TL; DR: I take your general point to be that people are stupid for having a diverse set of activist activities. I think this idea is very wrong. I've addressed a few lines in your comment trying to show the following:
1. That you've overstated the extent to which activism has been ineffective.
2. That your post doesn't have a valid logical structure (in the syllogistic logic sense) and you're not justifying your claims with evidence.
3. That the mathematics of learning combined with the complexity of reality lead to a situation wherein the diversity of ideas and agendas which you're opposing is our chief advantage and the entire reason that we're smarter than other species.
The first two points are suggestive that you might want to question your own confidence in your statements or re-word to better support your case.
The third though is a direct refutation of the core idea.
Getting into things:
> Meanwhile neither the wars have stopped nor did the climate change.
Yes, there have been wars that have been stopped. To use an example, we are not currently at war with Vietnam. Moreover, there are events like the destruction of the ozone layer which have been stopped. There are currently tax breaks and incentives designed to encourage our market forces to adopt renewable energy. You're trying to make the case that activism is ineffective, but nuclear power adoption isn't widespread as many wish in part due to activism. Slavery isn't legal anymore, but once was. Civil rights are more universally applied than they were in formed years as well. I'm certain there are more examples of activist success.
> But problem is every new generation thinks they are the only revolutionaries to have suddenly discovered activism.
You seem like you are claiming that new generations are so stupid they know nothing at all about history pertaining to the activities they engage in. but it isn't true hat modern activists don't know about other activists. Modern activists have attended history classes and activist activities, when popular, are more likely to be covered in history classes than events which weren't noteworthy. Education has become more common, not less common, as time has gone on. Moreover, when people are effective, they generally have learned from others. Since former activism is a potential source of learning, effective activists are almost certain to have learned lessons from former efforts.
Notice that my first sentence made a claim. Then my following sentences provided justification for that claim. Contrast that with your own post. Lets move to your next sentence:
> For previous to previous generation it was about stopping wars and killing nuclear power.
This point doesn't logically follow your previous point. Your previous point made the case that you consider activists to be stupid. This statement doesn't build credibility for that claim by providing evidence. It instead switches to a new topic. That new topic, summarized without any sentiment attached is: different people at different times cared about different things.
It is perfectly reasonable for different people to care about different things. This is all the more true when you consider you don't even need to have different people in order to have different cares. Time alone is sufficient. Even over the course of a single day time alone can make a person care about different things: a person in the morning cares about getting up out of bed, but the person in the evening flip flops and now cares about getting into bed. Time, even over the course of the day, can completely invert desires. So how much more so is it appropriate for time over the course of a generation to lead to different desires? Especially when the person who is doing the desiring is different?
> The result is meaningless placard holding protests and pulling in a million directions.
You've failed to establish a link between different people wanting different things and the results of that being a bad thing rather than a good thing. There are many many reasons to expect that different people wanting different things is good.
In ML an ensemble of models which are good for different reasons tends to outperform any single model in the ensemble. This reality of mathematics isn't just a reality of mathematics, but manifests in practical ways. There is a phenomenon known to statisticians and referred to as the wisdom of crowds wherein groups of diverse people giving an estimate of an unknown quantity like the number of jelly beans in a jar have a better estimate than any one person. The practical consequence of this most people will see very frequently is that top-performing organizations often prioritize diversity.
But let's dig deeper, because you're just wrong here, and I want to drill down into the math so you can see that you're wrong.
There is a tension when learning: you have to get data in order to learn but you also have to do the thing that is in your best interest. In literature you'll find this discussed in the context of multi-armed bandit problems. This core tension is discussed in terms of explore versus exploit tradeoffs. Our best ML systems like MuZero are explicitly designed so as to balance these twin concerns.
Reality is incredibly complicated. From a logistics perspective it isn't actually possible for a single person to fully explore the solution space. There is a fundamental need to trade off against exploration and exploitation, but the complexity of the world is so exceedingly vast that it isn't actually tractable to do this for a single individual.
Since we have to explore and we have to exploit, but we also don't have the capacity to explore everything ourselves we should therefore be very unintelligent. Except we aren't, because we are social. While one person explores one area, another person explores a different area, and the sum of our knowledge is now better than it was before even though we both took different actions because we update our update functions such that the next explorer gets a new plan to build off.
So rather than diversity being an example of nothing get done it's actually absolutely essential and one of the most defining and important aspects of what makes humans more intelligent than other species.