything remotely in the neighborhood of 1000 words.

I was just poking fun about how this is the future of the English language, not endorsing it

So you don't use plastic at all? You've never littered, never thrown anything away that could still be used or repurposed?

I still have crossword puzzle books that are 40 years old, because I haven't finished all the puzzles yet (I used to take them to school with me and do them during the breaks when we had 2-hour classes; depending on how I felt that day I would either take a short catnap or do a puzzle).

glad you asked. I use a positive minimum of plastic. no plastic bags, barely ever buy food that comes in containers or packaging. usually that means it's more expensive so a pretty much all of my money is used up paying rent, paying for my degree and paying for food. I don't use any products with micrplastic in them (I check, though I am sure it cannot be avoided realistically).

however, even with my current lifestyle I'm still damaging the environment. many things we utterly rely on involve plastic, involve shipping items overseas, involve ressource extraction which is incredibly destructive.

I know where your argument was going, and it's useless. it's not a good argument to make. unless you literally live innawoods without plumbing and electricity and don't ever buy anything (even local produce might, for example, be grown from shipped seeds) you're contributing to the downfall of the planet. so the first reality check is, obviously, that it's realistically impossible to not damage the environment, you pretty much do so by merely existing. so the next logical conclusion is just to

1) do your best in order to not make things even worse
2) live sustainable as far as your own ressources allow it
3) spread the good word and fight the good fight

that's all an individual can do, and that's already a lot. nitpicking other people's lifestyles isn't contributing to that in any way

 

[Nexlev]

Boomer hate is really dumb. I personally suspect that it's driven by bitter Gen Xers, especially younger ones who are better at the internet and are good at disguising themselves as millennials.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Recycling movements are cool and all, but who led the corporations that introduced plastic bags, plastic cups, plastic everything and made them a normal part of our life? Who are the people that made a huge profit off of trash? Who are the people responsible for us being irresponsible with trash, and who benefitted? Who are the people responsible for those new and revolutionary ways of packaging, that ensure better food security, but are currently transforming the planet into a giant trash heap?

Similiarly, the boomers were the ones who started both the anti-nuclear movement and climate change awareness. But they were, at the same time, the ones who built and operated nuclear plants. The people who founded aluminum factories in Africa. The people who came up with fracking. The people who came up with a new system of industrializing meat production (and methane, as a byproduct) at levels we have never, ever, seen before.

I can point fingers all day, but it's utterly useless. In two or three decades there wont be (m)any boomers around and me and my hypothetical kids have to deal with this (literal) garbage. This makes boomer condescension even worse imho. It gives me zero statisfaction to say "but well, it wasn't my fault at least!"

And it also gives me no satisfaction to say that these problems are not inherent to boomers in any way, shape or form. The opposite is the case. Half of the world's history can be neatly summed up by "We came, we screwed things up, we left other to deal with it".

You could point them more acurately. George P. Mitchell, the "Father of Fracking" was born in 1919.