Hacker News Reader

"I once read Baby Boomer culture described as an ugly toad squatting on the rest of society, holding it back. The truth turned out to be a bit different though. Even the younger generations still willingly embrace 20th century life (probably more than they realize)."

I think part of this isn't the selfishness of the new generation but because society hasn't really changed since 2001 and 2008 in terms of major problems. Children grew up in the rapid privacy and legal rights violations caused by the fallout of 9/11 are still dealing with it and nothing has been resolved regarding the erosion of consistutional and human rights. Global warming is still a major concern and that is also being exacerbated. Several places never recovered from 2008, and the younger generation is among the top in terms of disenfranchisement by being saddled with all this student debt- which also hasn't been resolved. Same for healthcare, income inequality, etc.

Arguably, all of society's problems are still the problems of 2001/2008. Doesn't it make sense that our culture has also somewhat been placed in amber within that generation?

I don't think this is remotely true. The rise of China as a notable geopolitical force, the wave of populism across the world's democracies, the return of interpower conflict (by proxy, so far), the retrenchment of globalism, the rapid decline of organized religion as a political force in the US: these are just the big headline-grabbing trends off the top of my head, and I didn't even touch on the societal changes caused by bringing the world online.

I'm actually talking more specifically about the culture and philosophy that arose during the 1960s-1980s. It's not so much about the problems each generation are facing (older generations having dealt with a constant reminder of potential nuclear annihilation of the human race), but the underlying philosophy and goals that drive individuals. The dissolution of the family unit and an extreme focus on the individual and personal satisfaction being the core tenant. We've gone from "sex, drugs and rock 'n roll" to "follow me on Instagram" but the theme is the same.

The problem with that characterization of the 1960s and 1970s is that it's also the period of the civil rights movement, the rise of the environmental movement, and anti-war protests in the United States whose scale dwarfed anything we've seen here since -- protests the police responded to at times by opening fire with live ammunition. When the boomers were the age that the millennials are now, a lot of them were expressing -- and acting on, and in some cases literally risking their lives for -- goals that are a lot less solipsistic than "me me me."

I'm far from convinced that most millennials can be summed up with "like and subscribe," either, though. If anything, this seems to be an extremely politically engaged generation with an interest in radically reshaping their world. Which sounds, you know, an awful lot like the boomers, originally.

> I once read Baby Boomer culture described as an ugly toad squatting on the rest of society, holding it back. The truth turned out to be a bit different though. Even the younger generations still willingly embrace 20th century life (probably more than they realize).

This is a generational conflict that happens with every generation. (Each generation has issues with the other) The whole ok boomer thing has me pretty concerned. It's a hostile dismissive attitude towards a previous generation. (That's a terrible thing)

> I think social media will finally tip things over into a new era though. The narcissism that is its core feature is also an outgrowth of 20th century individualism and a quest for self actualization. Pushed to its limits, it destroys its participants and society at large.

Unfortunately it hasn't. It's tied to the economy. I would agree that it actively destroys it's participants and society at large. (I don't even think this is an extreme case of it)

My point is that the conflict is only surface level though. The underlying philosophy of both the boomers and the younger generations seem identical. That's quite a shift from how people thought pre-boomer and post-boomer. Boomers and younger generations still hold the individual at the pinnacle of society whereas pre-boomer cultures did not.

Is that really true of the US prior to the 1950s? I would say the US, at least, has been highly individualistic since the Revolutionary War.

I don't see 'ok boomer' as a hostile attitude, but rather as a response specifically towards the media that has been calling millennials lazy and entitled for the past decade, despite the fact that education, housing, and healthcare and much more expensive for them than they were for boomers. It is dismissive, but I would say those who spout these generalized, ill-informed complaints have earned it.

And I'm sure there are some who use the phrase to refer to every boomer, but I don't believe most do.

Ok poster.

(Easy there downvoters, I'm demonstrating why 'ok <label>' is dismissive and hostile to others by showing a similar dismissal statement.. read and see below for the argument)

Or I could respond with why I believe what the other party's response is incorrect and understand that the other party may hold conflicting beliefs. What you're stating about the beliefs held by millennials about others view them. (It may or may not be correct.. media representation of the belief is there)

I feel it’s a chicken - egg problem.

Are we embracing 20th century life by clinging on to old movie IPs, or are we just constantly being fed the same type of stuff by Studios who’ve found “their formula” for making content with a low risk of flopping, for example.

Por que no los dos?

Indeed, I am patronizing the indie cinema much more these days. Mainly, because they have actually interesting movies, unlike the bland drivel that being spooned out of Hollywood.

We're embracing a subset of 20th century themes. Star Trek: The Next Generation was a very popular XX century series, and yet after it, never again[0] did sci-fi embraced the themes like optimism about the future, exploration, diplomacy, a society as a protagonist just as important as the heroes, etc. I'm saddened about it (and about post-ENT Star Trek reboots). I want my TNG back, and I'm not ashamed of clinging to it.

--

[0] - With the possible exception of Disney's Tommorowland, and of course DS9, VOY and ENT Star Trek series from the same universe as TNG.

The very popular Culture series by Iain M. Banks offers a very optimistic vision of the future.

Viewed through a certain lens it does; viewed more cynically it's a decadent utopia that engages in CIA-eqsue interference programs purely to stop a small percentage of dissatisfied citizens going haywire within the boundaries of the Culture. All controlled and directed by quasi-omniscient, paternalistic machines.

I think it's a very interesting exercise in exploring the space of post-scarcity, and Banks does a good job of looking at those consequences. It's telling though how little of narrative interest happens within Culture borders.

EDIT: But you're not wrong that it's at the upper end of the optimism scale!

DS9 had an all-out war, Section 31, and Sisko being compliant in murder to further the war effort.

have you seen the recent DS9 documentary "what we left behind"?

https://ds9documentary.com/

Didn't know about this, thanks for the link!

DS9 was definitely the darkest of Star Trek series of the era, and made the realities of the Federation seem a bit less rosy. But it was dark relative to the very bright Star Trek baseline; in absolute sense, there's lots of positivity to be found in the series.

The Orville is the spiritual successor to TNG in my opinion.

If you can get past the somewhat juvenile humor in the early episodes it's surprisingly good.

Thanks for recommending and reminding me of it. I've seen the first two or three episodes and then stopped because life interfered; I'll revisit it!

There's a Star Trek: Picard coming that might offer you some hope.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_Picard

I'm waiting for it, but I've already heard rumors that they're taking it in the new direction and don't feel particularly obliged to the original Picard character, so I'm not too hopeful.

Even aside from rumors, just watching the trailer for it alongside the trailer for Terminator: Dark Fate does not give high hopes.

Probably the latter. Because as you say, studios have found their formula and want to stick to it as much as possible to minimise the likelihood a new film/TV series/book/game flops.

This makes perfect sense for a company (since they're almost always very risk adverse), but doesn't work so well if you want more original works or creativity. Entertainment requires outsiders, non corporations, etc to provide at least some of the works there, otherwise you'll get endless sequels, reboots and rehashes until they stop selling.

> Even the younger generations still willingly embrace 20th century life (probably more than they realize).

This sounds interesting, but I'm not sure I really understand what you mean. Could you elaborate on what embracing 21st century life would look like in your mind?

I'm not sure that anyone could define it yet, but it would have to start with breaking away from the 20th century philosophy that's still very ingrained in most of society. The defining feature of that philosophy is that self-actualization and the individual are almost deified.

I actually think a lot of that was fueled by post-World War II prosperity in the US, and ultimately the rest of the west as the century got past its midway point. Globalization in a way is normalizing that "peak" and I suspect that, in addition to the corrosive effects of narcissism at scale will cause some sort of reaction that looks very different than 20th century teenage rebellion and extended adolescence.

For a theoretical example of 21st century life, I could imagine multiple generations sharing the same home, as is already the trend. That may seem very old fashioned but I see it as more post-modern as it will be mixed ad hoc with other more future forward conventions (for better or worse). Maybe some of those living in the household are gig economy workers enabled by technology for instance.

That last paragraph screams of societal failure to me. Gig economy workers who live with family out of necessity, the only work they can get being lowest common denominator "go here, get thing, take here" work, paid peanuts with no rights.

There's a reason the individual is the primary unit in western societies - we saw and can still see societies structured to put the group, the commons or the country first. They committed atrocities against masses of individuals in the name of the group. No thanks.

Yet depression and isolation are at an all time high. Who's to say strengthening family and community bonds would result in a failed society? It would certainly have negatives and positives. It's only purely negative when viewed through the lens of individual economic achievement (which may not be possible to the level seen post-WW II in the west).

> Who's to say strengthening family and community bonds would result in a failed society?

Nobody, but getting there by forcing everyone together because it's no longer possible to afford to do otherwise seems to be a good indicator that something has broken.

> It's only purely negative when viewed through the lens of individual economic achievement

I'm 41, I moved out of my folks place when I was 18. My life would have been quieter and poorer if I had had to stay in their house for the last 23 years, following their rules, and it would have driven me insane. I lived in shared houses for several years, then moved to my own place, now live with my partner.

It's not just about economic success, it's about having your own space to be yourself and live life the way you want it.

> (which may not be possible to the level seen post-WW II in the west).

Oh rubbish. Endless growth may not be possible or even desirable, but being able to make your own way in the world is not over, nor is it likely to be any time soon.

--edit-- I do understand that, for instance, owning property is much harder in many places now than ever before, I think we have work to do as a society to mitigate that. But I also think that perhaps we've over-centralised on a few desirable, expensive cities (in the UK, where I live, but also other western nations). A re-balance by distributing the wealth-generation around a bit more would help.

I wonder if that is an effect of current economic situation. New generations have largly negative outlook on their future prospects. They also have statistically lesser future prospects in terms of income as oppose to their parents' prospects. Debts, shitty jobs, wage stagnation etc. Maybe even lack of possibility for change; all mass counter culture events/movements where stifled and snubbed as quickly as they pop-uped (for example wallstreet protests).

I am not surprised a reality escapism to simpler times culture effect was created. After all if future seems bleak looking back at simpler easier times might be only coping mechanism.

Isn't that normal? The people in charge are typically older than 40 years. And those were born in the previous century from people born in the same century or the one before, teaching those "old" values, etc. I would say the next 20 years will be interesting, because more and more young people will be in charge and apply more modern ways to do things than their predecessors.

We are used to machines that we can replace like nothing. The truth is, things take time.

I would say the shift from pre-boomer to boomer culture was much more extreme than anything we see today. Boomer culture was defined as being the near opposite of everything that came before it. The extreme focus on self actualization and the individual being the defining quality. While there are shades of difference with younger generations and boomers, the underlying foundation still feels firmly rooted in the 1960s-1970s.

> I would say the next 20 years will be interesting, because more and more young people will be in charge and apply more modern ways to do things than their predecessors.

This is always the way, surely, by definition?

Others have long been saying the same.

Here is a really good takedown of the superhero mass-produced trash and the cultural pit we find ourselves in:

https://jacobitemag.com/2019/05/14/capeshits-endgame/

sounds like a film version of Christopher Lasch

There's a similar book by Bruce Gibney called "Generation of Sociopaths" that addresses this notion - a thought-provoking read