Hacker News Reader

Comment by paxys | Hacker News Reader

Social media definitely amplifies it, but consider the economic and social environment that teenagers have lived through their entire lives. Multiple major recessions, a global pandemic, rising inflation, housing and education getting more expensive by the day, prospect of a mountain of debt right after graduation, climate that will be unlivable in a few decades, political extremism becoming the norm, and massive government gridlock that has made fixing any of this impossible. Can't really shield kids from this reality anymore when all of it is one click away. Teens are aware that they are going to inherit a pretty terrible world, and are powerless to do anything about it.

View on HN

> Multiple major recessions

One. They lived through one major recession, and here it wasn't really major, and is not something they lived through recently. They were younger than 6 when it started. I've lived through two. The 80s weren't a happy time, and there are no signs that that had such an impact on teen mental health. If it did, it would be proof that the impact of a major recession is temporary.

> prospect of a mountain of debt right after graduation

Situation wrt to teen mental health is similar in Europe, but there's a much smaller graduation debt.

Don't try to downplay the role of internet, mobile devices and social media. Here's a thought for your correlationism:

> Teens are aware that they are going to inherit a pretty terrible world, and are powerless to do anything about it.

Perhaps it's social media that makes that they are either too aware of it or simply mention it more often.

>Perhaps it's social media that makes that they are either too aware of it or simply mention it more often.

Here's a question for me to understand where you're coming from and you to examine your assumptions. How does "too aware" get defined? Who defines it? I am an 80s kid(though grew up in India) and seen some issues myself, but can't claim I am worse off for knowing what I did. And to be clear, I didn't have internet till the start of the millenium and relied on books, radio and newspapers and I still was more about the state of the world i was to inherit than my parents.

> How does "too aware" get defined? Who defines it?

It doesn't seem that difficult to get a proxy for awareness; perhaps "more aware" had been a better choice of words. But however it's measured, it's not unreasonable to assume that social media can promote awareness, and that thus the effect of social issues on mental health can still be mediated by social media.

> Situation wrt to teen mental health is similar in Europe, but there's a much smaller graduation debt.

We have other issues here, though (speaking for the situation in Germany). I’m quite some time out of my teens at 36, but for many years now I’ve been told that all that tax (technically not a tax) I pay for my pension will not result in me getting any meaningful pension.

For people who are currently teenagers it probably sounds like this: "Once you get a job, which won’t afford you a house, you’ll pay a decent chunk of your salary so the people who managed to destroy the environment and don’t care about you have a better end of life. You’ll not see anything of this money ever again."

And that is without including all the messaging during the pandemic that young people (more towards people in their early 20ies, but still) are at fault for nearly everything.

edit: I should mention that I’m still not discounting social media, I couldn’t, as I know next to nothing about it.

You think teenagers are thinking about pensions... If they are they are probably already having mental issues because that's not something someone pre 20s should be concerned about.

People in this thread need to stop projecting their problems and worldviews as universal social issues.

It’s a decently big issue that’s affecting you more the later you were born, we already heard about it when we were teenagers, but now it’s far more prominent in the media than it was back then.

Eh, as a 20 year old I've been told my whole life that I'll be paying for social security but never see the money.

Same for most of my peers.

This is part of the effort to kill it. If enough people believe it is a ponzi scheme, unsustainable, etc. then the political impetus to either privatize or get rid of it can be mustered.

Social security is very popular among the working classes (especially retired ofc) and deeply unpopular among the upper classes who see it as a tax burden on them that makes their workers lazy.

I understand this but I think a big question needs to be asked and answered: Will someone born >= 1990 who lives until retirement see Social Security?

It doesn’t matter how popular it is , will we actually see it ?

It does depend on how popular it is. It also depends if the younger generation is prepared to fight for it or not.

To be honest, I see it as a failing system that needs to be cut away amd replaced with something better (or be "reformed" if politicking requires it to keep the same name)

I was just providing my experience that my generation does think about it.

It’s more-so to do with the fact that the account was emptied, and now it’s a bit of a pyramid scheme. Also the board themselves saying they’re out of money in 2034: https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2021/

It’s a broken system.

I'm 57 and I've been told that my entire life too. Born in Dec. of '64, I'm technically a boomer but have only seen the economic dregs and I identify 100% as a GenX. My political birth was the Sex Pistols.

I don’t know if you were offended by that comment, but just because you may not have considered your future in your teens (don’t know if you did or didn’t, but that doesn’t matter) doesn’t mean that all others also did not. For example in my teens I was very much concerned with what I’d do when i was older and whether or not I’d be able to buy a house or afford to go to college.. these are not strictly adult concerns. Also kids see and hear their parent(s) worrying about money or student loans or mortgage or rent and it’s not unreasonable that they too become concerned about those things.

> “People in this thread need to stop projecting their problems and worldviews as universal social issues.”

But you are doing just the same thing by dismissing peoples perspectives and opinions as irrelevant….

>But you are doing just the same thing by dismissing peoples perspectives and opinions as irrelevant…

Nope, he is not doing the same.

He basically says "people shouldn't project their own (older age) concerns as universal".

He doesn't say there are no universal social issues.

So dismissing "peoples perspectives and opinions as irrelevant" is perfectly fine, if they are irrelevant to the group they're projected to.

Is that not a projection of the posters view of the hn crowd as being “older age”?

> You think teenagers are thinking about pensions... If they are they are probably already having mental issues because that's not something someone pre 20s should be concerned about.

This is happening, based on my own experience. I am 22, I have a safe job with an above average salary but I still cannot find an apartment with my partner. I can’t imagine affording my own place with the current prices, especially not at the age my parents were able to. And all of that concerns are completely ignoring the current price hikes which make everything even worse.

For as long as I can remember teachers and my parents told me that the pension system won’t be able to support my generation. Everybody my age who can afford to does not expect any substantial pension payments and tries to support the own future by own investments (which is pretty hard when you pay +400€/mo into the mandatory public pension)

The situation is even worse for people with lower incomes.

This is not projection. Admittedly, this is my experience. But I know many many people who had similar experiences when they first entered the workforce.

> I have a safe job with an above average salary but I still cannot find an apartment with my partner.

Do you have an above average salary for the region you're looking for the apartment in? If so, then who's getting those apartments, if the majority of people cannot afford them? Is this a special case like SF where there's just not enough apartments being built for the size of population?

Over here they are mostly bought up as an investment, usually before they are even officially sold.

> Do you have an above average salary for the region you're looking for the apartment in?

Yes, the salary seems to only be part of the issue. Some of the landlords seemed to be slightly offended that a young person makes so much money. Other landlords were searching for long term tenants and did not believe that a young couple was looking to settle down for long enough.

> If so, then who's getting those apartments, if the majority of people cannot afford them?

The supply is super limited. Judging by the rejections I received the landlords are primarily looking for well off young families which the seem to find without a problem. One landlord told me that she received 120 messages within 48h, she basically can choose whoever she wants.

> Is this a special case like SF where there's just not enough apartments being built for the size of population?

This is generally the case all over (west-) Germany. In more rural areas and small towns there is basically no rental market, but purchasing is still unaffordable for most. In my hometown (rural with average income) land prices more than doubled in the last 10 years. So many young people choose to move to the next city. In my target city, the cheapest apartments I could find for purchase were around 400k€ from 70s to 90s, new construction was usually well above 500k. Rental prices are equally absurd.

> If they are they are probably already having mental issues because that's not something someone pre 20s should be concerned about.

they should be. Perhaps not worry or be anxious about it, but definitely should know about the financial implications of having to retire one day, and how they could fund that retirement. May be even work on how one might fund an early retirement, etc.

Not thinking about long term financial planning is a failing of the education system (or parents, as it falls onto them when the state fails on policy grounds).

Idk but in France, when I was still a teenager, it was not that uncommon to talk/joke about the fact that we will never be able to retire. In high school, most of my classmate already started to have a political conscience and where thinking about this kind of stuff. Same with the environment.

We already had social media at the time (mostly facebook) and yes, I won't deny that there was already something anxious about feeling pressured to always show yourself/self yourself to other. When I look at Instagram today, I feel like it got even worse.

But, as someone still under their 30's, I think we shouldn't also deny what the original commenter said. In the case of Europe (and in my case France), we have seen the come back of extreme conservatism in politics, the slow decay of our public services, the inability for politician to make important decision for the environment, the idea that we will never retire/have a pension (which is not necessarily true but is definitely a strong belief), the imbalance in wealth creeping higher and higher every year, home ownership becoming harder and harder ... Whereas the generation of my parent (those from the 60's-70's) had, in general, a more positive/peaceful outlook on the future, I find that my generation and those younger that me tend to be more skeptical, if not negative.

I really think that the current mental health issues are a combination of multiple factors and that social media is just one (but maybe a big one) of those factor.

I can subscribe to the last sentence more than the rest.

French are generally very interested in politics from youngish age, for better or worse (the amount of outright communism supporters there among young anywhere I spoke to is disheartening, especially for somebody like me who went through proper communism and saw first hand how it always fucks up individuals and nations for generations, and consistently fails to deliver on every single promise that looks nice on paper). I attribute this to their naivety, seeing wrong in the world and instinctively going for some direct quick solution, despite proofs that it never worked that way and side effects were nasty.

French and some other southern states have really rich social support, even in decades it will be above-average for western world. So french complaining about it going south need to travel the world a bit and get a reality check.

There is too much information readily available, and humans for some reason tend to focus much more on negative part, as do media. So if already pre-teens are watching gruesome combat footage, hardcore porn, reading about depressing future prospects re climate and environment, demographic curves, terrorism and so on and on... its hard even on grown ups, and not even kids that should be carelessly running outside without a worry in their head. It can be just few in the group/class, but they will easily 'spoil the rest of the basket'.

They support communism because they see the current leading power, unbridled capitalism, also has its downsides. It's a classic case of figuring out consumer desires from what they say.

Most of them just want some kind of regulation which keeps greed in check and allows them to be confident in a future of relationships, family, home ownership and security. Surely the success of games like Animal Crossing, Harvest Moon, Sims and and such would showcase how important this is to individuals.

They support communism, like in Italy, because it is customary for teenagers in affluent blocks to do so or to join extreme right wing parties. Half of my friends have been senior members or founders of minuscule communist parties before finishing high school.

It has nothing to do with their understanding of capitalism, whatever that is supposed to be.

Communism is not right wing. Maybe a typo, but historically the young on average prefer left leaning idealogies and become more conservative as they get older.

It’s not a typo, they either join a communist party or a fascist party.

100 year anniversary WW2 era cycle is rearing it's head.

Because Italy is an elderly care state with a hierarchy that is so rigid it might even impress the Japanese. No wonder everyone young leaves or becomes an extremist.

>Because Italy is an elderly care state with a hierarchy that is so rigid it might even impress the Japanese.

This is the best description of my homeland I've ever seen. By reading the Italian news one would think the main enemy of the Italian State are young people that are constantly berated, ridiculed and forced to keep hearing how lazy they are.

If I get stabbed in Italy the newspaper would title “A 34 year old boy has been stabbed in the park”, if a 18 year old get stabbed in the UK the newspaper would title “A 18 year old man has been…”

Wow. Italy's demographics are basically reverse pyramid in just a decade. New babies are still precipitously falling off a cliff. There are actually an astonishing number of 80+ year old women.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Italy#/media/F...

> French and some other southern states have really rich social support, even in decades it will be above-average for western world. So french complaining about it going south need to travel the world a bit and get a reality check.

No. We are just not naive and we know that all of our social support comes from the WWII aftermath, thanks to communist politics. This implies that we'll probably not have anything more than what we have now and we know it. Most of the french don't want anything more, but we will absolutely fight against every aggression against our social security net because we are really confident that anything we lost is lost basically forever.

You have to differentiates between French Socialist and do communists of the east. French Socialism was very successful in the 70s and 80s. The reason France is so successful today is because of the communist regime in the 70s and 80s.

wa? There has neven been a communist regime in France.

Why is this being downvoted?

This hits the nail on the head and is equally true for Germany btw.

I grew up in social market capitalism in the latter country in the 70s & 80s. TLDR; it works.

To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher “Socialism works great until you run out of other people’s money”.

And the ironic part is when the people asking to maintain social programs complain too much attention is paid to economic growth - the very source of what pays for those programs.

The truth is as economies stagnate and the demographic shift happens, Western Europe will have no choice but to cut back programs.

You cant maintain the same system when you go from 1 worker and we retired to 1 worker and 2 retired.

What exactly is your point?

Socialist capitalism[1] is mainly about making sure the wealth and opportunity gap between members of a society doesn't become a 'canyon'.

We're talking mainly legislation here.

What you're seemingly talking about is how a government is managing pensions when faced with an aging population?

Quoting Thatcher in this context is hilarious to someone like me who lived & worked in the UK.

There is a reason continental Europeans jokingly often call the that island the 'last 3rd world country in Europe'. ;)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy

Edit: missing link

It’s amazing how many fans of socialism, such as yourself, don’t see the connection.

The UK would be even less able to afford social programs if the economy had continued on its pre-Thatcher slide down.

And calling the UK third world just shows how laughable the understanding is - try “socialist paradises” like Greece where much of the economy has gone underground because the tax burden is so high in people who can barely make ends meet.

It was a dumb idea to conect the social system to the economie…. But still a social system has a lots of benefits that are apparent if you once lives in the us and europe. What would be your solution for schooling, housing etc… just keep dumb people dying on the street because somehow the market will regulate it??

Edit: because even if the economie goes bad there are humans living there that need a certain baseline of living. In the capitalist world there is only taking more debt , cuttings and hope … if that doesnt work.. what then?? Adorno once said that one cant do right in the wrong world. Right can only be done in a right world. Its hard to sustain socialism if its bound to capitalism

> French Socialism was very successful in the 70s and 80s. The reason France is so successful today is because of the communist regime in the 70s and 80s.

This is wrong as in those two decades there were at most 4 years of socialism ("programme commun de la gauche"):

-----------------------------------------------

Party | President ........................| Tenure

-----------------------------------------------

Right | Charles de Gaulle ..........| 8 January 1959 – 28 April 1969

Right | Georges Pompidou ........| 20 June 1969 – 2 April 1974

Right | Valéry Giscard d'Estaing | 27 May 1974 – 21 May 1981

Left ..| François Mitterrand ........| 21 May 1981 – 17 May 1995

   (yet soon the number of people out of work topped 2 million, and in March 1983 they drop most socialists policies when they introduced the "austerity turn" and in 1986 Jacques Chirac (Right) was prime minister up to 1995)

My bad. I meant 80s 90s. And even before and after that presidents had to interact with a strong socialist parliament. Living in france and germany I see the benefits of that time. I mean we have health care and transit systems and etc….

There is a huge difference between the democratic sovialist movements of the west and the totalarian socialist regime of the east.

Edit: litle other example. In france there is a shitload of free culture sponsored by the state to make it accesible to everyone.

Oh there was no real socialism after 1984 either. The Parti Socialiste always had an unclear/contradictory agenda, pro banks, anti industry, pro unions, anti low pay/service workers.

The insanely huge "code du travail" distinguishes between many kind of workers. Depending on your status or the kind of branch you work, you might work 35h/week, 48h/w or 60h/w. In the two later cases exceeding working hours must be compensated at a minimum of 50%, but it can be at suitable times for the employer.

Daily work duration must not be above 10 hours per day but it is permitted to work 12 hours per day if there is a "convention collective", the employer has only to permit a rest time of 50% of exceeding working hours.

For some categories of workers this daily work duration limit legally does not exist at all. For example employees on a flat rate in days (like "cadres"/low level executives) are not subject to this limit.

Fortunately for the Parti Socialiste, service workers, lorry drivers, housekeepers, nannies, etc do not vote much and it is very difficult for them to integrate a union, as most unions (CGT/CFDT/SUD) only protect workers with a contract (roughly half of workers in France).

This is not really a socialist program...

Ok thats true … but stil compared to the US there are some social goals. And there are many unions and rights for workers. For sure there is a shitload of bad things, I mean its france ..cmon, but there are some milestones compared to other countries. Specialy the US. Like right to abortion(downvotes incoming) and the right to maternal vacancy… they can even protest without getting fired….

> French are generally very interested in politics from youngish age, for better or worse (the amount of outright communism supporters there among young anywhere I spoke to is disheartening

I think it is normal and even desirable for young people to be interested in extremist politics. Communism but also anarchy, dictatorships, etc... Modern day "free market" democracies are really a "least bad" system, there are many things wrong with them, things that communism or why not a ruling king can address. In practice, most people discover soon enough that it doesn't work, but to go to that conclusion, you have to at least consider it, and it is better to do that when you are still young and not involved in actual politics.

Also, being able to consider other systems is a sign of a well functioning free country. If any idea other than "democracy is the best" is being suppressed, then it is not really a democracy.

Why is it better to consider obvious bullshit when you can just read a few history books to find out what doesn't work?

It may be bullshit, but certainly not obvious bullshit. Communism is a real solution to a real problem, thousands of people fought for that. It didn't work out in the end, but if you think it is obvious then you probably didn't think about it enough.

History books? Let's look at the French Revolution, often credited with so many great things. The period following it is called "the terror", you can't get more explicit. Anyone reading just that part would want to bring back monarchy, and that's actually what happened. But anyways, for many young people, me included, history books are either stuff to memorize for the test, or something that reads like The Lord of the Rings, but with slightly less magic.

It takes some experience to actually understand what's behind history books, and considering "obvious bullshit" as you call it is the kind of experience that get people to better appreciate history books. At least the ones that are not an excuse for propaganda.

Communism was obviously bullshit to me based on just a basic knowledge of human nature. It didn't take much life experience to figure that out, and reading a few history books only confirmed what already seemed obvious. Thinking deeply about nonsense is a total waste of time; I had better things to do. The problems were real enough, but Communism has never been a solution to anything. If young people saw it as a solution then I have to assume they were just too trusting and naively believed the lies that ambitious idealogues sold them.

You cannot just dismiss communism based on "human nature", this was an old hat even in 1880.

Why can't I? You haven't provided any evidence, just a shallow low-effort comment.

Because it is a fallacy to attribute to nature what is clearly at least significantly product of social relation. This is one of the very interesting things everybody (no matter their political affiliation) can learn from Marx and the whole group around Adorno and Horkheimer, but you will find this echoed by more conservative sociologists and historians, too. Zizek also frames this quite nicely in The Perverts Guide to Cinema, where he explains, that ideology is never a pair of glasses [EDIT]you wear[/EDIT] but the very eyes through which you see. Right now I sadly cannot look through my books to find you less leftist references for the topic. If you are interested I can link to some less controversial works of sociology once I have access to them again. (Edited for some typos and the marked addition.)

I don't know if it's a useful data point, but my sister made me a Facebook profile when I was 16. I never really gave a crap about it and would read a few posts maybe every other month or so and use the poke feature back and forth with friends because texting cost money. I was active on forums specific to my hobbies and that was honestly the extent of my social media use until the last couple months when I figured out I could just join local groups and hobby groups and continue to bullshit with people about aquarium fish and learn about local events. I had my first severe bout with depression shortly before I turned 16. I think it was actually a few months before I got that Facebook profile. It's been an ongoing struggle with anxiety and depression ever since. Recently, I found a balance of meds, mindfulness, and a fulfilling job and the symptoms are finally what I would consider to be minimal.

I was super active on reddit though from late college until recently. People go back and forth on whether that's social media, but it definitely didn't help me. Short memes about how awful the world is, you could look at 100 an hour and ruminate for 3 more how messed up the world is. Stories of injustice, both real events and creative writing projects, were available by the dozens. Find something you want to be outraged by and join the sub because it feels good to feel irate with other people.

Again, my mental health took a nosedive years before I got on reddit. But having that echo chamber where the world is terrible and we're all getting taken advantage of was definitely not helpful either.

I used to read news every day. I've noticed that I dread every coming day. Quitting the news for two years helped me a lot. I still read the news but not in the volume I used to.

Most of the things are outside my control so I just don't worry about them.

In short: doom scrolling is poison.

Conway, too, found much to interest him, apart from the engrossing problem he had set himself. During the warm, sunlit days he made full use of the library and music room, and was confirmed in his impression that the lamas were of quite exceptional culture. Their taste in books was catholic, at any rate; Plato in Greek touched Omar in English; Nietzsche partnered Newton; Thomas More was there, and also Hannah More, Thomas Moore, George Moore, and even Old Moore. Altogether Conway estimated the number of volumes at between twenty and thirty thousand; and it was tempting to speculate upon the method of selection and acquisition. He sought also to discover how recently there had been additions, but he did not come across anything later than a cheap reprint of Im Western Nichts Neues. During a subsequent visit, however, Chang told him that there were other books published up to about the middle of 1930 which would doubtless be added to the shelves eventually; they had already arrived at the lamasery. "We keep ourselves fairly up-to-date, you see," he commented.

"There are people who would hardly agree with you," replied Conway with a smile. "Quite a lot of things have happened in the world since last year, you know."

"Nothing of importance, my dear sir, that could not have been foreseen in 1920, or that will not be better understood in 1940."

"You're not interested, then, in the latest developments of the world crisis?"

"I shall be very deeply interested—in due course."

— James Hilton, Lost Horizon

With the Elon Musk news, I finally decided to try reducing my Twitter usage. With the exception of 3 or 4 specific tweets that I viewed because of a discussion on a site like this, I haven't been on Twitter in 10 days. I already feel much less "on edge" than I used to. I was already mostly off Facebook, basically checking once a day for 5 minutes max since a parent group I help lead in real life uses it as a primary form of communicating with the group at large.

Now to get off of Reddit and be more judicious with my usage of this site.

> Idk but in France, when I was still a teenager, it was not that uncommon to talk/joke about the fact that we will never be able to retire.

UK here, 42 years not dead, and my pension plan in my 20s as I started work after University, and most of my 30s too, was to not live long enough to need a pension¹.

I don't think it was anything I thought about at all as a teenager though, nor that teens (or very early 20s) today have it so much in mind. Those I know are far more concerned about being able to afford housing and other essentials² now, pensions are something they can't really plan for until they have some income left after paying for those things.

[1] in pursuit of that plan I invested heavily in alcohol

[2] food, fuel, ...

I know this is not reddit, and I know HN discourages posts that don't contribute to the discussion, but ...

Man did footnote [1] make me laugh. I feel like I have not invested enough in that asset class. It's a bittersweet laughter, for various reasons, but still. Thanks for that.

If you've managed to limit your investment in alcohol, feel grateful. I massively increased my investment starting around 2019. The pandemic was a boom time for my portfolio. I'm now looking to take some profits and diversify into areas that are less harmful to my liver and other vital organs.

Running shoes sounds like a future investment opportunity I'd like to explore.

Coincidentally running/walking/crawling around the countryside is one of my key investments since rearranging my portfolio. I can heartily recommend it.

This is also the case for Spain. Since I was a teenager (also in my 30s) it was a pretty common theme. Not only pensions, but pretty much everything is a scheme where yougnsters are doomed no matter what.

I remember my history teacher telling us about it and people saying they knew, and they also knew that they couldn't change it unless boomers were on board, which they weren't at the time, and definitely still in the same position.

Lived in Europe for four years and come back to my resident American hellhole and now the gray-haired extremists stacked our highest court so they can ban abortion after they legalized it when they were young and in control of society... slowly but surely turning towards fascism as a last ditch attempt to create the world that they dreamed of in their childhood while talking about "love and peace"... funnily enough just like the old Russians currently throwing a tantrum because their precious dream the USSR died.

Scholz and co. are too self-centered to accept a hit to their economy in exchange for de-clawing the next Hitler. Rutte and co. are too greedy to allow for a deeper union. Macron has a business-friendly "mandate" despite only being elected for not being Le Pen. We are all tired of the largesse of the old and the few.

>Idk but in France, when I was still a teenager, it was not that uncommon to talk/joke about the fact that we will never be able to retire.

The same in Italy. It was very disheartening and certainly contributed to our discontent.

>home ownership becoming harder and harder

This is starting to weigh more and more in our life (mine and my age cohort). The average monthly pay in my region is 1200EUR while the average cost of an house is 250000EUR, so 17 years of salary. On the other hand my father bought two houses with a manual laborer stipend and my mother never worked a day in her life and she had four children. I really don't know when (or better, if) I will be out of my house.

My assumption, I'm in my 40s now, has been since before going to University that my state pension, if any, will be a bonus I can share with grand kids. I have to find a way to finance retirement myself, somehow. Which is bleak, even bleaker for all those low paying blue collar "job" that sprung up in the last two decades. And I don't think the gig economy is rock bottom for now.

Is this the root cause forental health issues? I don't think so. I'd rate climate change, uncertainty and media living of controversial topics and FUD as serious reasons as well. All topped by social pressure. And all of that is drven, enabled and aggrevated by the current social media. We will figure it out, as we figured out mass media before. Maybe we just started figuring it out. Until er do so, we will pay a price.

Would ve interesting to hear what the affected people, teenagers, have to say about all that.

Unfortunately, the way I've felt during my childhood, French schools don't teach critical thinking. Basically every student comes out of school saying exactly the same thing: more government, more power to the government, politicians, public services... Most schools are run by the government after all, and obviously governments will claim they need more power or society will decay.

So from a young age students are basically taught to give up their power if not their lives to authorities, to politics. It has to be politics, it can't come from the individual. So they don't care about freedom or personal sovereignty (that's evil), they ask for government, rules, laws and taxes like would seniors. And they call that protection, if not "progress".

I don't blame you, it's hard to stand across a tidal wave, especially when young. But how about standing out a bit from the herd once and think outside of the political box?

What is the seven hell is this message ?

> I don't blame you, it's hard to stand across a tidal wave, especially when young. But how about standing out a bit from the herd once and think outside of the political box?

That's a lot of assumption about me from one comment. You don't know me, we never met nor discussed, you should refrain from talking to people that you don't know like that.

> Most schools are run by the government after all, and obviously governments will claim they need more power or society will decay.

This is far from true on many level. Also, the only class that talk about politic, society and such is teached in high school, when most teen already started to develop their own critical thinking, and is very short.

> So from a young age students are basically taught to give up their power if not their lives to authorities, to politics. It has to be politics, it can't come from the individual. So they don't care about freedom or personal sovereignty (that's evil), they ask for government, rules, laws and taxes like would seniors. And they call that protection, if not "progress".

What ?

I had a lot of friends who were anarchist and communist in high school and after. Unions and the french communist party were often coming to the high school giving literature to teens who would accept them. So no, a lot where not "asking for government". That and there was often student protest (blocus, when you block your high school).

And even then, what is wrong about asking, and fighting for, the government to improve ? The political class to improve ? What is your solution ? It's not like the government is going to go away. So what do you want ? Massive privatization ? We saw the result of such policies in many other country. Asking for public services and fighting for them to improve is not "asking the government", it is being involved and being able to think critically. Critical thinking is not about being a libertarian ancap.

You are just acting like a pedantic know-it-all making a lot of assumption about a whole class of people without making any meaningful proposition and insightful criticism.

I've known this since I was a teen in Croatia as well, two decades ago. Doesn't mean I was planning for retirement or depressed by it. There's a huge leap between knowing generational national pension systems are bust and being depressed about retirement as a teenager.

Teen years are about forming a self image - social media fucks that up in so many ways - it's really next level compared to what my generation had growing up. Glad it was just starting when I was a teenager.

I was told repeatedly starting at probably 12 years old that I'd never see my social security benefits pay out. Probably before that too, but I distinctly remember it around middle school. It was very similar to what the comment you're replying to describes. Just because you're not planning your retirement doesn't mean you're not picking up on cues from people who are.

I was told that as well 40-45 years ago, and yet, here we are 40+ years later and lo-and-behold it is still paying benefits.

But back then the age pyramid wasn't yet inverted. Right now it actually is literally upside down in some countries, e.g. in Germany. In the next ~5 years the biggest age group within the German population will retire. That inversion will continue for a few decades.

yes, and back then you could fully retire at a much younger age - in the US at least, the full retirement age keeps increasing, and neither party is going to vote for any policy that allows SS to collapse; just not going to happen.

The fear-mongers have been alive and well for 40+ years, have no doubt they will continue to push the fear - its good for news clips and web clicks, if nothing else.

As the age structure 'moves upwards' it shrinks due to some people dying. What I'm guessing is that retirement ages will continue to increase to the point where that birth year group which is the biggest now won't be as large anymore due to attrition - that whatever band where the pyramid is still inverted will simply be defined as "working non-retirement age", even if that is decades older than now.

That particular peak is so big that it will stay dominant for about another 15 years at least.

You can go to https://service.destatis.de/bevoelkerungspyramide/index.html... to see the data and projections on this.

Some countries are literally paying pensions with ECB money, screwing everyone else in the process even more.

An many are just about to have the same.

You missed the point. The teenagers are not thinking about their pension, they are thinking that

- they must pay 20-30% of their income, over their entire life, for other people's pension,

- they do not get a pension themself,

- the people whose pension they must pay have screwed them on multiple "quality of life" issues

> You think teenagers are thinking about pensions...

German here. Yes we absolutely fucking did, especially as our parents pushed us from early on to obtain as much education as we could because unlike even in the 80s, manual labor would not be enough to sustain a family or to have a comfortable retirement.

Retirement planning is a different thing from career pressure. I agree that's been increasing consistently - but even if your retirement was guaranteed - that wouldn't change anything about this problem - you aren't chassing a career so you can live well past 60s, and if you are, as a teen, you probably need to have counseling because you're setting yourself up for a depressing life.

> You think teenagers are thinking about pensions...

A lot of them will be doing that, yes. They're teenagers until their 20th birthday, and a lot of people start to work between 16 and 20. In Germany, all of them will be paying a lot of their paycheck for the current pensioners.

It's called a generational contract here, and it boils down to current workers paying the current pensions - so when theyre ready for theirs, it will be the responsibility of that workforce to shoulder that burden.

This will fail within the next 20-30 years, realistically speaking and arguably already failed, as current pensioners are often extremely poor.

The parent comment was spot on with their comment wrt Germany, which was the context they explicitly set

I've started working in my teens - retirement was the last thing on my mind, my peers as well.

If you're worried about that in your youth you're setting yourself up for a boring and depressing life. Youth should be about exploration, taking on challenges and risks, figuring out what you want to do in life - not thinking about what you're going to do past your productive years.

Aside from what other people already mentioned that some teens actually do care, I think you're making a mistake conflating "worrying about the future" (which teens absolutely _should_ do to a reasonable extent), and having mental issues.

It's a rather big jump from being concerned about one's future (and the society's future) to having mental issues just from that. It's also not very constructive to perpetuate the idea that being careless about the future right way to live one's teenage years.

> You think teenagers are thinking about pensions... If they are they are probably already having mental issues because that's not something someone pre 20s should be concerned about.

I was actually just talking with a teacher friend about this very thing (he lives in Germany btw). He was essentially expressing his surprise that the high-school students (well Gymnasium technically), were at the age of ~17-19 already planning their whole live in terms of career, money etc.. That is definitely very different to how it was back when I was a teenager, where one essentially started studying what one was interested in, with career paths being somewhat secondary.

So in short, anecdotal evidence is that yes teenagers are already thinking about their pensions now.

> People in this thread need to stop projecting their problems and worldviews as universal social issues.

While this is correct, we should also not project our memory of what it was to be a teenager > 10 years ago, onto todays teenagers.

I agree with you - and I've noticed this trend with my teenage brother as well - it seems like prepping for career since kindergarten really peaked - but I wouldn't say this has much to do with retirement planning. I do think kids these days have a lot of pressure from early on to perform, at least from what I see anecdotally.

Being expected to go to a good college, and that being seen as a gateway to decent standard of living is having an effect on kids for sure.

In the UK, recent tax rises to pay off some of the Covid debt were pretty openly designed to avoid asking older people to contribute. (Roughly, national insurance, paid by workers, went up rather than income tax. Only after opposition in Parliament did they extend it to include over 65s who still work).

Young people are definitely extremely aware that they sacrificed a lot over the last two years to protect the elderly and now the elderly are not being asked to contribute back.

This is before you consider climate change, about which young people are generally much more informed and concerned.

Boomers don’t care because it won’t affect them. I know that sounds hyperbolic but I genuinely think it’s true. Those who are aware of the problems focus on helping their immediate descendants.

> Situation wrt to teen mental health is similar in Europe, but there's a much smaller graduation debt.

But Europe has far lower professional salaries than the US.

Also economic conditions definitely have a big impact, I could finally buy a small flat after years of renting and it's such a great change to be able to make changes in your own home and buy your own things.

My father did that at 23, not 30.

Both for you and the person you are replying to, I would caution that “Europe” isn’t one country like the USA, even just the EU is 27 smaller countries in a trenchcoat — the average may be lower, but bits are higher.

University tuition is wildly variable and not directly proportional to income: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuition_payments

(Housing costs are also wildly variable, but I don’t know where to get enough data to tell if that’s proportional to incomes or not).

Yeah, I am European, I've lived and worked in 3 different EU countries.

But Americans really don't appreciate how lucky they are. An American CS college grad can earn more than almost all senior/staff engineers anywhere in the EU e.g. ~$150k.

I figured this out too.

That's an extremely small group of lucky Americans, who happen to hang out on HN.

Almost every Western country shows similar issues, especially given professionals working jobs most prevalent in cities and expected to go to office. It'd be more apt to name the exceptions that confirm the rule.

The idea that the United States is conceptually a single country is our single greatest flaw. We’d all be so much better off if we just admitted strong consensus is vanishingly unlikely between every state and territory. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. People can disagree and chip in on a military to defend their shared interests, like staying alive, together.

I don’t think the EU and the US are very different. Then again, Texas isn’t exiting. (No disrespect, just pointing out the difference.) But divisions in the EU are very familiar to Americans and understandable for the exact same reason.

Asking a Californian to understand and relate to the issues of a Missourian deeply, and vice versa, is a little unfair to both and we’d all be so much happier if we were simply fine with that. People are different. The idea of the United States has been forcing it in a lot of unwilling minds for a long time, I think, and the consequential bitterness that really has no reason whatsoever to exist is unfortunate.

No offence, everyone is the same in the United States. You talk of left and right but you're both playing the same ball game. I'm from the American South and I lived in Europe for four years with the rest in the Northeast US, so I do actually know. Just because people pick the different color team doesn't make them different than you.

The same unstable people in New York go hard left and the same unstable people in Mississippi go hard right... and the issues just don't matter. Identity politics are some random anti-boomer gotcha thing. Abortion isn't even a subject unless you're Roman Catholic because it's never mentioned in the New Testament... and uh, abortion is legal in Italy by the way. It's the lowest brow, dumbest nonsense you could ever imagine when you come back from living in the real world.

Ever heard of a different language? What about a dialect? How many dialects are there in, say, the Netherlands? Hundreds are commonly spoken, and they are not mutually intelligible. Histories thousands of years old, deep cultural divisions, and we're "the same"? Lol, read a textbook. Hop on a plane, please. For the love of god

While we surely have more similarities than The people of the Netherlands have differences, we also have enough differences to not qualify us as the same. I think what’s not really understood is that picking democrats or republicans is not an end sum game. A sizable people probably don’t even know or care of either parties full platform. For some, certain beliefs that a party posses are enough for people to align with them and some of these beliefs are fundamental to who they are.

Can a person from Kentucky and New York share beliefs ? Of course. Are we the same ? Women and LGBTQ+ people might disagree.

> Can a person from Kentucky and New York share beliefs ? Of course.

What I'm trying to say is that extremism boils down to the same flawed mental processes, whether you are left leaning or right leaning. Once your first culture is "broken" by being immersed in another one for long enough, you realize that it is all a matter of circumstance.

> Are we the same ? Women and LGBTQ+ people might disagree.

If you lived in the South, you might understand that women are the biggest enforcers of the status quo. You imply in a very simple way that it's not in their best interest, but it is, really.

If you are from a wealthy family, being a white woman in the American South is great. You have all the control in the world. It's not hard power, only soft power. But who cares? Your husband with all the hard power is wrapped around your finger... who cares about the recognition? It's a small price to pay for real control. You are also never expected to work, maybe part-time at a flower shop, or at charity fundraisers... you can even hire a nanny and still be a "stay-at-home mom". Who is saying this isn't a good deal?

Most people, pretty much by definition, aren’t rich. What’s it like for the median person (split by gender or not as you like) in one place vs. the other?

The reality is that it doesn't matter. Most people don't hold the cards, the rich and influential do, even in the fairest countries. That effect is even more pronounced in the global South, the large majority of areas near the equator have higher entrenched income inequality than those farther away.

Did the thread drift without me noticing again? I thought this thread was about cultural differences between parts of America[0] rather than who has power inside it?

[0] a topic about which I know basically nothing, as I’ve only visited the USA for a total of 4 months total and not lived in it properly, and while that was both east and west coast and covered 8 states, it was mostly spent in the company of a literal self-described anarcho-communist Green Party activist who I strongly suspect isn’t even vaguely representative of any part of the USA.

This thread drifted the second ‘engineeringwoke’ (lol) responded to it and misconstrued my point so hard that it’s blatantly intentional.

The vitriol shared (i.e., that I need to “read a textbook for the love of god”) simply for advocating for understanding one another and pointing out that we’re not that dissimilar from the EU, despite less history, is kind of proving my point about people being snide assholes for absolutely no reason. It’s exactly the bitterness I’m highlighting to see people so keen to win an argument that they assume you’re uneducated because they disagree with you, and I guess it’s surprising to get it back on what I figured would be a universally agreeable opinion (that we should all chill out and appreciate our differences).

What a trainwreck of a response chain. Good lord. I didn’t say left or right once. I was alluding to the issues faced by people in different geographies which has absolutely nothing to do with politics nor identity politics. For example, water availability is a major concern in California. It isn’t in Missouri.

How ironic to advocate for understanding one another, apparently fail to communicate that point, and get put in my place for daring to dream.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31251524

Funny that advice only applies to others

Who are you talking to? Why do you have two accounts? It's fun to speak my mind on an anonymous board, sorry if I hurt your feelings

You didn’t. Don’t worry, I can spot an advanced persistent troll when I see one. You still have a little 8kun on you that you forgot to shake off before you rolled that HN account. You’re not that good, either, because really I left that comment partially to smoke out that you’re refreshing old threads constantly just wanting your opinion to be loved. Satisfying to be right.

That’s why I talked past you. You’re irrelevant and transparent in your motivations, and a smarter site would have already flagged you for stirring a political flame war and stoking racial and socioeconomic divisions with nothing clever or unique to add to it. I read the troll right away. (Tip: You’ve encountered a better one, as evidenced by your comment.)

How precious, you lived in Europe for four years and run your mouth like an enlightened world traveler. You made sure everyone knows that, too, like it’s some kind of mark on your resume and somehow dismisses your arrogant American perspective of explaining the world to the world. Meanwhile, some of us got out of Soviet Hungary and have been to more countries than you have states, and still believe the world can be better. Crazy, I know. Hard to understand from the keyboard cavalry.

Yeah I read the threads in my comments when I post, probably every 30 minutes.

I spent a lot of time in the Netherlands. Learned the language, worked at a bunch of startups, started my own company. It's certainly a big part of who I am, as you found out ;)

It's funny because I know you're American because of the obsession of going to different countries like you're collecting boy scout medals. Oh, and collecting ancestries too, since Soviet Hungary happened over 100 years ago? How does that mean anything?

And I talk like this because I'm young and it's fun, I was never a 4channer. It's why Elon Musk does it, you should try it. It does seem to work! And yeah, I would like to not be mean, but like you're making accounts to get around reply restrictions, it's kind of ridiculous

Urban vs Rural is a far stronger effect than State 1 vs State 2.

Generally speaking, cost of living is proportional to income; I could move inside my small country to a place twice as big, but if I were to get a job close to where I live it'd slash my wages by a lot to the point where I wouldn't actually be able to live there.

That said, if you can work remotely, you can move south or east and live a lot cheaper. It just has to be your thing to move to a new country.

> if you can work remotely, you can move south or east and live a lot cheaper. It just has to be your thing to move to a new country.

“The solution to these problems is to exploit systemic economic inequalities by leveraging remote work for income arbitrage”

I don’t understand why HN keeps repeating this “solution”.

Because it's the only way most of us can afford to own our residence.

In addition to what @nivenkos says, it lowers geographic demand for goods/services in the place you moved from, so costs in the old place go up slower (or even down) because you moved, while also increasing demand (and in turn potentially increasing overall economic output) for geographic goods/services in the new place. It’s a levelling effect in both cases.

Of course, remote working also seems to often cause pay cuts to match local cost of living, and also opens the possibility of being outsourced to extremely low income nations (same effect to a larger degree, especially as it might not be the same person doing the work).

> But Europe has far lower professional salaries than the US.

We don't have to pay ludicrous amounts for healthcare though, and rents are also way way WAY lower here than in the US - even London, Berlin and Munich are nowhere near US levels.

What are you comparing with? I'd really like to see some comparisons in Numbeo or similar. Rent takes similar portions of the budget in several of these cities for professionals, even compared to several American metropolises.

Uh, Munich has incredibly expensive house prices. It's over 1M Euros to buy for anything of a reasonable size. Developer salaries are around 65k. You can get a little cheaper by going to a neighbouring towns, but the stupidly high prices continue for many km. The main problem is the very low interest rates leading to crazy inflation.

Rents are a bit better, but compared to developer salaries it's much more expensive than the US. It's also extremely hard to find places to rent, and landlords are very picky about who they will let to.

> Don't try to downplay the role of internet, mobile devices and social media.

The first thing that was said is that Social media definitely amplifies it. I don’t think that’s a dismissal.. you don’t have to be on social media, you just have to hear or read or watch the news.

Also, it's really easy to see how social media is directly affecting kids' mental health. Instagram, TikTok, SnapChat, YouTube, Twitch, on these sites are an endless stream of people their who are better looking, smarter, more successful, funnier, more interesting than them. If you have insecurities, these sites will amplify them. And if you admire someone on one of these platforms, that person literally has no idea who you are and that admiration will not be reciprocated. But unlike the celebrities of yore, a kid can leave comments in a livestream or on a picture or a video and get a response, and they might end up developing a parasocial relationship.

It was bad enough when I was in high school when all we had was Facebook, because we were comparing the whole of ourselves to our peers in their best light. It is so much worse now.

I don't believe the social medias are that much different from what preceding generations were exposed to; TV, magazines, movies, etc all showed more idealized lifestyles.

The one difference I will point out though, is that with social media it becomes a lot more attainable to become like that. There's complete randoms that became celebrities through social media - and they don't even need to be conventionally attractive like the celebrities of old.

> I don't believe the social medias are that much different from what preceding generations were exposed to; TV, magazines, movies, etc all showed more idealized lifestyles.

It is: TV was never meant to make you believe it's real or that someone's life is actually like that. "Reality" TV was always deliberately focused on drama.

'TV was never meant to make you believe it's real'

'Reality TV' is a thing

The most successful ones threw people into situations that were completely unlike real life for 99.999% of the population.

Survivor? Real World/Big Brother? An interview/apprenticeship with Trump with completely made-up "challenges" each week?

None of these are real in any meaningful sense.

This is ignoring the popularity of shows like The Jersey Shore or The Real Housewives of ___, which I can tell you from experience, people took as "real life" and emulated.

Growing up, there were plenty of people who thought reality TV was how life is actually like. Same goes for sitcoms and teen dramas.

It's quantifiably different in several dimensions, including access to media and the sophistication with which messages are tailored and targeted.

And I don't believe in the tooth fairy.

If you want to claim that social media is very similar to TV/magazine, then you should provide some reasons for this.

The difference you point out actually adds to the mental health issues. Because it is not at all "a lot more attainable to become" a celeb on SM than on TV. If this claim was true, then the percentage of celebs would be higher today than it was then; i.e. 0.1% of the population vs 0.01%. That is not the case. There is only one Kardishan family.

But because it seems easier, then it is also easier to blame yourself for not achieving it.

> I don't believe the social medias are that much different from what preceding generations were exposed to; TV, magazines, movies, etc all showed more idealized lifestyles.

You're overlooking the demographic targeting, and how that seeks to place content before the user's eyes that generates the "most engagement". That mechanism right there makes social media SIGNIFICANTLY different.

+1 kids from previous generations lived under much worse conditions. Not only economical ones, but also social (wars, technology, etc.)

It depends where you are ? A male kid from Kentucky probably didn’t see his life get worse in the last 60 years. A kid from Yemen & Afghanistan (and now Ukraine) more than likely did.

Methamphetamine has entered the chat.

Did this kid go to college? Did he buy a house? Did he get married and have kids? Did he buy a car? Did he have any sort of major illness at any point along the way?

If he experienced any of these relatively common life activities (and many more out there I'm sure) they are more difficult economically than they were 60 years ago.

Obviously it's a matter of degrees and I'm sure he wouldn't trade places with his counterpart in Yemen...but to argue that life hasn't changed for him in 60 years as an American seems a bit wrong.

If you were a boy 60 years ago in Kentucky, the timing was right for you to be drafted for the Vietnam War a little later in life. My father was. He was sent there against his will, injured during combat, and carried a lifelong burden from what he experienced. My father's friends and brothers avoided his fate by preemptively "volunteering" for service that would keep them away from combat. I remember that every time I envy how great the economy was for his generation. Life was hard in other ways.

I have family in small town Appalachia. 60 years ago their towns were still growing. New infrastructure was being built. Jobs were plentiful.

These days tons of those small towns are dying. People don't care to live out there anymore. Factories keeping towns alive closed in the late 90's. Coal mines closed. Rail yards are quiet since the factories aren't receiving and shipping and the coal mines aren't moving coal. Other than some fast food chains, its almost hard to find infrastructure built since the late 80s. States like KY and WV are largely these small dying towns, not mostly big cities.

I'm not arguing that overall life in the US has gone down in 60 years or that we should be starting up the coal mines. I'm just trying to suggest Kentucky probably wasn't the best place to pick to suggest life not getting worse; for tons of people in Appalachia life has gotten worse over the last 60 years. Note, this isn't even a small town vs. big city argument, there are plenty of small towns out there that have had their own booms and due to the US tendency to sprawl our cities out places that used to be small backwater towns are now shiny new mini-cities attached to giant sprawling city regions.

> One. They lived through one major recession

If seems like one continuous recession since 2008 - at least here in the UK, and I suspect also in many places. Nearly a decade and a half of austerity and failure: what does that do to their hopes for the future? My children (both teenagers) ask me "has it always been like this?" I was a child/teen in the seventies and I remember thinking the same thing.

Add to that the perma-war, the climate crisis, massive and pervasive social inequality, housing and employment precarity, Trump/Putin, Brexit...

> Perhaps it's social media that makes that they are either too aware of it or simply mention it more often.

Teenagers know what's coming down the road. They just, broadly, haven't developed the adult habits of denial and avoidance yet. We need to listen to them, not tell them that they are "too aware".

We used to have the cold war and the nuclear bomb threat, WWII, the Communist devastation of Asia, not to mention global poverty in general, and the old global warming". The "climate crisis isn't a new kid of psychological threat.

'Don't try to downplay the role of internet, mobile devices and social media'

Exhibit A people: we have impeding total collapse of the ecosystem, and they blame 'too many phones'. Have you spoken to a teenager lately? All my younger colleagues are convinced they are the ones that will have to deal with the mess, and they are probably right

It's funny how people don't associate the endless stream of shiny gadgets they own, that are stuffed full with the latest and greatest in rare minerals, with the destruction of the ecosystem.

Just to pick a recent-ish story at random: https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/nickel-deforestation

Buying a smartphone every year or two absolutely pales in comparison with having to rent a poorly insulated flat that is heated with oil in a city that forces you to own a car to get to work in a country that mostly burns coal and gas for electricity. Individual choices can only save a small part of your emissions. Blaming individuals for problems that need state policy is an effective tool of fossil fuel interest groups.

Ah so I'm a shill for the fossil fuel industry, because I believe in the power of individual choices? Fantastic. FWIW I had made no mention of emissions - I was talking purely about destruction of the ecosystem (which was the phrase used in the parent comment). I believe that (in some cases, deliberately) ignoring those impacts of our consumer habits makes us in the West the greatest force for planetary destruction. It won't matter if the planet is a few degrees warmer in a few decades, if there are no trees left.

The embodied energy of a person's collection of tech absolutely does sit in the same ballpark as heating and transportation energy costs. Once you've added up your smartwatch, phone, laptop, tv, monitors, etc, I wouldn't be surprised if it was about the same energy as that required to heat your home for a year.

PS. Move. There are plenty of places.

"because I believe in the power of individual choices? " "The embodied energy of a person's collection of tech absolutely does sit in the same ballpark as heating and transportation energy costs."

You believe in silly ideas like this because you never bothered tp grab a calculator. If you did, you would know that embodied energy of all you electronics in a couple 1000 megajoules. Thats the same as two tanks of petrol, and all you life choices add up to nothing.

We've been at this 'individual responsebility' crap for 50 years. They've got you right where they want tou.

>If you did, you would know that embodied energy of all you electronics in a couple 1000 megajoules.

A very quick Google will tell you that a laptop alone is 4500MJ, or about 4 tanks of petrol (although I'm not too sure about that source, as it claims that a refrigerator is even more than that).

Once again, I'll point out that I started out discussing the overall environmental impacts. CO2 emissions and energy usage are only part of that - how do you justify the mineral extraction techniques that are necessary for all of the nice shiny things we own?

Using your argument back at you, who benefits from claiming that it's ok to continue consuming as we are because the government isn't forcing us to behave better? They've got you right where they want you - a righteous eco warrior with all the gadgets.

Yes, the embodied energy of our gadgets and toys isn't everything (and is not the only "life choice" I make). However, it's significant, especially coupled with the other environmental harms. If it's so essential to save the planet that we must all switch to EVs (and for about a 50% reduction in CO2 output over the lifetime of the car), where's the argument that we need half the number of TVs?

Edit:

>a couple 1000 megajoules. Thats the same as two tanks of petrol

Yes, hydrocarbons are unreasonably energy-dense and cheap. I hope you're ready for them becoming very expensive/unavailable.

> a laptop alone is 4500MJ, or about 4 tanks of petrol

Doesnt matter, make it 10. My laptop is 5 years old. So, how it even close to the amount tou spend on transport or heating in 3 months. You claim is preposterous! They are small objects, they don't add up to much!

"how do you justify the mineral extraction techniques that are necessary for all of the nice shiny things we own?"

The younger generatuon owns less stuff than the generstion before. Car ownership is down, home ownership is down, tb owneship, fancy camera owneship. How many hundreds of smartphones do you think it takes to make up the resources consumed by one car?

>How many hundreds of smartphones do you think it takes to make up the resources consumed by one car?

Interesting question. According to this source[1], a car, weighing 20,000 times more than a mobile phone, takes 400 times the energy to manufacture. Alternatively, one car is 22 laptops, or 100 tablets. As we seem to get through electronics at maybe 5-10x the rate of cars, those numbers start to look pretty close. Hopefully, you don't have a desktop too, as there are about 10 of those to one car. Nor one of those fancy new ultrawidescreen TVs, as there are less than a handful of those to one car[2]

From that same paper, an obsession with just the energy cost of items completely misses the point. Eg:

"There is significant concern regarding the uncertainty around GHG emissions abatement for integrated circuit and LCD screen fabrication—particularly for perfluorinated compounds (PFC). PFCs range between 7,000 and 17,000 times more potent than Carbon Dioxide (CO2) based on 100-year Global Warming Potential GWP5. And while CO2 has atmospheric lifetimes between 30 and 95 years, PFCs can last 740 to 50,000 years (Pew Climate 2010)."

I'm not really sure why I'm complaining. Thanks to investments in the company my partner works for (a mining company), this renewables and tech boom is doing great things for our finances. Do you have any interests in mining?

[1]https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7459114 [2]https://energy-solution.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/What-...

Why do you keep trying to prove your original point which is impossible to prove because it contradicts laws of physics?

Your claim was that consumption of physical goods, and electric gargets in particular, is a bigger source of emissions than transportation and heating -> that is physically impossible because transportation and heating account for 65% of global energy use! All of industry is 20%, and only a tiny fraction of that is the smartphoens and gadgets. You are railing against 5% of global emissions and are trying to convince me that this is where the problem lies.

Also all of your 'individual choices' add up to nothing - residential energy use is 6%, less than half of industry is consumer goods, so add another 6%. So that's 12%, that's about all you can affect.

Here's my original comment:

>It's funny how people don't associate the endless stream of shiny gadgets they own, that are stuffed full with the latest and greatest in rare minerals, with the destruction of the ecosystem.

You and others have insisted on making this a discussion about energy use, despite me repeatedly steering us back to the topic. Electronic gadgets are terrible for the ecosystem, and in more ways than just raw manufacturing energy usage (which is very high, considering the size of the units, and how many of them we get through).

>Your claim was that consumption of physical goods, and electric gargets in particular, is a bigger source of emissions than transportation and heating

In the places where I did make such comparisons, I was talking about domestic transportation and heating, as I hope was clear. As your above figures also show, they are quite comparable.

Does your 6% figure for domestic energy usage include domestic heating? If so, it seems that a lot of your 65% figure for "global transportation and heating" will consist of transportation.

What do you propose we do (or at least, get mandated)?

> Perhaps it's social media that makes that they are either too aware of it or simply mention it more often.

Or rather, they see how historically threats were dealt with: lead was banned, CFCs were banned, sulphur in fuel was banned - in short, environmental threats were met with decisive action.

And then they see how scientists have warned for decades now about climate change and they can clearly see that nothing happens except a lot of useless bla-bla.

Children, even as young as ten, are not dumb. They can see and understand what is going on, and to recognize inaction and corruption in politics is not rocket science.

Perhaps the threats that were met with decisive action were better understood. What decisive actions should be taken in this case?

> What decisive actions should be taken in this case?

Putting humanity in the environment could be banned. But we're seeing a trend in the other direction.

There are a lot of decisive action ideas to combat climate change (and a host of other issues). Right now out of the top of my head:

- impose a maximum limit on size, weight and fuel consumption of cars, ban SUVs and pickup trucks (and no, a tax won't work because the rich will simply buy their "freedom"). Exceptions only upon proof of need (e.g. commercial or farming usage).

- ban all inner-country flights of less than 2 hours duration (this one is not that applicable to the US but more towards Europe)

- improve passenger high speed rail networks in accessibility, affordability and speed

- improve (or, in some places, create) usable public transport systems to reduce the need for cars

- entirely ban naval cruise ships unless fueled by renewable fuel

- construct immense amounts of solar and wind electricity generation, invest into storage mechanisms and power-to-gas

- impose bans or limitations on concrete for construction (8% of global CO2 emissions result out of the manufacturing of concrete!)

- ban "fast fashion", impose durability requirements on clothing

- force all manufacturers to provide spare parts, 3D designs and tooling needed for repairs, no matter what kind of thing

- impose per-capita meat consumption quotas. Yes, this is communism-style, but we cannot sustainably continue with mass animal farming at the scale we are at.

I don’t think any of these proposals are as strong as the case for banning lead in fuel. However maybe I’m biased by living at a time where it’s already banned.

> and no, a tax won't work because the rich will simply buy their "freedom

If the tax is enough to cover CO2 sequestration, where is the problem?

> entirely ban naval cruise ships unless fueled by renewable fuel

Why not the same exemption for sub 2-hour flights?

> If the tax is enough to cover CO2 sequestration, where is the problem?

Social unrest, plain and simple. When the rich can continue their lives as usual and only the poors have to rein in their life style, there will eventually be riots. We're already seeing social unrest with the election results for the 45th in the US and the very near election of le Pen in France that runs on precisely this ideological framework.

Besides, we need to reduce the total CO2 emissions to keep the 2°C target, not just keeping the current emission amount.

> Why not the same exemption for sub 2-hour flights?

Same as above, plus the reduction in noise for the people living next to airports, and (more an issue in Europe) reduce the amount of space that is needed for airports. A high speed train is way more efficient in terms of energy, CO2 emissions and required staffing than an airplane is.

> If the tax is enough to cover CO2 sequestration, where is the problem?

Because the technology doesn't yet exist. You are banking your children's future on a technology that may never come to pass.

It does exist, it's called trees. It just doesn't scale with the amount of flights that we are doing.

https://www.drawdown.org/solutions for example

Are you claiming that the event referred to as the "Great Recession" and described by the IMF as "the most severe economic and financial meltdown since the Great Depression" wasn't really major?

> Perhaps it's social media that makes that they are either too aware of it or simply mention it more often.

Then I wouldn't really say it's social media failure.

I absolutely believe that much of social media is a cess pit at the behest of the advertising industry.

For some it will be liberation and an incredible tool to leverage but for many it will be just a waste of their life and even, for some, the end of their lives. I left Facebook years ago and recently left Twitter for higher quality sources.

But ... your "One." is distasteful ...

The GFC caused a decade of austerity and quiet unseen cuts in support and public service. If we agree there should, in fact, be some form of safety net, they had had many holes cut in that net in the last 15 years.

Where I am, I was one of the last who had their Uni tuition paid for, I had a relatively fun time growing up, my wife and I bought a property when they had gone through multiple incredible price increases, we have just paid off a mortgage, no matter what happens next short of a world war, we'll be ok. I cannot imagine how we would have done that in today's enviroment ... look beyond this forum and your own experience.

I feel absolutely gutted for the continuous squeeze the generation that followed me have endured. And, considering the outlook, the next recession seems on its way just to compound things at a time when exogenous inflation is all the rage.

It's a mess.

So, please hold both factors in mind. Social media is the cesspit that has amplified just an incredible economics and political mess of the last 15 years.

Their parents experienced multiple, poverty is the actual trickle down economics. Middle class is the new living paycheck to paycheck having to do without insurance and requiring two individuals to do anything. Yet government thinks it's too much money and won't cover education costs and even if they did universities are ever more irrelevant and filled with money and politics just the same as Congress.

> The 80s weren't a happy time, and there are no signs that that had such an impact on teen mental health

Are we sure about that? The fun thing with a lot of childhood trauma can take years to surface, let alone figure out. I personally wonder whether it has contributed to our race towards a kleptocratic society.

I can say that personally, while I was born in the early 80s, the recession had an impact on my family. Essentially, my parents chose to focus their efforts on making sure we could get as many college grants/scholarships as possible. An insanely intense focus on education and being able to sustain oneself. Didn't quite work out how they hoped.

> The fun thing with a lot of childhood trauma can take years to surface

In that case, the recession can't be the cause for the spike in mental health issues.

Mmm, what? The things you are listing don't concern "teenagers" in their young teens, at all. They start being a problem for young adults, maybe.

The study in question debates young teens, ages 11-13 and 13-15, well before college.

In my experience as a parent of young teens, while they're sensitive to climate issues and of course "suffered" [1] during the pandemic, they aren't politicized, don't care about house prices, and don't know what "inflation" even means.

What they do know is what TikTok is, and what it means to be excluded from a Whatsapp group, and to spend hours each day wondering how they should reply to a perceived slight on some Discord channel.

I successfully forbid FB, Instagram, Snapchat (I don't use them myself, at all) but can't really outlaw Whatsapp because all communications go through it.

It's an uphill battle but as a parent I'm extremely resentful to FAANG to put us all through this.

[1] I put this in quotes because my kids quite liked the lockdown; they didn't have to go to school and could play in the yard all day. (Of course their experience would have been different if we lived in a city with no yard.)

- - -

Edit: Many angry replies; it seems my original post failed to make its point clearly. Let's try again.

I was replying to a comment that said, in essence, that environmental factors (the economy, politics, climate change) were probably more to blame than social media as an explanation for teens' mental health.

As a parent of young teens, I disagree on that specific argument. I think social media is much more to blame than anything else, for harming teens' mental health.

But in no way do I dismiss the existence of said environmental factors, or their effects on the well-being of people, in actual terms as well as in consequences on our anxiety levels.

With all due respect, please don’t trivialize how the pandemic impacted youth because your family was fine.

Especially because many of their parents (if they’re fortunate enough to have both) probably lost their jobs.

Not op, but I don't think op is trivializing how pandemic impacted youth, I think he's saying that youngster are more resilient than we think they are and we project ours fears on them.

And than we trivialize how dangerous it is for their well being being bombarded by stories of personal success over nothing (being a popular tik toker is 99.99% luck) and let them do it anyway, because having to actually talk to them, have a meaningful relation with them or simply entertain them is hard and takes a lot of time and effort. so we let the screen rise them.

> Not op, but I don't think op is trivializing how pandemic impacted youth, I think he's saying that youngster are more resilient than we think they are and we project ours fears on them.

I would argue that Youngsters are also more vulnerable, raw and new to the cruelties and realities of the world as they slowly get older. The only difference I see is that they become a mental bomb of mental health issues on a wide range of a spectrum.

I do not believe a kid who sees their family lose everything during a recession comes out 100% okay. Especially when you factor in how the recession affects the metal health of parents and in turn children if the parents do no deal with it in a Healthy way.

> they aren't politicized, don't care about house prices, and don't know what "inflation" even means.

Those things are heavily affecting teenagers mental health even if they don't give a flying about them. Poverty, uncertainty, and anxiety in the family home have serious and lasting, even generational consequences.

The "I'm alright Jack"-ness of that statement is making me actually angry. You think forbidding the social media of 20yo's from your teenagers is making a difference? You put "suffered" in quotes? Gross.

What about kids who didn’t have a yard where they could play? Those whose parents lost their jobs? Those that have been evicted because their parents could not pay ever increasing rents?

Besides, living in an economy that moves from recession to recession has an impact on the mental health of their parents, especially in economies with little or non-existent safety nets (see UK and US), and I’d be very surprised if that didn’t have repercussions on their kids’ mental health.

> What about kids who didn’t have a yard where they could play?

> Those whose parents lost their jobs?

If you acknowledge that, you should also acknowledge that heir only window to the outside World was a screen where some a*hole from Dubai whose only purpose was selling themselves and the things they were dressing to their "followers" for money, was saying all day that "we're gonna be fine" and then we didn't, "we are gonna come out better" and then we didn't and they interiorized the idea that they will never make it, because they missed the train, they are only teenagers but social networks taught them that you go big or go home at the age of 13.

No matter how much support they get from families, their validation nowadays comes from social networks, their peers and who their peers follow or what trend is popular ATM.

Compare that to my father born in 1941, in fascist Italy, his father lost in the Russian campaign, his house occupied by nazi, met his father at the age of 6 and lost him soon after for an undiagnosed infection, lived through 3 World pandemics, in 1957 during the Asian flu lost his sister aged 18, started working at the age of 6, lived through political turmoil of the 60s (my father was a socialist), terrorism of the 70s, oil crisis in 1973, heroin epidemic of the 80s, AIDS pandemic (he worked in an hospital), war on former Yugoslavia in the 90s, two Gulf wars etc. etc.

What saved him?

He could only look at himself and his own life, if it somewhat improved he could notice, if it somewhat got worse, he could hope things could change for the better, as they did so many times before.

Imagine putting him in front of IG and what could have happened.

'Compare that to my father born in 1941'

I am sorry but the idea that 'bad old days had great mental health is a meme.

Do we have any evidence? Was anyone even counting who is depressed and who isn't? What about other mental issues and traumas? They didnt exactly have loads of psycologists avaliable.

> 'bad old days had great mental health

An who said that actually?

Did you not read what I wrote or are you trying to troll?

Anyway, I'll rephrase it, so that it may become clearer to you: my father didn't survive all his traumas because he's stronger than current generations, but because he was not constantly surrounded by misleading messages of rapid success and luxurious lifestyle, something that you should absolutely try to obtain or you're a loser, he was too busy trying to get out the horrors of a war and start his life.

In a way being detached from what's happening in the rest of the World, except the usual news reporting and the usual political propaganda, sheltered him from the fear of failure.

My father started being a bit depressed when he retired, because he felt he had no purpose anymore.

Kids today feel they have no purpose too soon in their lives.

> Do we have any evidence? Was anyone even counting who is depressed and who isn't?

Yeah, we do have them.

Just look for them.

I was volunteering with Red Cross when Rwandan genocide happened, I helped kids with parts of the skull cut out with a machete, they were not depressed, they were scared and traumatized, but not depressed. They were actually happy to be alive and have other kids to play with in a new country, with the perspective of a new life.

Same happened after the first war in Yugoslavia.

> What about other mental issues and traumas?

trauma doesn't automatically lead to depression.

Kids of today are not traumatized, they are pressured into success by the world surrounding them, which is almost entirely social networks.

> They didnt exactly have loads of psycologists avaliable.

In my country psychologic support is free and universal since after the WW2.

And even before then, but you know, Mussolini was in power, so it didn't really matter.

Basaglia, the great reformer of our psychiatric system, was born in 1924.

Psychology was born in 19th century, Jung was already practicing in 1900, if only there weren't two World wars in 30 years...

>trauma doesn't automatically lead to depression.

As an aside, watering down what constitutes trauma and then assuming everyone's actions are the result of trauma seems like a path toward denying people their agency which is an implied goal of a lot of people these days.

"In my country psychologic support is free and universal since after the WW2"

You have to keep in ming that there is huge stigma around going to a psycologust for help, esp. for people of older generation.

My father would literally rather have his car stolen than have someone find out he visited one.

> You have to keep in ming that there is huge stigma around going to a psycologust for help, esp. for people of older generation.

that stigma still exists.

the difference is that if it is necessary (for example psychiatric disorders) in my country they will treat you for free, even if it takes years or have to take drugs for your entire life.

> What saved him?

> He could only look at himself and his own life, if it somewhat improved he could notice, if it somewhat got worse, he could hope things could change for the better, as they did so many times before.

Yes, but not only that. He also saw that he was better off than his parents and that throughout the years his life improved significantly, while a 30-year-old today is worse off than their parents and, rightly or not, feels that life is getting worse every year.

My salary quadrupled in the last 6 years, I managed to buy a flat and I can afford to pay for my child’s education, but to achieve all of this I have to be way better than my average colleague, way luckier and to work in one of the highest paying industries. All of this to achieve what a brute working in a post office in the 80s would have taken for granted (buy a house, send your kid to school and nursery, save some money, buy a car). This leaves me in a constant state of mild anxiety (what if I stop being good at my job? What if I become sick and I can’t provide for my family? What will be of my child in such a toxic environment?) and the only social network I use is Twitter, where I only follow reputable newspapers (practically I use it as an RSS feed). I understand that my views may be influenced by living in the UK, which is a more anxiogenic society than the rest of Europe.

> while a 30-year-old today is worse off than their parents and, rightly or not, feels that life is getting worse every year.

my question is: are they actually?

because if we factor in what it meant to live when their parents lived, are they really worse?

I'm not particularly richer monetary wise than my parents were at my age, but I earn a lot more money than they did, that I spend in a lot of things that didn't even exist back then.

My parents have never been on a flight before they were 65.

Also, my parents had some State benefit for being health care workers, but hey were working shifts of 5 consecutive days / 12 hours a shift, with two children at home.

That's not how medical profession works anymore, shifts are 8 hours maximum in 24 hours and workers have to rest at least 12 hours before going to work again. That means a night shift every 2 days maximum.

> What if I become sick and I can’t provide for my family? What will be of my child in such a toxic environment?

That's the same environment your kids are living in though, I'd say that passing onto them the idea that you have to provide for your family or you literally risk to die at such young age is the most profound damage social networks have produced to younger generations.

In my country that would not happen, health care is provided for everybody, especially those who can't afford it, but younger generations that grew up on social networks feels that they are in your same situation: if they don't succeed in life they'll be screwed forever. But since we leave in the post-truth neo-speak era, they also believe that there are opportunities to become rich everywhere, and the only way to *not* become rich is to get a job. Job is for losers with no talent, passion, vision and/or self respect.

Of course it's not their fault, it's what the modern pied pipers (the so called influencer) are teaching them, unfiltered, there's literally no way to shield them from that crap.

> my question is: are they actually?

Yes, they are. At least in the UK, an average salary is often not enough to rent an ex-council flat, a place where the poor used to reside. To afford a flat comparable to the one where I used to live as a child (that we could afford with the salary of a primary school teacher), I’d have to earn 6 times the average salary.

Yes, I can take flights, which if you are a frequent flyer take 5% of your life. But for a large majority of people my age, the rest of their life is spent in an accommodation that is more expensive and objectively worse than the one their parents could afford.

> Yes, they are. At least in the UK, an average salary is often not enough to rent an ex-council flat, a place where the poor used to reside.

IMO that means that people have more money, or the prices wouldn't go up in places once reserved to the poor.

Also, IMO, data says that salaries are going up, not down. I think much of the effect is due minimum wages and the fact that prices of accommodation got more expensive is because market knows people are earning at least a certain amount of money.

Also, houses of 2022 are very different from houses of the 50s.

You wouldn't put your worst enemy to live where poor people lived no more than 50 years ago.

So we spend more on housing because the life style "I work 16 hours a day and come home only to sleep" has radically changed into "I spent a lot of my time at home, even for leisure" (streaming, gaming, etc.)

The new figures, revealed by the LibDems, showed that in 1950, the average full-time weekly wage was worth £7.08 (equivalent to £499 in today's money) while the basic weekly state pension was £1.36 (£91.65). Last year the average wage had climbed to £549.80, but the pension was just £87.30

> But for a large majority of people my age, the rest of their life is spent in an accommodation that is more expensive and objectively worse than the one their parents could afford.

My parents bought a house paying 19% of interest rates.

I'm paying less than 1%

> IMO that means that people have more money, or the prices wouldn't go up in places once reserved to the poor.

Whatever, on an average salary you can’t afford to live in a council flat that 30 years ago was meant for the poor. It means that you are poorer.

> Also, IMO, data says that salaries are going up, not down. I think much of the effect is due minimum wages and the fact that prices of accommodation got more expensive is because market knows people are earning at least a certain amount of money.

Data says that real salaries in the UK are still below 2007.

> Also, houses of 2022 are very different from houses of the 50s. You wouldn't put your worst enemy to live where poor people lived no more than 50 years ago.

Council flats haven’t been replaced by luxury apartments, they are the same shitholes they were 40 years ago, but now you can’t afford to live in there with an average salary.

> So we spend more on housing because the life style "I work 16 hours a day and come home only to sleep" has radically changed into "I spent a lot of my time at home, even for leisure" (streaming, gaming, etc.)

We spend more on housing because we stopped building houses and prices went up. One doesn’t spend an entire salary on rent because they like Netflix.

> My parents bought a house paying 19% of interest rates. > I'm paying less than 1%

I’d gladly pay 19% interest if my flat cost a third and inflation was 15%.

I don't disagree at all with you pointing out the plight of families and children less privileged than OP (where I am, there is now a steady stream of truly awful stories about what happened to young children during lockdown when the monitoring and intervention of society as a whole, and social services in particular, is suddenly and completely removed).

>economies with little or non-existent safety nets (see UK and US)

However, as a resident of the UK, I have to ask - how does it have a non-existent safety net?

> However, as a resident of the UK, I have to ask - how does it have a non-existent safety net?

Jobseeker’s Allowance is one forth of the average rent in London and I’m not sure you are entitled to it if you have any savings.

If you lose your private insurance you’d have to rely on the NHS, which is not as bad as what happens in the US, but it’s not in the same league of the French, German or even the Italian healthcare systems.

>Jobseeker’s Allowance is one forth of the average rent in London

Tricky issue. I do know that where I live (Wales), there are huge numbers of people living relatively comfortably on a benefit-funded lifestyle.

There's also a whole lot more to the UK safety net than Jobseeker's Allowance.

>If you lose your private insurance you’d have to rely on the NHS

If you don't mind me asking, are you a UK native? That's a fantastic turnaround of the typical sentiment about the NHS, which is that it's a shining example of what the wonders of socialised care can do, and how we can do without the evils of privatised healthcare. FWIW I agree with you - it's actually a stinking dump of a money pit, and an embarrassment to anyone who has experienced any other 1st world health care.

> There's also a whole lot more to the UK safety net than Jobseeker's Allowance.

Fine, but given what I pay in income tax and NI (~80K£ last year), I’d expect a lot more than 4-500£ per month plus (maybe?) 500£ of housing benefit and access to a food bank. I would expect at least 2–3-4 times that for at least one or two years, no questions asked. I understand this money may be enough to live in Wales, but I can’t be expected to relocate there because I lost my job.

> If you don't mind me asking, are you a UK native?

No, I’m not. Hence I’m immune to the NHS cult. :)

Unfortunately several members of my family have battle tested the Italian and the German healthcare systems. Half of them would have died horribly in the UK.

>given what I pay in income tax and NI

That's how socialised safety nets work - those who earn more, pay for those who don't. Otherwise, it would just be a savings account ;)

Who exactly should be paying for you to get 3k a month for several years, because you lost your fancy London job? Not me, that's for sure.

Not necessarily, in Germany you get a higher unemployment benefit if you used to earn more (because you paid more taxes and contributions). If I remember correctly, you get 60-70% of your salary capped at ~2-3K€ per month (plus some money for the kids and pension contributions), which is enough to live comfortably everywhere in the country.

If I lost my job in London, I’d fall instantly into a form of poverty that doesn’t exist anywhere else in Europe, notwithstanding the exorbitant amount of taxes I pay every year. Yes, you get some pocket money, that’s why I said the safety net is almost non-existent and not totally non-existent.

Well, here we've just picked a different set of winners and losers. Can you imagine the outcry if here we changed our benefits system to something like that Germany? "I've been out of work for years, and now this schmuck gets 40k a year for free?"

Again FWIW, I prefer something like that.

Then again, it seems you are aware of the rules of the game you are playing.

Whatever, but the result is that in London you don’t have a safety net. You lose your job, you get a section 21 notice the day after you miss a rent payment and you are in the streets with a child to feed.

Then don't live in London if you are concerned about feeding your child.

"The things you are listing don't concern "teenagers" in their young teens, at all. They start being a problem for young adults, maybe"

That's just not true, though. I'm over 40: My first formal 'current events' portion of a social studies class happened when I was 12, IIRC. The first gulf war was the current topic.

Middle schoolers would be told now that they need to think about going to college, how doing well in high school is their only hope of a scholarship, and so on.

They know about political extremism: They just might not use those words. They might know someone that is queer and see the hate they get. Heck, they might be spewing the same hate as their parents.

They likely know about inflation even if they don't know what it is. Poverty - or even a tight budget - affects you as a child especially in the pre-teen and younger teen years. Parents stress over money, after all, and some of their peers might have struggled with homelessness, depending on where you live.

At 15, I had started to care about politics. I mean, I knew they were a thing since elementary (and the mock elections they held), but I saw how it affected me.

And of course they know about the fun things.

You probably didn't successfully forbit FB and Instagram if their friends don't use it: This is more common with younger folks than their parents. Plus, if they are out playing in the yard (Which I quit doing during middle school and there was no internet) they might be too young to care right now.

> The first gulf war was the current topic.

Our view of that was from the news, as well. The events in Ukraine are much more real-time and on social media. They see stories of children separated from their parents, of parents murdered, or all of them being killed in bombings.

These atrocities have always happened in war but now they are barely filtered and easily accessible.

"If it can happen to those children, it can happen to me."

I didn't even consider that when I wrote the response. I mean, I remember seeing the bombs on television and being a bit worried about it, but I imagine it seems a bit more 'real' now and there is so much more available.

An additional "sad-but-true" aspect is that people can disassociate atrocities because the people look different than they do. The people in Ukraine, in general, look Caucasian.

It shouldn't make a difference, of course, but for some people this makes it all the more real.

Yes they know about that just like they know about the plague and the possibility of an asteroid stroke destroying life on planet earth. But is inflation a big part of their day to day worries? Probably not. Political extremism maybe, but they're probably wrapped up in that as well. We've created a society where if you aren't openly fighting the bigots you are seen as allowing them to exist. So teens are very politically active and I wouldn't be surprised if it stresses them like it stresses adults. But unless they're experiencing poverty I don't think kids are getting depressed because they're worried about wealth inequality. Unless the teen in question is Karl Marx

Unless they are experiencing poverty

Around 11 million children in the US live in poverty. A great number more children are poor to very poor (just over poverty might not be poverty, but it makes your life pretty bad). It probably isn't so bad in a country with a robust safety net (still poor, but not getting the full effects of poverty)

I don't know about wealth inequality being the specific worry, but knowing things are getting more expensive definitely has an effect on children. Suddenly, the parent is stressed and the uncertainty gets passed on. Though, I honestly am wondering if I've missed something because while I see things about money and inflation mentioned, I haven't actually seen folks mention wealth inequality.

I was 12 when I started using Twitter (shh, don’t tell them https://venturebeat.com/2018/05/29/twitter-is-locking-out-th...)

I was 14 when I had to loan my parents some money, and was acutely aware that I would not be able to afford college.

I read the news every day and was smart enough to realize that things were not going so great (according to the news).

To say that kids are blissfully unaware of the world they are born into is just wrong. Social media makes it even more apparent.

This awareness helped me make the right decisions for myself (deciding to not go to college, for example), but I am fortunately mostly optimistic. The weight of the world crushed some of my peers.

I think it would be safe to say the majority of kids (at least in America) don’t share that same experience. Also, I’m not saying that to try and discredit your experience, I’m just acknowledging the counterpoint may not generalize well to the majority of teenagers in America.

I would disagree with this statement. My kids are 13 and 18 and are both acutely aware of what is going on in the world right now. They have friends who know that their parents are struggling and that they likely won't be able to afford to go to college, something that they had previously been told was absolutely necessary.

When I was a kid, I barely knew what was going on in my friend's lives. Today they are all on Discord, etc, and they talk. A lot.

They absolutely know what's going on in the world. It weighs on them.

My story is certainly different than most, but

Many kids in my high school had to make tough decisions around college – weighing the universities they could get into against the costs of said universities

The classmates who decided to do pre-med in-state versus out of state to get better tuition because a full doctor’s education is expensive

The few who got into Ivy leagues but ultimately decided against it because they got some financial aid, but not enough

The ones who graduated college and decided to get into consulting not because it was their passion, but because it paid well.

Even harder is when these kids’ parents are not well equipped to help make these tough decisions, because they never had to make them themselves.

You can suspend it for quite a while, but at some point reality kinda sets in and you’re faced with tough decisions.

recessions - see parents with less disposable income so teenages get less things global pandemic - saw a couple of years of curfew at a time when teenages thrive outside and conditioned them towards a more online life and exposed and engaging more with the news of the day rising inflation - again multiple impacts, less pocketmoney is depressing at any age housing - quality of home, shareing bed space with siblings are never helpful for anybody education getting more expensive by the day - fear of the future as teens, exams and beyond start to become more and more in focus and the prospects of life are also taking hold, can be a bummer, more so with the cultural changes of 2 years pandemic.

But many factors and to pin them upon a singular aspect is hard, also geographic and more so financial backgrounds play a factor that needs to be eliminated to see a more common root cause.

But hey, social media since Elon brought twitter a seen a resurgance in news about it, so more and more social media focus aspects will pop up and been a lot of ongoing debate and concerns on rollover for a while now as is.

As an anicdote how things have changed, a friend in his mid 40's was at some event and found some marbels so was playing a game with another friend for nostagia and some teens came up asking why you throwing stones about - as they had never seen marbles, let alone played it. Yet for decades and decades prior, everybody would instantly recognise marbles. Times change, not saying people who grow up playing marbles less prone to mental health. You find everybody has some aspect and there own coping ways.

Perhaps it may well be a case that we are looking into things like mental health more in a more detailed way and then looking at patterns of our times. After all, earthquakes have increased but equally the sensors in play to measure them have also increased so you have to balance out the more you see and compare to seeing less with less in the past very varefully as easy to see patterns that may not be there and come to conclusions.

After all, TikTok has been around less than any teenager era, let alone generatioins to get a clear picture.

But then, isn't social media for many mental health issues across generations, with it's echo chamber avenues and bombardment of all you care or dislike, it can be a dangerous rabbit hole for an angry or angst mind of any age.

But your approach to block it, safest and smartest way, like keys to the house - you need to have trust built before you let them loose and until then, block. Worse case they will educate themselves in how to get around the block.

> Mmm, what? The things you are listing don't concern "teenagers" in their young teens, at all.

Except from the very privileged, I'm pretty sure they are at least exposed to adults discussing those subjects, or at least from medias. If the volume of concerning subject is large, they will internalize it and build up some anxiety, and that will impact mental health.

>What they do know is what TikTok is, and what it means to be excluded from a Whatsapp group, and to spend hours each day wondering how they should reply to a perceived slight on some Discord channel.

>I successfully forbid FB, Instagram, Snapchat..

If exclusion is what you believe is causing them to be unhappy then forcing them to be excluded seems like an almost sadistic (though likely just misguided) response. I definitely hated when my parents did things like that.

Sorry, my language is unclear. What I meant by "excluded" was "fired": to be a member of a Whatsapp group and they be fired from the group.

As they have zero access to FB, Instagram and Snapchat they can't be fired from those.

Of course they didn't suffer during the Covid lockdowns. Only those who obsessively consumed news and social media suffered.

Reflecting on the state of the world always leaves me thinking of this[0]:

30 March 1973

Dear Mr. Nadeau:

As long as there is one upright man, as long as there is one compassionate woman, the contagion may spread and the scene is not desolate. Hope is the thing that is left to us, in a bad time. I shall get up Sunday morning and wind the clock, as a contribution to order and steadfastness.

Sailors have an expression about the weather: they say, the weather is a great bluffer. I guess the same is true of our human society—things can look dark, then a break shows in the clouds, and all is changed, sometimes rather suddenly. It is quite obvious that the human race has made a queer mess of life on this planet. But as a people we probably harbor seeds of goodness that have lain for a long time waiting to sprout when the conditions are right. Man’s curiosity, his relentlessness, his inventiveness, his ingenuity have led him into deep trouble. We can only hope that these same traits will enable him to claw his way out.

Hang on to your hat. Hang on to your hope. And wind the clock, for tomorrow is another day.

Sincerely, E. B. White

[0] https://lettersofnote.com/2012/01/06/wind-the-clock-for-tomo...

Common thing for humans to reflect on... there's the old adage: 'This too shall pass,'

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_too_shall_pass)

and in ancient history (circa 2003), "For Now" from Avenue Q:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=-9T5f_VtxNc&t=6342

Do you by any chance use social media? Is it possible that your bleak assessment of the state of the world has been influenced by it, and the hopelessness you are promoting is acquired from your media environment, and is part of a socially contagious spiral of anxiety & depression that you are passing on to others through this particular social medium?

Doctors don’t generally say to patients “yes, your life really is terrible and you are right to be anxious and/or depressed”. The nature of the illness lies in our response to the reality of the world.

In my view you could come up with a list of bad things similar to yours for any age in history. This is not a uniquely bad time to be alive. (I’d argue there has never been a better time, but that’s a separate matter). What seems to have changed is our coping mechanisms.

I don't use social media, never did, nor watch TV - and i have the same outlook - because that's what's happening. And i had the same outlook when i was a teen too.

Increased divide between rich and poor, lack of middle class in my country, our pension/retirement system has been a joke for 10s of years and we were joking in middle school about it(!). Politicians actively working against country's best interests to line their own pockets is a norm - and that applies to every party so even elections are a joke.

Add high inflation to that, as a teen with limited budget you tend to notice price rises of snacks and fast food.

USA was hailed as a the promised land here when i was a teen, disillusionment with it is also a contributing factor.

Hacker News is social media, and a pretty opinionated one at that.

IF you go that far then you can even call fora a social media sites.

the social media in context were obviously sites akin to twitter, facebook and others.

but alas HN incorrecting strikes again.

I grew up in Germany, so I was told stories of my grandfather, who lived through an entire world war, his home, home town, home country being entirely destroyed, being denied the return to his home since it was annexed and now behind the iron curtain, civilians he knew being murdered, pieces of butter being the best currency available, the nonexistence of any infrastructure such as roads, the very definition of political extremism in positions of total power, no outlook for any education at all, basically the entire continent in ruins.

Yet, he and many others lived.

I'm not trying to downplay the problems of today's youth (I'm not even 30 myself and will have to deal with lots of them by myself). But I think humanity has proven that it will find its way.

The difference is the overall trajectory and the volume of information available.

During WWII and the Cold War, other than the present or looming threat of war, things were generally improving. Also, without the internet, people did not really care about far away events.

On the other hand, many of the challenges of today have been known for deacades(plural). A good portion of the anxiety is caused by watching in real-time slow-motion the unfolding of the global selfinflicted trainwreck and observing that all countermeasures are ineffective.

The end of the Cold War set the premises for humanity to have a bright future, yet humanity seems to prefer self-destruction.

Compared to then, humanity now is in a crisis of hopelessness.

I disagree. Within the cold war, the immediate threat was a nuclear war so devastating it would completely wipe out humanity's habitat, and most of humanity as well. The fear of that was known since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Most people nowadays do not carry that fear. There's much more reason for hope today: Most of the problems, as you said, seem solvable, they've been known for decades. It's unlikely for Europe or the US to get nuclear bombed in the near future. This is a privilege my parents did not have. Yet, they hoped, hoped no nuclear war would break out. I fail to see why people today shouldn't be able to find hope.

The same threats still exist today. We've even had multiple cases of fearmongering. On a smaller scale. How some countries would test their weapons on others. North Korea not too long ago. Heck, European countries are revisiting their military budgets in light of Russia invading Ukraine.

What changed is people can tell the world has become too competitive on a financial, emotional and social level. That's quite different from the cold war where the land was rife with opportunities as long as you held hope things wouldn't blow up tomorrow.

On the other hand it does feel like all these events feel like situations that need constant inputs of "energy" to be sustainable - war relies on firepower, a repressive regime requires efforts to keep the populace content enough to not revolt (or enough firepower to quash revolution attempts), so given enough time the system would return to a more stable equilibrium.

The situation today feels like we're already in an equilibrium and there's no single obvious problem to solve to make things better.

> Yet, he and many others lived.

After the initial shock of the first couple of years, post-war Germany seems to have been a pretty comfortable place for a young person willing to conform to pretty strict social standards and put in some (by the standards of that time) moderately hard work. It tends to be that way after great disruptions, like after the plague, after the 30-years war, etc. When power structures that consolidate wealth have been thoroughly disrupted it usually takes a while to get back to a point where most people are excluded from most opportunities. Hence, for most people, opportunities tend to abound after great crises.

Most western democracies are not post-disruption societies; they're more like the opposite. Today's young people don't face the effects of a recent upheaval, they face the effects of decades of peace and comfort. History would seem to indicate that that, too, is a dangerous place to be in.

> Yet, he and many others lived.

> But I think humanity has proven that it will find its way.

So? People will live in the craziest conditions. Humanity's way has historically lead through an awful lot of unnecessary suffering. Good luck inspiring anyone with that sort of outlook, in times of peace and crazy prosperity no less.

Democracy and rule of law aren't ends in themselves, freedom is far from a natural equilibrium state. There's a social contract that says we do these things, you get peace, a good life, a chance at success and wealth, and a decent amount of participation. Right now, western nations across the board are hollowing out that contract crazy fast. The rising popularity of anti-freedom, anti-democracy, anti-rule of law politicians may be a foreshadowing of things to come if we keep this up.

> So? People will live in the craziest conditions.

this is so important. survival isn't sacred or noble. something usually drags itself onwards to the next sick nightmare.

These events also brought an unprecedented wave of mass suicide in Germany.

Suicide in the GDR is a much more complex topic. Here is an excellent article about it: https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/ssees/2014/11/27/the-death-of-others...

> Yet, he and many others lived.

mere survival shouldn't impress anyone

He was quite content, a tax payer for 30+ years and a loving husband, father and grandfather.

Largely agree with your analysis but you are missing one key aspect - disintegration of family and community/social support structure such as church or local youth clubs etc. Whether what you are saying as part of your analysis is the cause of this disintegration or effect I don’t know. As a society if anything we can do to better mental health, it is strengthening family and social circle and community support system.

One might argue that social media makes that easier. After all it is far easier to connect with your loved ones in a matter of a click now but here is the key. I don’t think virtual engagements can ever compare to or replace the activation of neural pathways that happens from physical presence.

Yup, killing the family unit is a shot still heard.

Degrading social care systems and social mobility is actually to blame for this. This is what OP is missing in his/her rant.

It's much easier to take apart a system than put it together. Hell even nietzsche talked about these problems coming up, as a result of losing religious institutions that maintain societies cohesiveness. He said God is dead, and we killed him. He asked what great festivals will we have to invent to make ourselves worthy of such a great task? Well we didn't invent any festivals or institutions to replace the church. People just aren't interested in that. So there is no secular Sunday service where you meet and socialize with your community every week

Anecdotally, I'm part of a tightly knit religious community and these problems are much less common. Even the nerdy awkward kids all have friends, why does it matter that they're awkward when they're still good people? But I rarely saw that sort of thinking in public school. It was as much a free for all as adult society and there were kids I saw go without friends from middle school to high school graduation because no one wanted to stomach their being awkward.

But often when I bring this up and rather than help the kids, people would usually try to convince me that my religion doesn't have any value. There's no interest in actually making things better, just taking things apart

Agreed a whole lot. Social media is the new whipping boy, but no one is willing to confront that much of what it shows us is a genuine & real reflection, is just connecting us more accurately to the real state of things.

I think there's an incredible resillience especially in youth to not get bogged down in or at least to tangle with & find peace with the sad scary backdrop of the world. When they have elememts of hope, when they have positive role models, when they see successful adults having ok lives. And frankly that's a challenge, period; there's just little community, few role models left. Big employers are better quality of life but it's deeply depersonalizing, being so deeply embedded somewhere odd deep deep inside an org chart, with only modest chances of getting to work hard for a long time & then at best retire. The new work world is opaque, dis-real.

Reality is already very well built, well estaished, and there's little available space or reward for trying stuff out & finding ourselves. We see less making life happen.

A lot of this difficulty is because of so many of these sad scary hopeless background factors. But rather than try to tackle endless symptoms as problems, i keep feeling like there's rootstriking we could be doing by trying to develop & support a more youthfully active world, by directly trying to support & enable people interested in taking chances in getting things started. In building the world. Not just working in it. Some real signs of positive life, creating role models of people who have real hands in shapimg their lives, have established good locus of controls: this is just wild spouting hypothesis, but I think that would make such a difference. Some signs of reality within reach.

How is social media a "real reflection" of the "state of things" ? Doesn't social media amplify and overexaggerate lot of things ? We're always talking about how people are living double/fake life on Social media and most users, when the see such things develop a FOMO.

No, social media is NOT 'connecting us more accurately to the real state of things'.

Most people are getting drip fed curated content to 'influence' them, which has a very different agenda to accuracy regarding real things.

Also most people are not selecting real things, they are selecting entertainment.

If you had just said connecting to real things, agreed that sometimes it is, plus a lot of false things, plus heaps of fantasy/entertainment. But when you said its connecting us more accurately to the real state of things, well thats just false.

Accuracy in echo chambers that create information bubbles as socmed systems do is simply impossible, then the fact these systems are used to influence not inform makes them produce highly distorted minds.

This is an easy thing to test:

1. Kid seems happy, does stuff

2. Kid gets phone for birthday

3. Kid seems sad, and no longer does anything other than sit in his room scrolling through tiktok

It's an extraordinarily depressing situation and anyone who denies this obvious truth is DELUSIONALLY BLIND

Most kids here get phones around 9/10 when they start walking to and from school alone, so before they really start using social media so it isn't a sudden one day they are using it, next day they aren't thing. Also children are changing for other reasons hitting puberty, generally growing older etc, and there is other stuff going on in their lives - cause and effect can be hard to pinpoint. There are also grey areas - is messaging your friends social media? Watching videos on YouTube?

This is what happened to me at 14: the first time I've ever had an Internet connection at home. I am now 27 and it's really a downward spiral. I'm starting to think that the only solution, at least for me, would using Internet only for 10 minutes a day and only to download offline all the things I would like to read.

First step is to quit all social networks, and to remain off them for good. It's disorienting at first, and it certainly feels like withdrawal, but then it gets better, and quickly. In my case I'm at the point where I open up the computer and hardly know what to do on it, and pretty much only read HN. You can do it too. Save your spirit.

> Teens are aware that they are going to inherit a pretty terrible world

With respect, I truly mean no insult when I say this is a naive and ignorant position.

By every measure, the world is generally better than it has ever been. Far better than any decade in the past you could care to name. Despite media doom-and-glooming, there is every reason to expect that teens will inherit an overall materially better world than their parents, local minima notwithstanding.

![Chart of upward-trending life expectancy](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Life_exp...)

Climate change drastically changes that equation. Not only will life expectancy go down, but life itself will probably become harder for many people in many places - droughts, heat waves, floodings, hunger and famine, mass migration, etc.

Except, people have been saying exactly this with the same unshakable confidence, literally since the beginning of recorded history. In the 70s, it was said that we would have experienced all of those things by 2000, and yet, life continued to get dramatically better for everyone, particularly for the poorest.

So, no. Life will continue to get better despite global warming. Or, not doing so is an extraordinarily claim for which there is no real evidence.

They rang the alarm bells because they saw the trend and tried to curb it. They knew things would get bad, not neccesarily at an exact date. We are only now experiencing the contributions to the atmosphere made at the dawn of the last century. This delayed effect is worrying to say the least.

They're not talking specifically about climate change. Doomsayers have always existed, warranted or not. Previously, it seemed inevitable that the cold war would end in a massive nuclear exchange and yet here we are. That was a very real threat, just like climate change, but it was avoided. We also have AI/Singularity doomsayers right now and, previously, Bird flu, SARS, Ebola, etc. and where the doom actually came, humanity has survived just fine.

Through all of that, everything has gotten better.

Speaking as a former doomsayer, people like my former self who are committed to the "everything is terrible" outlook really dislike hearing that it's not true. For me, I was committed because my life sucked, and it was much easier to point at objective, outer reasons than to do the hard work of digging in and digging myself out. I was pretty smugly insufferable. I still am, just, from a different perspective.

No, in the 1970s they were ringing alarm bells about global cooling, not global warming. If you read newspaper archival articles from that period you'll see that they sound exactly like articles written last week, except with the word warming inverted to cooling. Scientists back then, or at least the ones being interviewed by journalists, were communicating an absolute certainty that an ice age was coming and the world needed to prepare. There was scientific consensus, etc.

This whole thing has long since been memory holed, but it happened. Here's Spock in 1979 with a whole documentary about about how politicians are ignoring the scientist's warnings:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQSBn50o_8M&t=21s

"What scientists are telling us now, is that the threat of an ice age is not as remote as they once thought. During the lifetime of our grandchildren, arctic cold and perpetual snow could turn most of the inhabitable portions of our desert into a polar desert".

They also had plans for how to stop it. They wanted to, amongst other things, cover the arctic in black dust to make it absorb more heat.

IMHO one of the major reasons teenagers suffer mentally is because they are way too sensitive to social pressures to never question claims about future destruction of the world. They're told the world is ending and that anyone who claims otherwise is an unspeakably evil conservative who must not be listened to under any circumstances. But it's not ending, even decades after global cooling scientists still don't really understand the climate at all and the people who claim otherwise aren't evil or bad. They're actually the level headed ones. Teenagers should listen to them a lot more - they'd realize there's a lot to live for.

You're spreading misinformation. The scientific concern was always global warming, despite what media was saying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

> Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling; these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time, which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect.

It's the opposite I'm afraid. You're the one spreading misinformation, though it's not really your fault. The idea journalists simply made up the whole thing is what modern scientists like to say, but it's not true. The reason the media "speculated" about a new ice age is because scientists were telling them it was going to happen. Do you really believe US TV would make up an entire episode about non-existent scientific beliefs?

Maybe you do. Then please explain how the following can be squared with Wikipedia's explanation. Scientists believed global cooling so much they held international conferences to debate it and even told the US President to prepare America for the new ice age:

"Dear Mr President, aware of your deep concern with the future of the world, we feel obliged to inform you on the results of a scientific conference held here recently. The conference dealt with the past and future changes of climate and was attended for 42 top American and European investigators ... the main conclusion is that a global deterioration of climate, by an order of magnitude larger than any hithero experienced by mankind, is a very real possibility and may indeed be due very soon. The cooling has a natural cause and falls within the rank of processes which produced the last ice age. This is a surprising result based largely on studies of recent deep sea sediment.

...

With the efficient help of the world leaders, the research could be effectively organized and could possibly find answers to this menace ... it seems reasonable to prepare the agriculture and industry for possible alternatives and to form reserves.

With best regards, George L Kukla, Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory & R. K. Matthew, Chairman, Department of Geological Sciences (Brown University)"

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outreach/CDPW40/CD&PW...

July 1970, New York Times: "The United States and the Soviet Union are mounting large-scale investigations to determine why the Arctic climate is becoming more frigid, why parts of the Arctic sea ice have recently become ominously thicker and whether the extent of that ice cover contributes to the onset of ice ages. The projects, which involve nuclear submarines, earth satellites, aircraft and numerous manned and unmanned stations on the drifting ice, are being pressed with special urgency in view of recent discoveries of important resources in the Soviet and the American Arctic."

https://www.nytimes.com/1970/07/18/archives/us-and-soviet-pr...

Again, do you believe that these reports are false, that these large-scale investigations never happened? That this was all made up by the press even as the poor scientists were saying the opposite? There are many more documents like these. They make it very clear that back then global cooling was treated in exactly the same way global warming is today. Scientists were quite clear about what they believed back then.

You've given me a lot to think about, thank you

What does it matter what scientists were saying if the press was saying the opposite? People don’t consume science.

I wasn't alive then, so can't judge on that. I can however see the obvious changes that are happening, and the trends. Nobody serious is saying the planet will become uninhabitable, but swathes of it will. Wildfires, heat domes, massive floods are events that are getting more frequent. Texas's "once in a hundred years" winter that now has occured twice in 10 years; the massive floods in China and Germany; the heat and now cold waves that have hit Europe in the past few years. Burying your head in the sand won't make all that go away.

Have you actually read the IPCC report, or only read what the media says about it?

There’s a huge difference. The IPCC, the consensus of scientists says that the rate of growth in the world will slow. That’s it. And that’s turned into an “earth will become a fireball” narrative by the media.

Therefore the actual scientific consensus is the world will get better more slowly, not that it will get worse.

Stop listening to the media who make money off your fear.

Nonsense. The scientific consensus does not simply say that one thing or another will happen. There is a number of possible scenarios each of which is assigned some likelihood according to modelling(informed by empirical data). No serious scientist is saying "X will happen and that's it". That's an inherently unscientific statement.

There’s no plausible scenario where climate change drives global GDP growth negative over the next 50 year. None.

Yea uncontrolled climate change will make life worse than had it not happened. But no it will not outweigh the cumulative beneficial effects of baseline economic growth.

I was merely pointing out GP's gross oversimplification of the current consensus in climate research. I said nothing about its content.

Your can't know that, there's too many variables. Let's assume a terrible scenario with massive heatwaves across the Middle East and Central and Southern Asia (like the ones that have already happened, including recently, in Iraq and and India) that get too frequent and unbearable. Add in food supply problems due to droughts, fertilizer shortages, etc. Now you have millions of migrants going to Europe , or at least North. No one can reliably predict how such a scenario plays out, migrant crisis are unpredictable.

The worst plausible forecast is that climate change will impair global GDP by 25% relative to baseline by 2200 years.

Even assuming anemic 1% GDP per capita growth rates, the average world citizen will still nearly twice as wealthy as today even given worse case climate scenarios.

Can't buy a house, can't expect work with reasonable pay in most places, will probably be impacted severely by climate change, food prices are quickly becoming extremely high. The future is shit.

The percent of household budgets spent on food has been steadily falling for 50 years. It’s very recently ticked up slightly, but this is a tiny blip on an otherwise very long running trend.

Median real wages are the highest they’ve ever been in history.

Climate change may lower the rate of economic growth but there’s no scenario where GDP growth goes negative because of climate change. Even given the worse effects of climate change, the people of the future will be significantly materially wealthier than people today.

Housing is a major issue, fueled by terrible NIMBY policies that have artificially restricted supply. But there are still many metros, with relatively cheap housing.

> Median real wages are the highest they’ve ever been in history.

Now I know you are joking, those have been falling at least since 2008 and they weren't doing so hot before that either. If we're talking about boomer childhoods, sure. Life was great then. Now, not so much (at least, not in that way - medicine is definitely better).

> Housing is a major issue, fueled by terrible NIMBY policies that have artificially restricted supply. But there are still many metros, with relatively cheap housing.

This might be a US thing. Where I live housing is an issue because there quite simply are not enough houses being built that anyone normal can afford. For the ultra-rich, the country is a playground.

I agree that the quality of life is currently better than it has even been. Though the future is looming because of climate change. Last year, a heat dome destroyed a tow in Canada, yet we are just at the beginning of the consequences. This year, we are seeing intense droughts in India as well as on the west coast. Scientists predicted that it would happen and it does, but this is just the start. We should be all on-board to prevent it and lower our fossil fuel consumption quickly to limit consequences. If you live in a rich country, just talk about energy sobriety around you and see how people react... > Today’s IPCC Working Group 1 Report is a code red for humanity. Sadly, even after the IPCC alarms, I have yet to see governments properly act. Young people know that, and they understand that their quality of life could be at its maximum at the moment, before decreasing due to climate change.

[0] https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/secretary-generals-statemen...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31270584

> generally better > materially better

Those are not always equivalent. Think "Brave New World"

If the mental health crisis is exacerbated by other stressors, how does that explain the following? 1) The crisis started suddenly in 2009, 2) It affects girls far more, and 3) It is occurring in many countries.

Haidt brings up those points in the testimony to rule out other factors and prove that social media is specifically to blame.

1 & 3) seems to be more indicative of the fact that there was a global economic crisis at the end of 2008. I'm not following these points from the paper.

2) seems to point the finger at social media more heavily though I think, but I'm not entirely sure what to make of that but this point is convincing to me.

The financial crisis of 2008 (2007-2009?) was not that significant in large parts of the world. I was living in Finland, and many of my friends were graduating and finding jobs around that time. From our point of view, the crisis was something that happened mostly in the news and had little effect on the real world.

The depression in the early 1990s was another story. It may have hit Finland worse than the Great Depression in the 1930s.

2009? You mean right after the 2008 housing bubble burst and the recession set in?

And, I'd argue, when we saw social media and big tech start to lean towards ML/algorithm driven techniques for content curation.

At college my social feeds where friends and clubs I picked, by university 3-4 years later, Facebook et. al was feeding me a lot more other stuff intermixed with friends posts.

The trend didn’t recover unlike the recession. It only got worse.

"It affects girls far more". Don't far more young men kill themselves? How is this being measured? Seems more complicated than that.

My understanding is that young men are successful at killing themselves far more than young women, but young women attempt to kill themselves at higher rates than young men.

Compared with suicide statistics, suicide attempts are much harder to measure (and also sort of misleading). They classify 'serious suicide attempts' (SSA) as where there is serious intent of death (SSA is the real suicide attempt, everything else is suicidal behavior or a gesture). Where suicide attempts are reported, men are more likely to commit SSA's. Not all suicide attempts are reported... and there very well may be a difference between the proportion of reported male attempts versus female attempts. Likewise the classification of the attempt is often self-reported, again the accuracy could vary according to gender. We don't know, but I would guess men are less likely to report, and less likely to commit a 'gesture'.

Mental health as well is a moderately subjective matter, and there's no doubt that the self-reported aspect of mental health problems has been highly influenced by cultural and societal changes, like how the public perception of mental illness has changed over time. Likewise I'm sure men and women think differently about this, and I'm sure the societal expectations of men/women impact it as well. When we talk about mental health getting worse over time, or impacting women more, this is inherently imprecise.

But suicide is suicide: From 1981 to 2017 the male suicide rate per 100,000 in my country (the UK) has gone from 19.5 to 17.2. The female suicide rate has gone from 10.6 to 5.4. Mostly good news: the rate has gone down.

But the gap between men and women has increased, men have gone from roughly twice as likely to kill themselves to about three times as likely as women.

It's sad that even now concern about mental health only seems to get weight when phrased in a way that makes it sound like it's impacting women more, when one of the more concrete, key statistics clearly indicates it could be the other way around (and getting worse). This observation may very well be related to the disparity at this point.

I'm not denying that those issues all contribute to the problem.

However, teenagers had a terrible, rotten time during WWII - bombs on cites, constant threat of military service, parents and elder brothers killed in war, one's country being invaded, etc. yet on the whole most never suffered these mental health issues. The difference is striking

Somehow, they had stamina and resilience that today's teenagers don't have. Many of today's problems I believe go back to over-protection and mollycoddling of kids when they are very young. In the War years a kid was an independent agent by the time he or she was six.

Indeed but I think again information does have a role to play here. Back then everyone around you was going through the same shit and you learned to deal with it.

Now you have social media giving a constant reminder that you're not good enough and that you need to achieve more.

Conversely I do agree that there is a bit of a "learned helplessness" that I've noticed is a bit more prevalent in the younger generations, and I can't work out if that's a symptom or a cause.

Any complex system will have a bunch of feedback loops, so it’s likely both a symptom and a cause.

"I do agree that there is a bit of a "learned helplessness""

It's why I keep coming back to developing resilience in kids at an early age. Challenge them early on and they'll cope better later. As I keep repeating at every opportunity, I cannot overstate the extent to which this has changed for the worse since I was a kid.

Teenagers back then had more to look forward to. You work for some local company for three decades, then you retire, picking up a house somewhere in the process and are able to put your kids in college. Family members die, but who cares? Sure, it'll traumatize you, but it doesn't ruin your future. Not like that hasn't been happening consistently over the past few years with a pandemic.

Nowadays, what's anyone got to look forward to? Earlier today my favorite record label announced they were getting purchased by a bigger label, and a few months ago, my favorite way to purchase music got bought by a massive conglomerate that supports concentration camps in China. I am going to die without having seen upward economic mobility (in many ways being significantly poorer than my working-class parent). I avoided going to university since I didn't reasonably have a way to afford it, and was denied advancement in classes despite having test scores that indicated I could have performed well above where I was when I was in schooling.

If that's enough to bother me, a person who doesn't use any of these social platforms, what do you think it would do to a child of schooling age? They have nothing to look forward to. Their futures suck. Things kind of just suck. We have surrendered all control of society to a handful of parasitic corporations. People may not be dying of polio, but there's no longer hope to balance out the suffering. There's nothing to look forward to. You're going to die in the same spot as who came before you, if not worse.

I think we blame the social media too much and don't blame the fact that society is just miserable these days for any person not born into wealth.

People who were teens during WW2 would not have known these things. In their era people more often than not died before retirement. Many people had no pension. Most people did not go to college so they would only dream that someday they or their kids would. With their parents having lived through the Great Depression neither housing nor food were guaranteed. The time you’re thinking of is well past the war during the late 50s and 60s and even they had to deal with the threat of nuclear war and actual wars like Korea and Vietnam and yet they didn’t lose hope.

"well past the war during the late 50s and 60s and even they had to deal with the threat of nuclear war and actual wars like Korea and Vietnam and yet they didn’t lose hope."

Right, I remember that period well (see my comment below).

Social media can be blamed in the sense of giving people too much choice / competition and such, but yes, the key problem is people trying to tackle this from an angle which seeks to invalidate people's feelings rather than look if things are heading into the wrong direction.

Yes, war sucks. Famine sucks. All of that sucks and can make people just as hopeless. The premise is the same as the one now: people don't feel in power of their own future, incapable of getting what they want. A large crowd will immediately retaliate "but your demands are too high!" Really, most people's desires would've been considered pretty normal a few decades ago. Their parents and grandparents had an active role instilling those desires into them.

Here's a mental exercise for people. Imagine the following guarantees: A partner who won't leave you as long as you keep your stuff together and will actively support you (and expects the same in return, obviously). A home where you could raise a kid, maybe two, each with a separate, small bed room, a separate kitchen and a living + dining room combo. An average career (average salary, nothing too glorious). Life up to 75 and a retirement by age 60. You can fill in the specifics however you want. Most people in their 20s would be just fine having such a life.

The above used to be pretty easily attainable as long as you put in some effort before. Now, the above feels unattainable to a large degree of young adults. Even the ones who did exactly what their parents told them to, are noticeably ahead of their peers in terms of academics and career, and still struggle to get what their parents were able to at the bottom of the ladder, let alone what their gen X / boomer equivalent had. Teenagers are learning these things through both the news and the internet, and want none of it.

"Teenagers are learning these things through both the news and the internet, and want none of it."

I agree with what you're saying, I just wonder why kids of my generation had more resilience. It's not as if we weren't under constant stress for we were so.

I remember the Cuban Missile Crisis as if it were yesterday and wondering if I'd even exist the next day let alone be going to school. I also remember the constant threats of nuclear war. Week after week, month after month, our letterbox would get stuffed with pamphlets forecasting nuclear armageddon, they were usually printed in black and red with images of nuclear bombs exploding on the front.

There was a time in the early to mid 1960s when there seemed to be no future. If that weren't enough, by the time we were 15 or 16 or so we started to worry about the draft and the Vietnam War—that's before we had even left school. It's damn horrible when one's marble pops up in the draft, I can attest to that.

> I'm not denying that those issues all contribute to the problem.

> However, teenagers had a terrible, rotten time during WWII - bombs on cites, constant threat of military service, parents and elder brothers killed in war, one's country being invaded, etc. yet on the whole most never suffered these mental health issues. The difference is striking

> Somehow, they had stamina and resilience that today's teenagers don't have. Many of today's problems I believe go back to over-protection and mollycoddling of kids when they are very young. In the War years a kid was an independent agent by the time he or she was six.

There is a small problem. A survivor bias. You are only counting people that survived WW2. There were plenty of people that didn't survived, that didn't have stamina to do it, that were mentally ill(by itself was a reason for forced euthanasia). People that couldn't deal with the situation, couldn't do anything and just died, one way or another. And yes people committed suicides during WW2. Now we have something called suicide by cops. Just think how much easier it was when you were explicitly hunted.vOr people that outright killed themselves. In the end you only count bullet holes on planes that did return, not ones that failed to do so.

I don't deny any of that either. These matters are complex and I cannot reasonably argue them here without discussing other factors in detail such as changes in life expectancy over the past century, the more fatalistic approach to life pre-war (big families meant survival insurance, pre-penicillin times meant many more [expected] deaths in childhood, harder times financially, etc. etc. The whole social milieu was different.

Let me say just this: when I was growing up in the 1950s and '60s what I said above wasn't quite 'dead' yet as my childhood was pretty much similar to that—and it was often damn hard times back then (moreover, from where I came from it was so for many of the kids my age, I was no exception). Several weeks ago I gave an account of my own childhood on the HN story Old Enough: the Japanese TV show that abandons toddlers on public transport and there's no doubt that by age six I was an independent agent— that is, walking miles to school across busy roads by myself at that age and so on: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30951723#30953588. We had to be more resilient just to survive—and we were.

The fact is I'm old enough to have witnessed these changes firsthand. Leaving aside the reasons (which, no doubt, will be argued about for years to come), there is no doubt that mental health issues among the young have increased substantially in recent decades.

Edit: Incidentally, during my teenage years I cannot ever recall any mention of childhood or teenage suicide. No doubt it happened, but even the concept thereof would have been anathema to us kids back then.

>I don't deny any of that either. These matters are complex and I cannot reasonably argue them here without discussing other factors in detail such as changes in life expectancy over the past century, the more fatalistic approach to life pre-war (big families meant survival insurance, pre-penicillin times meant many more [expected] deaths in childhood, harder times financially, etc. etc. The whole social milieu was different.

My grandmas two sisters died before they even reached 16, but I don't know if it was before or after war. Some respiratory system infection. It what just happened to people. Especially if you were poor and lived in rural area.

>Let me say just this: when I was growing up in the 1950s and '60s what I said above wasn't quite 'dead' yet as my childhood was pretty much similar to that—and it was often damn hard times back then (moreover, from where I came from it was so for many of the kids my age, I was no exception). Several weeks ago I gave an account of my own childhood on the HN story Old Enough: the Japanese TV show that abandons toddlers on public transport and there's no doubt that by age six I was an independent agent— that is, walking miles to school across busy roads by myself at that age and so on: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30951723#30953588. We had to be more resilient just to survive—and we were.

When I was in pre-school I had to go by myself to it, but it was a rural area. Forests, farmlands and so. But my friends from city, have similar experience(but with less forests and farmlands, but with more cars, streets and public transport). No one was taking kids to school by car, because parents had to go to work early while kids had to start school at 8am. We survived it. But I was, afraid of shadows kind of child. Sometimes on my way I had panic attacks, but I was alone and either I could go back home(not an option) or continue on my way to school. So I went to school every day.

>The fact is I'm old enough to have witnessed these changes firsthand. Leaving aside the reasons (which, no doubt, will be argued about for years to come), there is no doubt that mental health issues among the young have increased substantially in recent decades.

>Edit: Incidentally, during my teenage years I cannot ever recall any mention of childhood or teenage suicide. No doubt it happened, but even the concept thereof would have been anathema to us kids back then.

If you weren't part of family or right circle of friends you just didn't learn about stuff like that. There were negative consequences of other people knowing if someone committed suicide, was mentally ill, was gay. My grandfather committed suicide, but I only learned about it in my thirties and someone accidentally mentioned it. I was part of family and still didn't know about it. Back then Catholic church had problems with burying suicide victims on consecrated cemetery.

What I'm also afraid of, is possibility that with all the chemicals that finds its way into drinking water, we might poison ourselfs and our children literally out of our minds. I should learn more it, but I'm afraid it might be too late to do anything about it.

I think WWII could actually be quite a fun time to be alive for young people on the home front in the UK (and maybe N America). They had much more social freedom, often worked in groups with other young people, and had a sense of purpose, unity and camaraderie. The future was uncertain, but their own role was much clearer. And rationing even meant that people were getting fed properly.

The modern world is brilliant at creating a constant sense of insecurity. That is often artificial but feels real. Your place is society and in the group is always insecure and shifting. Maybe kids are mollycoddled, but you have to wonder why people are driven to do that. Why do the richest most stable countries feels so insecure?

" Why do the richest most stable countries feels so insecure?"

This is the question I keep asking myself. There seems to any number of answers but I'm not sure we've any definitive ones as yet. If we had then we ought to be able to do something about it. Perhaps the uncertainty of not knowing is the cause.

I think it’s partially unresolved cognitive dissonance between rhetoric and reality - “you can do / be anything you want” (which is true in theory, but not so much in practice).

The “happiest” societies - the Nordics - are rated that way because they start out with low expectations.

Happiness is a measure of the delta between expectation and reality. When that delta is negative, mental health crises ensue.

"I think it’s partially unresolved cognitive dissonance between rhetoric and reality..."

I'm almost certain you're right, cognitive dissonance is a key disrupting factor in many of our lives. Not only is there so much more information for people to process these days but much of it conflicted in ways that doesn't allow one to come to definitive conclusions.

As you say, 'happiness is a measure of the delta between expectation and reality' and in this regard we've seen better outcomes in societies where expectations are low.

I remain pessimistic about us being able to resolve this in the modern world as everything around us conspires to make one's expectations as high as possible. Essentially, our whole economic system is geared to making us believe that the more stuff and junk we accumulate the happier we'll be.

I see no easy or practical way of breaking this circular problem. Year by year, advertising and commercialism gets more intense and the problem only gets worse - moreover, technologies such as the internet have only made matters worse.

Promoting these high expectations is now of itself a huge part of the economy that if undone would alone cause hardships. One only has to look at Google and Amazon to realize that.

It's really all very depressing.

> "Why do the richest most stable countries feels so insecure?"

Are you referring to only USA/Canada?

I don't feel so much sense of hopelesness or insecurity in Germany.

I'm not speaking for 7952 but I'd say it's rather commonplace in most if not all anglophone countries. I'm in Australia and there's a sense of insecurity here but it's not as pronounced as in the US. Having worked in the US as well as Europe including Germany and Austria (living in Vienna) my observation backs up your comment (albeit that info is a bit dated now).

I could offer reasons as to why but they'd only be educated guesses. It's a big problem so some definitive data would be very helpful/useful.

Consider the possibility that this perspective might be less a reflection of reality and more a reflection of the media environment.

Does that make it any less true though? It causes people to change how they act. Political activism among youth seems to be quite high. Perhaps for the better.

>Does that make it any less true though?

No, but it is an important distinction if you want to look for solutions, either socially or as a parent.

> Political activism among youth seems to be quite high. Perhaps for the better.

Or sometimes for the worse. I can see how engagement in politics or disengagement from politics could both negatively impact mental health. Personally, I found it very difficult to “be on Facebook” and watch friends and family politicize. I can see how political engagement can be a coping mechanism but I can also see how it can be a source of psychological toxicity.

Modern politics is the epitome of toxic, getting angry about things you have almost no control over whatsoever. Imagine spending so much of your life and mental energy trying to change the unchangeable.

A lot of that list is pure fact:

Multiple major recessions —> 2008 was biggest since 1929. Dunno about multiple

a global pandemic —> this happened and is still happening

rising inflation —> objectively true. Though I suspect the oncoming recession will quash it as in 2008

housing and education getting more expensive by the day —> huge house and education price increases in past decade, far outstripping inflation

prospect of a mountain of debt right after graduation —> student loan debt more than doubled in last decade

climate that will be unlivable in a few decades —> debateable but CO2 is rising fast and we are already logging effects. Will accelerate within 30 years without geoengineering or carbon zero + sequestering

political extremism becoming the norm —> It definitely increased on both sides

and massive government gridlock that has made fixing any of this impossible —> Age old complaint, but filibusters did increase

Which do you think are just products of the media?

I’m more optimistic than OP but I don’t think the list is wrong

> Which do you think are just products of the media?

A lot of them.

The '08 recession happened when most teenagers were in elementary school. The economy has thoroughly recovered the last several years leading up to COVID.

Mountains of debt after graduating, is only an issue if you plan to go to college. A lot more teenagers are realizing the scam and predation that a university education is unless you've got a serious shot trying to be a doctor or a lawyer. Trades will perform better on average than most non professional fields.

Climate becoming unlivable (for Americans, important caveat). Estimates for climate refugees are ~200 million over the next century even in pessimistic cases, and few of those would be among Americans. The bulk are concentrated in arid or equatorial countries. Which, to be clear, is a massive injustice since those countries are bearing the biggest brunt of climate change while other countries reaped most of the rewards of fossil fuels. But the idea large swaths if the American population is living somewhere that will become unlivable in the next few decades is misinformation.

What do you think where those 200 million will flee to? Certainly not other arid or equatorial countries.

Now that's moving the goalposts from the notion that Americans should be worried that their own home will become inhospitable, and that it will happen to some other region. Remember, this document is about American teens.

And regardless, no, that shouldn't be cause for dread either. Those 200 million estimated refugees are spread out both geographically across the globe and across a century time-wise. There's 45 million immigrants living in the US currently. Even if half come to the US, it's hardly an apocalyptic levels of immigration.

I'm concerned because I remember what a relatively low number of refugees did to European politics over the last couple of years.

I am not sure of the causal relationship.

Did the refugees cause the politics, or were they used by politicians seeking a convenient non-voting Other they could demonise relatively safely?

I recognise my still-limited grasp of the German langue prevents me looking too closely at the politics of Germany, but I never had an impression since moving here that even a million caused significant real issues.

I lived my teen years in a collapsing post-communist economy, with hyperinflation (the kind that can add 4 zeros to prices in a span of a few years), massive unemployment and deep real-wage reduction. My mother struggled with a minimum wage that translated to about 80 dollars and two children, well bellow the absolute poverty line, and my father was mostly absent. In my high school and first year at the university, there were frequent days were I had almost nothing to eat at home and most days I had no cash at all, not even to buy a bread roll or pay for some copies of lecture material - so I copied them by hand. Wore the same clothes for years, passed down from my elder brother.

To put it in perspective, the political polarization around me was leading people to violence orders of magnitude larger than the events of January 6, with multiple governments toppled by angry crowds, inter-ethnic violence, workplace harassments of dissenters. Don't even start me on the state of the environment.

Yet, when I look back, my teen memories are not about poverty, hunger or political turbulence. That was just the way things were, we adapted. I had my ragtag crew in which I was accepted. We just didn't care about politics or the environment all that much.

The most vivid good or bad memories that I hold all have to do with social interaction, acceptance or rejection and public humiliation. We certainly didn't exhibit, as a generation, the signs of a mental disease epidemic, the fist time I heard about a suicide in my age cohort was of a fellow student in the later years at one of most competitive universities in the country.

Don't get me wrong, this economic enviroment devastated adults, and we had some of the highest levels of suicide and alcoholism in the world. But it just didn't affect us teens specifically, because we had no earlier reference to how things were supposed to be.

I think a lot of the problem is that folks who are actually in the situation do end up dealing with it better because they mostly don't have time to think about it.

The folks we're talking about are mostly on the precipice of something terrible happening, but they're still mostly secure enough to not be directly affected, but they definitely feel like it's coming right for em.

Maybe you would have felt the same if you were just a few years younger at the time? i dunno.

That's dangerous. I too live in a post-soc country, and most of my friends have immigrated. Why adapt and cope with hostile environments when you can have a better life?

In the worst case, you gulp down the sad facts of life and still reproduce. And I don't understand how poor people in poor countries can raise kids knowing they are critically underperforming parents.

I actually agree. I’m not sure the political milieu is what is causing malaise.

But I take issue with describing the list above as pure media reality.

Thanks for posting your experience!

> political extremism becoming the norm —> It definitely increased on both sides

Recent generations have seen multiple political assassinations and bombings. When was the last time you saw a fire hose and dogs used to clear protestors?

Tribalism is on the rise, extremism and violence are not.

For example G20 in Hamburg, a couple of years ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAtZThq2BLw.

But I don't think this is the kind of extremism they meant. There is a worrying trend, especially in the US, to try and block whatever the other side is doing, just because it's the other side that's doing it. People retreat into their filter bubbles and have increasingly less contact to real people with differing opinions. The divide between urban and rural opinions is steadily growing.

>climate that will be unlivable in a few decades

These absurd scaremongering predictions do more harm for the climate change movement than good. If you’re over 30 you’ve already lived through this threats twice and it’s beginning to get tiresome. These exaggerated doomsday predictions just give ammunition to deniers because you never set them far enough in the future it’s always “just 20 more years guys…”

The testimony is citing a rise in self-harm and mood disorders in people aged 11-15 between 2009 and 2015. There was not yet a pandemic or inflation and houses were actually reasonably affordable for a while after the market crash. There actually was a recession in 1991 when I was 11, yet somehow I have no memory of being aware of that or ever thinking about it. This is the bigger point about media culpability. If 11 year-olds are really concerned about these things now, why is that? Seemingly, it might have something to do with the 24/7 algorithmic doom scroll feeds they're consuming that didn't exist in 1991. Typically, the starting point for when cooperation broke down and political polarization started dovetailing in the US are the Bork confirmation hearing and Newt Gingrich becoming speaker of the House, both of which happened when I was about these ages, yet again, I was not aware of it back then. The world has always had major issues, but these just were not things that concerned very many 11 year-olds until pretty recently.

All internet-powered depression. I am not saying the issues you list aren't real, but the need to doomscroll through these issues on the daily is not necessary.

Ukraine was that for me. Put me in a huge helpless funk and I could not stop reading or thinking about it. Then I realized I had to stop checking in everyday. It may sound heartless, and of course I am still aware that the war is still going on and people are still dying, but I really believe focusing on things I can actually control in my life is one what to feel empowered and to improve my mood. Focusing on all of the various global tragedies that I can do nothing about is the fast track to depression.

>>a mountain of debt right after graduation

Average debt upon graduation is approx. $31K, less than the cost of a mid-grade car.

I would not call that 'a mountain', and unlike a car which will rapidly depreciate in a very short amount of time, getting a decent college degree will pay dividends throughout your life in increased earnings power.

According to govt estimates, the average lifetime earnings difference between someone with just a high-school diploma, and someone with a college degree is - on average $550,000.

A $550,000 improvement in lifetime earnings in exchange for $31K in debt, seems like one of the best investments you can make.

> A $550,000 improvement in lifetime earnings in exchange for $31K in debt, seems like one of the best investments you can make.

Not when you're not even sure of being able to pay back those $31K+interests afterwards.

>>Not when you're not even sure of being able to pay back those $31K+interests afterwards.

If you went to college for 4 years, and didn't improve you situation enough to afford a few hundred dollars a month in debt, then you chose poorly.

At the same time, if college is able to improve your situation, you have already chosen poorly. Given that the typical college grad is well into their 20s, often older and almost never younger, that is incredibly late in life to be just starting to think about improving one's situation. Smart money has it figured out long before that time. The time value of money does not favour those who delay.

Thats like 200-250 a month. Unless you get a minimum wage job you are fine.

> and unlike a car which will rapidly depreciate in a very short amount of time

If you think a car rapidly depreciates, try reselling your degree. You might be in for a shock.

Winner: The car.

> getting a decent college degree will pay dividends throughout your life in increased earnings power.

The data says otherwise. Wages have held stagnant through the rise of post-secondary schooling. You can't both have increased earning power and stagnant earning power.

The earning power of not being limited to a physically close job that a car affords did show some upward wage movement, however. There was clear wage growth seen during the rise of the automobile.

Winner: The car.

> According to govt estimates, the average lifetime earnings difference between someone with just a high-school diploma, and someone with a college degree is - on average $550,000.

Ouch. The opportunity cost of a four year degree is, on average, more than a million dollars. That's a nasty haircut.

And that's ignoring that your methodology is flawed. We know that different people are different. Of course the person with down syndrome, who just scraped by in high school and struggles in the workplace for the same reason, is going to have lower earning potential than the person who breezed through their studies at Stanford. These people are not comparable.

Which is why you actually want to compare people over time. Using a time vector maintains the spectrum of people from high functioning to low functioning. Over time, as more and more have attained degrees, incomes have held stagnant. There has actually been no economic benefit gained.

>>try reselling your degree.

Why would you sell your degree?

>>The data says otherwise

No it doesn't - stop making stuff up

but it sounds like in your case, you are not well suited for college - you should buy a car instead. Uber is always looking for drivers.

> Why would you sell your degree?

The same reason you would sell your car: To try and recoup the cost that you sunk into it, to repurpose and hopefully find productive use for the capital. The trouble you will run into with the degree, with it quickly depreciating to having no remaining value as soon as you drive it off the lot, is that nobody will want to buy it from you. The car will retain at least some value with its much longer depreciation cycle and ultimately scrap value.

You sell your degree by selling your time for a higher rate, because it is generally more useful than the time that the less-educated would be selling.

While the data shows that wages stagnated through the rise of post-secondary schooling, proving that time has not been sold at a higher rate, there is some underlying merit to your theory...

Cars being the prime example. Wages were not stagnant through the rise of the automobile. People were able to sell their time at a higher rate by being able to travel further to where the higher paying work was found. Wage gains only started to taper off once car ownership reached critical mass, providing no additional market advantage.

So, yes, you are quite right that most people buy a car because it is the vehicle that gets to higher paying work, justifying the high cost of ownership. However, that is separate to our discussion about recouping the cost when you sell it. Both a degree and a car depreciate, but the degree dramatically faster.

I think as an adult, I can surf social media, chuckle at the bizarre opinions, recognize when someone is lashing out and see the teenage angst for what it is.

But I also know social media is not representative of the population. Maybe 1-2% of people make up 90%+ of the content.

It’s also a place where lonely and depressed people can go and feel heard and commiserate.

Teenagers don’t have the life experience to know that and have their own life direction and purpose to keep them occupied.

Teenage years are a struggle for everyone, so I can only imagine how hard they must be when a social media echo chamber reinforces the futility of it all.

It has literally been the best economic and social time for people over the last 70 years. People live longer, we have far more wealth, we haven't had a global conflict in forever, etc.

So much of what we fill kids' heads with today is crap. There's no reason to be freaking out about the climate. Politics have always been divisive and "extreme" but there's a lot of examples of way more chaotic things in the not so distant past. Europe was in non-stop war with each other for hundreds of years until 1945 for example. The USA is no where near a civil war.

They are inheriting a great world but an imperfect world. Every generation has. Every generation has had problems to solve.

People with attitudes like yours who are misanthropic and depressed and may need help that are the problem. If you're miserable, find a way not to be. Stop trying to share it with everyone else.

I don’t think these are the factors directly affecting teens. The thing that does directly affect them is the media both social and legacy telling them these things over and over. Consider that many people grew up during the Cold War when we were constantly 10 minutes away from nuclear armageddon. The difference is that we now have 24 hour news and are saturated with messaging on social media. The other weird twist is the idea that we are all “powerless to do anything” that’s not true in general and especially not for young people with their entire lives ahead of them. If you have time and motivation you can change the world. The biggest challenge is blocking out all the noise telling you it’s hopeless.

> political extremism

Completely agree. Also, there's the fact that we tell children to "act like adults", like it meant being civilized, educated, and kind to each other; but it's not hard to see that some significant segment of adults are rage-spouting, ear-covering person-children when it comes to discourse.

Maybe we need to train ourselves and the next generation on how maintain civility in engagement-driven platforms that reward incendiary interactions.

That may be the best long-term solution... but I'm not sure what can be done when some people with opposing views can't argue in good faith right now.

Imagine you were born in 1900.

When you're 14, World War I begins and ends when you're 18 with 22 million dead.

Soon after a global pandemic, the Spanish Flu, appears, killing 50 million people. And you're alive and 20 years old.

When you're 29 you survive the global economic crisis that started with the collapse of the New York Stock Exchange, causing inflation, unemployment and famine.

When you're 33 years old the nazis come to power.

When you're 39, World War II begins and ends when you're 45 years old with a 60 million dead. In the Holocaust 6 million Jews die.

When you're 52, the Korean War begins. When you're 64, the Vietnam War begins and ends when you're 75.

A child born in 1985 thinks his grandparents have no idea how difficult life is, but they have survived several wars and catastrophes.

--Quoted from somewhere

A child born in the 80s is lucky to still have living parents today, and if they have living grandparents they were probably reluctant to speak to the child during the years both could understand the conversation.

Also I don't think those dates quite line up. A better estimate is the range of 20 to 33 (ish) years for most families (I personally would like to hope some start later but kind of doubt this offhand...)

Between 1900 and 2020 that's anywhere from 6 to about 3 different generations, with different windows of experience overlap.

> A child born in the 80s is lucky to still have living parents toda

Average age of the parents at birth in 1980 was around 26-27 years, life expectancy at birth for 1953 is around 74 (men) and 77 (women); even using expectancy at birth instead of life expectancy at 26-27, an average-age parent of a child born in 1980 would be expected, on average, to live into about the late 2020s. And that just gets later for people born later in the 1980s.

> A child born in the 80s is lucky to still have living parents today

Wut?!

Born in 1966 here, still have living parents. Ditto for my wife. Where do you live that parents are lucky to make it past their sixties? And where grandparents shun their grandkiddies? Such bizarre claims!

> And where grandparents shun their grandkiddies?

Grandparents who went through wars dont talk much about ugly details of those with their small grandchildren. Instead, they try to protect kids from those. If they talk about those, they wait till kids are adult and even then they talk about it only if it is relevant to something.

In addition, generations that went through wars seem to generally not to talk about it much with others. That seems fairly universal - ex-solders tend to feel that non-soldiers dont understand their experience. They have hard time to put experience into words that non-soldiers do understand.

> Born in 1966 here, still have living parents.

That is cool. My dad is death and I am younger. Not everyone lives till 80.

To counter your anecdata with mine:

Born in 1982, lost the last remaining grandparent when I was 12. Lost my father five years ago, luckily my mother is still in good health.

Was going to post something like this. Agreed. They have 0 perspective.

Times are certainly tough at different points in history, but they are extremely mentally and emotionally taxing right now and we keep hitting new peaks. We continue to accelerate the destruction of the earth and yet nothing is being done about it. When the everyday person is obsessed with EV cars instead of composting and planting native plants in their yard instead of wastelands of homogeneous lawns and committing genocide against insects and other animals in their yard, it becomes extremely demoralizing.

People don't do anything useful about anything now, and I think that is the most depressing of all. There's rabble about stuff on social media, politicians don't do anything but move the U.S. more towards and oligarchy, and corporations keep selling us stuff to consume, which consumers then lap up.

The Internet is the single most divisive technology ever created by humanity, and it does nothing but distance us from one another. There's never been greater threats to humanity than the Internet and its woes and the already arrived environmental and climate crisis.

That's not even considering the deep financial stress people are under these days. Even just 30 years ago, my parents bought a lot and built a house for $100,000. That barely covers tuition at most universities, and a similar sized house now costs around $1,000,000 just to buy. Just as recent as the late 90s and early 2000s, gas was under a dollar. We're sitting at $4.50 now. People can't afford the number of kids people used to have and must delay even having one or two kids well into their 30s, often due to financial constraints. Minimum wage has barely doubled since my teenage years, and yet everything is exponentially more expensive. Then there is the onslaught of several other socioeconomic factors.

People, aside from the wealthy, are getting slammed from literally every direction, and there is no concerted effort to improve any of it. It's not hard to understand why people are depressed more than ever.

Massive issue here is that I did not seen anyone say "grand-grandparents had it easy". Especially not, I have not seen anyone in places affected with above say that. What I have seen is American 20-40 years old saying boomers had it easier. Boomers were not affected by any of the above, they were born after WWII.

If you was born in 1900, you would be 122 years old now.

1950's - Korean war (either boomer or their parents), Berlin wall

1960's - Vietnam War draft, terrorist bombings in the US, race riots, Cuba missile crisis, ramping up the cold war

1970's - Oil embargo, massive (stag)-flation, "general malaise"

1980's - Recession, airline hijackings, multiple mid-East wars

1990's - Gulf war, another recession, leading up to massive tech bubble and crash

If you want to be stressed and disillusioned, there has never been a lack of options.

And here, you assume everyone was affected by all of those ... which is unlikely. For overwhelming majority of people, multiple of these are happening in distant places and don't affect them all that much.

Riots? Recessions? Threat of nuclear war? Threat of being drafted?

You’re kidding right? For someone growing up during that time those threats are as severe or more than those today.

Just posted something quite similar to this. Something I would really add here is what those numbers mean in terms of global %, or scaled to modern times. The WW2 death toll is also understated, and closer to 80 million.

But that really hits home when you start to consider that in 1939 the world population was around 2.3 billion. So those 80 million deaths would be 275 million scaled to current population, primarily among the youth and those in the prime of their lives.

The thing that's exceptional in contemporary times is not how bad things are, but rather how unimaginably good things were during the bubble of time most of us grew up in. And we seemingly took that extreme outlier in the history of humanity for granted.

I think you're probably just projecting your own anxieties onto teens. It's been a while since I've been in touch with my teenage side, but what I remember people being stressed about was school work, family issues, bad dating experiences, bullying and all around bad social experiences, etc. The people who actually paid attention to politics were usually smart and well-adjusted.

As a side note, your list seems highly exaggerated. I understand climate change is serious, but where is anyone saying it will be unlivable within decades?

> Climate change is causing distress, anger and other negative emotions in children and young people worldwide, a survey of thousands of 16- to 25-year-olds has found.

> The results, released in a preprint on 14 September1, found that most respondents were concerned about climate change, with nearly 60% saying they felt ‘very worried’ or ‘extremely worried’. Many associated negative emotions with climate change — the most commonly chosen were ‘sad’, ‘afraid’, ‘anxious’, ‘angry’ and ‘powerless’ (see ‘Climate anxiety’). Overall, 45% of participants said their feelings about climate change impacted their daily lives.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02582-8

You’re describing basically any period of time since the turn of the century. Maybe before too. You’re also describing problems that adults worry about, not teenagers.

It’s a fallacy to think that we’re living in “extraordinary” times relative to the past.

Wars, pandemics, economic cycles, political instability, etc are not new phenomenon by any stretch of the imagination.

For teenagers in the 60s it was perfectly plausible that their entire school, neighborhood, town, city could be engulfed in a mushroom cloud at any moment, for example.

Consider the following social problem: Society demands a minimum standard of living. Whether that minimum standard of living is forced upon you against your will or whether you agree to it, the problem is that you must be "productive enough" to earn the minimum standard of living yourself. That minimum standard of living appears to grow faster than the opportunities/abilities to meet the minimum standard of living.

In fact, the whole housing problem can be described as forcing a high standard of living upon people through zoning (single family buildings only for example) and it often is against the will of newcomers. The standard of living may be considered desirable but it may not be sustainable for everyone.

The same applies to college. It is better if you go, but it shouldn't hurt if you don't. Somehow it hurts a lot and you are worse off than before even though your actual productivity is the same.

I don't know. Maybe we should call it the productivity paradox (the Solow paradox is poorly named because it isn't even a paradox), because the problem here is that an increase in productivity does not necessarily lead to more wealth for everyone, in fact, it can actually lead to concentration of wealth and therefore be a net reduction of wealth for a big portion of the population.

One of the reasons why the "economy must grow" (every year) is that we concentrate all the unemployment at the bottom of society and all the jobs at the top of society, leading to inequality and eventually unrest. If this misallocation were to be stopped then the productivity paradox would be resolved.

"Teens are aware that they are going to inherit a pretty terrible world, and are powerless to do anything about it."

Terrible compared to what? Rebuilding after a world war? Subsistence farming? How did those previous generations manage to maintain their mental health? The difference is that these days people spend their time looking at lies on social media, then measure the world's shortcomings in comparison to those lies.

> Teens are aware that they are going to inherit a pretty terrible world, and are powerless to do anything about it.

I don't mean to come across as snarky, but there is a lot to unpack in this statement. First, you inherit something that your parents or guardians own, and the world is definitely not owned by them. Second, why feel powerless if they are actually going to inherit something? They can always fix it after they take control. Again, I am not being mean, but just showing how you can think of this from a different angle.

Now let's circle back to the issue of social media. Kids who are tuned in to social media are going to constantly hear exaggerated claims of gloom and doom, and that would numb their senses. This prevents them from focusing on the present and all the things that you build for yourself are in the present.

The point is -- no matter how you frame it, the information overload is taking its toll on everybody who is exposed, not just teens.

> They can always fix it after they take control.

The oil cannot be unburnt. The glaciers cannot be refrozen. The species cannot be made unextinct. At least not in any human lifespan.

That stuff has no effect on the future lives of these teens. It's not as if they were ever going to see those obscure Amazon insects anyway. We don't have dodo's anymore but we're happy.

I'd say they falsely fear that it will cause them great harm. I know a teen who was genuinely afraid of climate change as if she would drown in the rising sea or something like that. I think there's a lot of exaggerated apocalyptic fearmongering harming them.

Climate change already has a marked effect on the present lives of these teens (larger and more numerous forest fires, draughts, hurricanes and heatwaves).

I would also like to point out that your insinuation that mostly "obscure Amazon insects" face extinction is false and misleading.

Even by your contrived standard of "would you see them?" the extinctions will be remarkable. The world's coral reefs are visited and seen by almost 70 million tourists each year. Over half the reefs are already dead, and 90% of all reefs are estimated to be lost in less than 30 years. Of course the ecological disaster of losing the reefs will be worse than the lost sights. This is just a single example.

>First, you inherit something that your parents or guardians own, and the world is definitely not owned by them.

It's a figure of speech.

> Teens are aware that they are going to inherit a pretty terrible world, and are powerless to do anything about it.

Maybe this is the actual problem. Teens are being told the world is terrible by pessimists when there truly hasn’t been a better time to be alive.

The world is amazing and beautiful. Of course there are atrocities, there always are, but the developed world is living a pretty amazing life. Even the poor relatively speaking.

Teens only thing they are going to inherit a terrible world because adults (and media) tell them the world is terrible. Stop the nonsense negativity and give the youth confidence to solve some of the harder problems humans face.

If someone lives a sad life and projects that on to the youth then that person is the problem. Kids are incredibly impressionable and impressing them with your knowledge about atrocities in the world does no good for their psychie

I really doubt that, in my subjective experience the average person doesn't care about any of those issues enough to be depressive about them and certainly not enough to commit suicide over climate change or political extremism. Gen Z kids aren't nearly as "political" as the millennials working in media want them to be. The average teenager doesn't care about affording a house or the political climate, I think you (and a lot of others) are projecting a lot of your own fears onto them. It's also worth noting that the US is not the whole world, there are European countries which deal with the same mental health crisis in teenagers despite being a safe haven even in the worst climate change scenarios and have a quite stable political situation.

Consider the early 20th century. Some ostensibly irrelevant political figure was assassinated which rapidly spiraled into the "war to end all wars" in which about 20 million people were killed, in a world population of 1.7 billion - so more than 1% of people. In relatively short order this led to the Great Depression in which over 10 years the global economy collapsed leading to mass suicide, starvation, and disorder.

And we were just warming up. After that it turns out that the war to end all wars was just the pregame show. An eccentric vegetarian artist with a knack for riling up crowds decided to declare a literal genocidal war on the world, and for some time it looked very much like he was going to win. It only ended after another 80 million deaths (about 3% of the world population this time), the deployment of nuclear weapons, and countless war crimes.

And then? Decades of people got to live in the great times where every day there was a real and legitimate concern of imminent nuclear war (which did nearly blast off multiple times) to the point that nuclear drills were a part of the classroom, and people building their own nuclear doomsday bunkers was not only not eccentric but just plain ole pragmatism.

The point of this is not just to emphasize that the past was unimaginably and exponentially worse than the present in every imaginable way, but rather that there was no widespread mental health collapse. And there was no "shielding" kids from anything, when the world was literally burning in front of their eyes. So clearly something has changed, and it's not just that things have just gotten bad or that people are now uniquely aware of that. I have my own hypothesis, but this post is already too long. I'll conclude with a song which this post reminded me of:

Song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFTLKWw542g

Lyrics: https://www.musixmatch.com/lyrics/Billy-Joel/We-Didn-t-Start...

Meaning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Didn%27t_Start_the_Fire#His...

> The point of this is not just to emphasize that the past was unimaginably and exponentially worse than the present in every imaginable way, but rather that there was no widespread mental health collapse.

I think there might have been, it just took different forms. For one thing, alcoholism and wife abuse (beating) was absolutely rampant in those times. These are not signs of mentally healthy individuals...

They also had an influenca pandemic to deal with.

History tends to repeat itself and there have been many, many situations much worse than what we have experienced due to poor hygiene, health, inequality in wealth and so on. Kids working in factories from young ages just to make a couple of pennies for a loaf of bread, then being beaten at home and school.

It almost feels like people are completely unaware of various pandemics that wiped out millions, trial by fire and witch hunts and so on. Better yet, the economy has never been better compared to many previous years in the last century and more.

The only major difference has been the advent of social media.

But is this econony better for everyone, or just for some? In my city apartmenrs bought en masse by headgefunds, and developers trying to sell 7m2 cages as "microapartments" as most people are unable to buy a normal one. So perspective may be different, because housing market is booming, but most people won't buy an apartment.

Teens are worried about inflation? I think these comments just show how out of touch people are with kids

It reminds me of that Marilyn Manson quote;

>Michael Moore : If you were to talk directly to the kids at Columbine or the people in that community, what would you say to them if they were here right now?

>Marilyn Manson : I wouldn't say a single word to them. I would listen to what they have to say, and that's what no one did.

The same adults that resonated with, once again grow up and don't listen to the kids

I don’t know, I see girls obsessing over their image, grown women obsessing over their image, selfies taken everywhere all the time just to show one’s face…

selfies taken everywhere all the time just to show one’s face…

Ironically, most selfies don't (accurately) show one's face. Digitally "enhancing" photos is the norm now, so much so that most selfies have become caricatures to me.

The world is pretty awesome. Imagine the technology our ancestors could never dream of that is now in our hands everyday.

The reason you think of the terrible place is because you've been brainwashed to think so. Social media and the news constantly tells you only bad things.

But if you actually step outside, you'll realize the world is an amazing place.

Who cares about recessions, inflation and political whatever when they are teenagers? That's all just meaningless boring bullshit old farts in the TVs mumble, isn't it how do you perceive these subjects when you are a teenager?

You are talking about millenias and not teen. Most of us where 20 when 2008 happend and then the eurocrises…. Jobs ate getting worse paid in releation to inflation … and and and and … wait till teens are late 20s then they are fucked

As others have noted, this isn't unique to the current times. And as someone who only recently finished being a teenager, I think the issue is primarily social media, especially for girls. The reason is because social media is communication and socialization. They are vital things for almost all teenagers because human beings are social creatures, and at this stage of life particularly, independence is developing, you are learning to become more of an individual and so on. In previous times you might get together after school at a park or whatever because you didn't have a phone, but these days everything is done on social media.

You are judged before you meet someone by your social media page. You can't know everything about a person before meeting them, or really without being a good friend of theirs, so social media becomes a proxy for this, and not a particularly good one because you put what you want on it and thus teenagers try to game it in various ways (for example only posting holiday pics to show how glamorous your life is).

It becomes a race towards the bottom in so many ways and in particular for girls, because so much value is placed on physical appearance (either by others or by the girls themselves) and how 'cool' are you and thus it makes you constantly compare and judge yourself with others. It is no surprise that teenage mental health is plummeting when a lot of time is spent on social media, it constitutes a large part of the status game, and there is no reasonable alternative. This is why I think it's a sole factor because I can imagine you would have the same problem even if you took away other economic/political/environmental problems.

Not to say those also don't have an effect, because they obviously do, but unlike those other things, every teenager wants friends, everyone wants a social life, it's not something only half of them know and the other half don't know much about because they read it on the news or learnt about it from school, it's something that affects every single one of them every single day. You cannot escape from it.

Surprisingly despite being a guy I don't know many guys with mental health issues, maybe they don't want to talk about it to other guys, maybe I am not close enough with them, but most girls I know do have mental health issues, and every single one of them (n~=50), literally without exception, has self esteem and body image issues. And it worries me, a lot, because how can we have it that 50% of the population suffers like this every day for years on end and nothing changes? What will the end result be?

Imagine being a young person faced with climate change, it’s not cool.

The same could be said of teens over a decade ago lol.

Americans really live in their own big bubble don't they - how can there be such ignorance of the rest of the planet.

Terrible world? Are you kidding me? Try being born literally anywhere else at literally any other time in the world. The rest of the world isn't fucking Sweden.

Count your blessings. There are literally billions who would give up their first born for the "terrible world" you just described. Kids in the congo aren't having meltdowns pretending they have tourettes like spoiled American kids of the self-esteem experiment.

The view they'll inherit a terrible world is exactly the problem and it's completely false. The problem with social media is that it's a powerful tool of propaganda for views like yours. The hidden goal of this propaganda is of course just to gain political support and steal even more money from the people with increased taxes.

- The climate won't be un-livable in a few decades.

- Major recessions did impact work prospects but people in developed nations still had food on the table. Nothing too terrible. You can thank government intervention (see below) for fiddling with the market.

- The pandemic was concerning only because of government propaganda and because of how governments treated it (see below).

- Nobody force kids to graduate with debt.

- Political extremism is again a function of propaganda.

In general for any government related problem there is a solution - moving abroad and going where you're treated best.

There will always be countries in a different stage where things are cheaper and easier to fix compared to the Western world - and on that I agree with you, current governments and politicians make it impossible to fix the situation and we're doomed to increase spending and inequality until society collapse.

Sure, there are problems, but nothing you can escape from.

The main concern for the future I have is if China - or their socialist ideology which is seeping in the west at an alarming rate - end up owning the world and turn everyone into slaves of the Galactic Empire.

reading this comment kids who lived thru ww2 would have committed suicide by droves. they didnt.

Is the good/bad balance really worse? Or does the media just fixate on the bad stuff?

This is just wrong. Teenagers don't know or care about recessions or inflation as it doesn't affect them. Nor do they know about the cost of housing and education. Teenagers don't care much about the government either.

Social media blows up the fear about climate change (it definitely will not be "unlivable") and political extremisism.

Being misinformed about things you can do nothing to change isn't good for mental health, regardless of your age, and that's exactly what social media does.

When I was a teenager and 2008 housing crisis happened I cared quite a lot about it. Sure it never affected me personally or anyone around us, but I spent a lot of time watching documentaries and reading articles around it and got upset and cynical about the world/regulatory authorities. It wasn't social media, but ease to pirate movies and looking for documentaries recommendations online that led me to it.

This notion that "it doesn't directly affect teens so they don't care" is a painfully naive narrative. If anything teens have A LOT of time and energy and little clue what to do with it. So many naturally find something to care/obsess over, with or without social media. (although it is probably amplified by it)

I was also a teenager in 2008, as were many other people I know. If they weren't affected by it directly, most didn't even care. At the time I remember looking at the stock index dropping with some amusement and went on with my life.

If you weren't affected you were lucky enough that your parents were in a stable situation and have been able to wither the storm. But I'm sure there were (and still are) kids who aren't so lucky that were affected directly by their parents not being able to afford housing, food or heating.

> it definitely will not be "unlivable"

Yeah, we will probably survive for the next 50 years at least. But climate events will be making life a lot harder. Droughts, floods, forest fires and tornados will be wrecking havoc in many places. Even if you don't live in one of those places, you'll be feeling the effects through shortages (as we're currently experiencing a very small taste of in Europe), refugees and political instability.

I don't really disagree with you, but I don't think it's a good idea to be dismissive in any form about the consequences of climate change, as people are built in such a way that we grasp onto such messages as an excuse not to take action. We should be focusing on this.

> Yeah, we will probably survive for the next 50 years at least.

I feel like you are fundamentally misinformed here. It has never been the case that IPCC predicted "end of the world" in terms of climate predictions, even in the worst case. And in fact things have been improving since the worst predictions. We are currently headed to a 3 degrees C temperature increase. Which will cause global hardship on a massive level, but it's not anywhere near what's needed to wipe out even civilization let alone all/most humans.

> Even if you don't live in one of those places, you'll be feeling the effects through shortages (as we're currently experiencing a very small taste of in Europe), refugees and political instability.

The shortages in Europe are largely self-inflicted by poor vetting of business partners and "perfect is the enemy of better" behavior and have basically no relation to climate change.

>We are currently headed to a 3 degrees C temperature increase. Which will cause global hardship on a massive level, but it's not anywhere near what's needed to wipe out even civilization let alone all/most humans.

No but with that also comes a bigger variance in extremes. Which brings more things like the current ridiculous heatwave and crop issues in india and pakistan which have what...1.5 billion people? Things like this should absolutely shock people. Much much smaller things like 9/11 have caused shocked and awe.

> I feel like you are fundamentally misinformed here. It has never been the case that IPCC predicted "end of the world"

I didn't mean to imply otherwise. What's needed to end civilization isn't quite clear though. It may not be much.

> The shortages in Europe are largely self-inflicted

I only referred to these (currently mild) shortages to paint a picture of what I think we're likely to see a lot more of. I agree that climate change is only a minor factor in these particular shortages.

> Droughts, floods, forest fires and tornados will be wrecking havoc in many places.

If you don't quantify the increase, it means nothing. We already suffer those things and we cope fine.

> Teenagers don't know or care about recessions or inflation as it doesn't affect them. Nor do they know about the cost of housing and education.

Teenagers are affected by recessions, inflations, housing costs and education. Their parents cant afford things, argue about money, they have to move, loose house, learn they have to take more debt for college or plain cant afford them.

I mean, yes, if your parents are rich, then teenager has zero idea about the above. But, everyone else, poor teenagers, lower and middle class teenagers are affected. know.

> Teenagers don't know or care about recessions or inflation as it doesn't affect them.

The hell it doesn’t! Did you even put a moment’s thought into that claim? Parents losing a job, or a house, or not being able to afford new clothes, or FFS the other hundreds of impacts recessions and inflation have on a family affect teenagers. Talk about misinformed, lordy lor’

Nothing to do with being misinformed, everything to do with starting life on easy mode as a privileged white free from socioeconomic pressures and - yes, what a foreign concept - a life of prolonged existential, primal fear around gaining and maintaining shelter and sustenance.

This is a wildly false claim

Of course any information media is an amplifier for actual events. But I think you are minimising what has become a dangerous (although admittedly very complex/nuanced) force in society today - which is the general over-reach of digital technologies.

It's not just about the content of social media. This is the tobacco moment for tech in general.

When your entire world becomes a 6 inch view-port that you're inseparable from it's tantamount to a kind of mental and physical servitude. Electronically tagged convicted criminals suffer less. Physiological harm to eyes, neck, and posture from hunching over, is visible in young people in their 20s. Diminished attention span and poor interpersonal skills is absolutely obvious now. I am seeing devastating mental health issues in the children of friends, kids who have everything to live for and love life, are isolated, glum, and neurotic.

When I started researching Digital Vegan [1], late in the game after 2018, my main focus was privacy and the effects of surveillance on adults. In many ways I wanted to assure myself that I was not a total crank who was growing old prematurely and shouting at clouds.

As I read more into this area [2] I went through feelings most of us will remember from the start of the pandemic... as anecdotal snippets started to form into coherent narratives and hard evidence, and finally the sinking unavoidable realisation that something BIG is happening. Surveillance capitalism is just one symptom.

The rapid growth of decent science around these issues has been dizzying.

From Haigt; "I believe I can be most helpful to this committee by first summarizing the academic literature on the changes that have occurred in teen mental health since 2012"

This is key! Most of us are entrenched in to-and-fro arguments about what we think are mere opinions and anecdotes. Things have moved past that.

As technologists, instead of defending an illusion we identify with like the guys from Exxon who just got news of the first climate report in the 1960s, let's start talking in good faith about how we can fix things - through sustainable, durable open hardware, software freedom, civic cybersecurity and protections from government and corporations, reducing use, educating young people away from social media and towards a healthy, limited use of tech.

[1] https://digitalvegan.net

[2] https://ledger.humanetech.com/

Came here to say this... Social media is not the cause.. It's the light that illuminates(and sometimes exaggerates/highlights) the terrible ills of the current modern world problems we live in.

This is such a terrible take. The "ills" of the modern world aren't that bad in terms of actually affecting your day to day. I guarantee unplugging and just going outside would make 99% of teens much much happier.

> they are going to inherit a pretty terrible world, and are powerless to do anything about it

You yourself show a big problem with social media: feelings and takes which are not based in reality at all. Of course if you think the world is TERRIBLE and in EVERYTHING is FALLING APART you're not going to have a good time, regardless of whether that's actually the case or not.

How is anything here not based in reality?

I find this denial concerning, it reminds me of Steven Pinker's "the world is actually getting better look poverty is going down" (also, we redefined poverty to be anything below $1.90 per day).

We've already seen summers get singing hot. I live in a place where AC was very rare, because you'd only really need it for a week at max per year. That has gone up to several months (and yet new construction still wouldn't install at least wall units, so I'm also stuck with my amazing single hose unit)

I am in also in a position where I have an income considered good, but my prospects of ever owning a place to live are near nil. Because all housing now exists solely as a speculative asset.

And my pension will, as estimated right now, barely cover the "living minimum" that is provided by social support anyhow. To significantly escape that, you'd have to make about 70k EUR a year at age 20 and then keep getting raises for 47 years. Good luck with that. So I am just paying in for boomers that ruined the climate and bought up all the housing and other generational wealth to have a nice end of life.

Where's the fucking lie?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com