For me, it’s the Neolithic. That’s when it all started going down the drain.
Who gets to define what counts as a “problem”? I can think of lots of social developments that many people would consider a “problem”, which they mistakenly attribute to “modernity” in exactly the way you suggest. But they are developments that I personally don’t consider to be a “problem”.
(E.g., greater social acceptance of gender nonconformity, or “effeminate” behaviors such as men wearing makeup and lace. Obviously anybody who believes those are unprecedented modern developments doesn’t know much about social history. But I wouldn’t propose them as examples for your OP, because I don’t consider them “problems” in the first place.)
In the US, income inequality. People like to pass it off as a side effect of technological advances, but other western nations have had the same advances and their level of inequality (measured by the GINI coefficient) is far lower. Its due to a myriad of policies designed to reward the well off at the expense of everyone else.
Easy to see how you thought that. From ABC news today Insider blows whistle on Australia’s greenhouse gas reduction schemes.
Professor Butler is among a number of ecologists who reckon that’s a furphy, and grazing by livestock doesn’t make much of a difference to the level of tree cover.
I’ll vote for circa 2015 (I turned 38 that year for what it’s worth). IMHO prior to that you have to go back to 1492.
The concept of modernity is a combination of ideologies, specific systems, and policies along with technology.
You can find a whole slew of specific problems people have with social media including isolation, depression, fear of missing out, targeted political content preventing us from hearing things we might disagree with, and of course outright misinformation being spread. All of these things certainly existed before social media was a thing, but social media exasperated many of those problems. But then social media also allows people to remain in contact with others, it’s likely been a life saver for LGBTQ+ people who can more easily find people like them, and of course it makes it easier to find like minded people who enjoy the same hobbies as you. That’s modernity for you. You take the good and the bad.
Yeah, people make it out like it’s something NEW, when in fact throughout history until very recently there have been crazy levels of wealth/income inequality.
I’d bet that even today’s levels of income inequality don’t hold a candle to those in say… the 18th century or even parts of the 19th or 20th centuries.
I tend to agree with this 100%, but surely it must be acknowledged that some change is good or bad, either objectively or subjectively. To take an extreme example, if we got into a nuclear war, that would be “change” but it would obviously be objectively “bad” and not fall into your very excellent observation. Likewise if someone invented free energy, say a solar powered car that performed just like the ICE of today, it would be revolutionary and “good” (save for a few oil execs and workers).
I think the issue is that while change is change and continuous, to take the social media example of the OP, an older person can see that although that lets you have a live video conference with family members across the country all at once, it has taken away a lot of the personal interaction from before in everyday life.
Your point is correct that for a Gen Z who grew up with social media, there is no comparison to the old personal interaction, so it really isn’t a change to them. But I think there is a lot to be said to the subjective belief that in this context, social media has done more harm than good and is then a bad thing *not mistakenly attributed to modernity.
Maybe after the widespread use of the telephone, television, and the telegraph, some had the same idea, but as you say, we weren’t born then and don’t know of that change. How do we know that they were not right, that despite the conveniences, that those inventions have robbed us of something? I’m not saying that they have, but it could be and we wouldn’t know.
Well yeah - I don’t suppose many changes are ever 100% ‘good’ to everyone’s point of view, either just in terms of just comfort or some actual objective harm.
But I’m really talking about the sort of jaded ‘why do things have to keep changing all the time?’ attitude that people often develop as they age, and end up shouting at younger people for using modern variations in language or something like that. Language is just grunting sounds people make at each other to try to communicate ideas. Always has been. It was never right or perfect at any point; it came about as a result of continual change, and it’s not going to stop changing. You can swim with the current or exhaust yourself, fruitlessly, trying to swim against it.
I think even that is something particular to a subset of older people. I’ll be turning 45 this year, and have no problems with change in general. As a nursing home physician, I know a lot of elderly people, and not all of them are the type who think “the good old days” from before they were born were better than today. Some of them are, but not all, or even most.
It’s incremental. At 45, I felt like I was fine with change. At 55, I’m feeling the temptation to complain about it, but consciously resisting because I know it’s me, not the world.
Maybe not everyone experiences it though, you may be right.
One thing I would be curious about is “helicopter parenting”. I know when I was about 11 or 12, my parents were ok mostly leaving me to my own devices, and I could walk all over the neighborhood or get on the city bus to go downtown on my own, things which seem to be all but impossible for youngsters these days. Yes, there were overprotective parents in the past, but were there fewer of them or is the helicopter parent meme merely more visible/talked about these days?
Both. My kids grew up in the 90s, in the same area I grew up. They and most of their friends grew up the same way I did. There was more helicoptering in their day than in mine and because of the form it took it was more visible. Here’s an example - in my city, students above a certain grade take to public transit to school and there are no school buses ( with exceptions for those with special needs, of course). And there were/are a lot of schools to choose from - a student doesn’t have to attend a certain school based on address When I was young, there were of course parents who didn’t want their kids to travel on public transportation. Those parents ensured that their kids attended either a neighborhood school or one that a parent could conveniently drive them to/from. Not terribly noticeable as there weren’t many parents driving kids to and from school everyday , and children attending a neighborhood school certainly wouldn’t be noticeable.
When my kids went to HS on the other hand , it was a different story. Parents were apparently no longer willing to restrict their kids’ choices to those schools in walking distance or schools the parents were able to drive them to/from. But they also weren’t willing to allow them to take public transportation. Instead, the parents essentially hired school buses themselves * and started driving them to school in much larger numbers. Parents hiring school buses is more noticeable and also requires a larger number of parents who won’t allow (or at least will pay to avoid) public transit - if I don’t want my kid to take the train to Manhattan, I’m not going to hire a school bus just for my kid. There would have to be some minimum number of kids in relatively close proximity to make it worthwhile.
- The school district had to provide transportation in most cases, but met that responsibility by providing transit passes. And in some cases, the school buses cut the commute time by a lot - but not in all cases.