
Hey dude, where's our future? - bauchidgw
http://citizen428.net/archives/1348
======
edw519
Hey dude, here's my past:

First grade, 1961-1962:

We had to learn "duck and cover", in case of surprise nuclear attack by the
Soviets.

For field trips, we toured our neighbors' underground bomb shelters, which
were about as common as home theaters are now.

We had to say the Lord's Prayer, whether we wanted to or not.

Some of my classmates wore braces, because the polio vaccine didn't quite make
it in time for them.

We played with the African American kids in our neighborhood, but they wen't
to a different school. Even though Brown vs. Board of Education had been
decided by the Supreme Court in 1954, integration was still years away.

We didn't realize it at the time (no one did), but the Cuban Missile Crisis
brought us perilously close to WWIII.

We only saw my dad on weekends because he got home from work after our
bedtime.

No one I knew had ever flown on an airplane; it would be 20 years before I
would.

I had never been to a restaurant or a movie.

We had no computers, internet, cell phones, cable TV, or air conditioning.

Our hopes and dreams were simple: to be happy (we were), go to college (we
did), get jobs as good as our father's (we didn't), and to have wonderful
families of our own (some of us did, some of us didn't).

We made a lot of progress since then but not nearly enough. We never imagined
the opportunites we now have, not the threats. OP is sure right about one
thing; our work is never done.

~~~
BvS
"get jobs as good as our father's (we didn't)"

In which way have the jobs of your fathers been better?

~~~
mgkimsal
I'm guessing "good" is relative for many people, but one measure might be the
ability for just one person's job (typically a father's) to be able to sustain
the family. Many of the people of that person's generation grew up to be two-
income families just to keep a similar standard-of-living as their parents,
because jobs paid less relative to cost-of-living and offered fewer benefits.

------
eof
As far as I can tell, the 'problem' is the huge gap between reality and what
is generally accepted as 'true.'

I feel very much like the author of the post, as I imagine a lot of others do.
I sometimes try and hold it all in my head; the government censorship, the
people hating the censorship, the ever rising power of the hacker, the large
sums of money spent on designer clothing, etc.

The only way I have been able to resolve this apparent paradox (how can
everyone I know be _so good_ when the world is _so bad_ ), is to recognize
explicit, intentional, and calculated 'misinformation campaigns' are fully
integrated into US society.

A strong, self-reinforcing (if everyone believes, it must be true) network of
truth and lies is pushed as a zeitgeist; and some probably-genetic tribal
mechanism gets the dissidents ostracized from the community when they are
like, "no seriously.. just look at WTC7"

Having been "off" the boob-tube and most forms of "popular entertainment" for
almost a third of my life now; I have noticed my world view splitting farther
and farther from that of the average uninformed, top-model watching citizen.

I would expect a very strong correlation between consumption of popular media
and totally-naive world views, including any world view that gives our regime
the benefit-of-the-doubt.

~~~
zoomzoom
I agree that our consumer culture is probably not a sign of enlightenment. But
it is hardly true that most of the evil in the world stems from lies told by a
conspiring and all-powerful elite. A lot of good has been done by cynical
governments because the way reality works is that unintended consequences are
so important. The world today is probably better for most than it has ever
been.

------
gyardley
Any call to 'educate yourself' accompanied by inspirational Che Guevara quotes
can't be taken seriously. Look behind the hagiography and there's nothing but
a butcher with soundbites and a pretty face.

~~~
citizen428
Being the OP I have to say I hesitated a bit before adding the quote, which
wasn't in the original version of the post. I've done a fair amount of reading
on the Cuban revolution, and mostly agree with your assessment of Che. The
actual quote reflected my mood at the time of writing though, so I still chose
to include it. Disagreeing with someone on a majority of things, does not mean
that I can't quote them on the ones where we do, does it?

~~~
alttab
Maybe not - but it reduces the clarity of your position. People will associate
Che with what they associate him with - not the iota of character you try to
embody with one of his quotes.

To expound on that a little bit - what kind of confusion would there be if I
wrote a blog post about efficient systems and quoted Adolf Hitler?

Generally I used to jump around to whatever seemed suitable for the message -
but generally getting people to follow you from one thought to another is the
hardest part - don't make it harder on them.

~~~
citizen428
You know, there was a reason that post was tagged "rant". It wasn't meant as a
position on anything, just a little rambling on my private blog. I didn't
expect it to be read by anyone except my few regular readers and am frankly
quite surprised it showed up here. I do appreciate the input however.

------
icegreentea
Counting wars and conflicts seems like a pretty naive way to go about this.
You only thought that world peace was inches away when the cold war ended
because you weren't actually paying attention to what the cold war was
suppressing/controlling. With hindsight, it was fairly obvious that we
encounter the apparent 'uptick' in wars. Which really wasn't an uptick in
total conflicts, but rather ones which the United States were directly
involved in.

If you go to the wiki article on anything related to the cold war and look at
the cold war section at the bottom where events are broken down by decade,
just count the number of 'invasions' and 'civil wars' are listed.

It's possible things are getting worse. But this line -really- bugs me: "I’d
rather have the cold war back, because in retrospect people who fight over
ideology seem a lot less likely to blow the whole place to smithereens than
the ones who fight over religion. "

That -might- be true if you happen to live in the developed world. But just
look at all the shit both sides instigated in the developing world during the
cold war. A necessary part of the cold war was constantly keeping a hand in
the runnings of nearly every developing country to attempt to maintain a
status quo.

All those toppling of government by the united states since the 50s? Nearly
every single of them were motivated at least partly by the containment policy.

I'm not trying to argue that those actions were wrong. That's besides the
point. The point is that many people (including the author) has the wrong view
of the cold war period. Honestly, since I wasn't around then, I can't claim to
have 'the correct' view. But I believe the facts speak for themselves. The
Cold War period wasn't exactly a happy time for -world-.

------
chipsy
Born in 1985, my reference point for the world got calibrated at around 1992
and only started moving along sometime in late high school/early college - the
2000s.

Increasingly I'm noticing the differences just in that period from the
mid-80s. I do feel like "the future is now" applies to our time.

I look at all the occupations of our society and think to myself... "Within in
my lifetime, technology is probably going to change this." Retail districts
seem unbelievably shiny and glossy these days, with a tendency to put
flatscreens and bright LEDs and reflective surfaces everywhere. I haven't
gotten a driver's license yet and wonder whether it will ever be necessary;
the Internet is already a huge enabler for setting up carpools, and automated
driving is quickly coming up on the horizon.

I'd like to think I'm on the ball and know where things are going, but
unexpected things seem to keep happening all the time. Some months ago I
decided that I might as well just give up on the futurism game and just focus
on what's relevant to what I'm doing(games), cause everything else is moving
so fast I'd never keep up anyway. Yet even within THAT, it's still hard.

------
enanoretozon
The future as fallen prey of the hand-wavy notion that things will be taken
care of somehow by someone. Problem is, taking action can involve hard work,
spending time in jail or other unpleasant activities so when there's abuses
people just let it slide.

Maybe it's cynicism, maybe cowardice or just plain laziness. Anyway, gotta get
back to watch Seinfeld reruns and stuff my face.

------
lwhi
I think as history progresses, the world becomes a more richly complex place;
and more opportunities are made available to its inhabitants as a result.

I don't think that people are less worthy, or less 'good', than they were in
the past. I do think that our attention has to fight more distractions than
ever before.

Maybe it's not surprising that we sometimes lose track of what's truly
important.

------
alexwestholm
World peace is a pretty unrealistic goal at this point. The population of the
world has grown too large, concentrated and different (ie, between cultures)
for fair apportionment of the resources available to it. Therefor, there will
always be competition and strife. The Internet isn't going to change that...

~~~
eof
I am not convinced. There is a rising trend of altruism and people just
generally identifying beyond their families or countries.

Not to say it's bound to happen, but I think our chance of having a reasonably
fair and acceptably peaceful world in which some/many of us alive now will
experience is far from zero.

Barring a catastrophic event (nuclear or otherwise), with information
spreading at the rate it is, I would put our chances about 80% of having
unprecedented peace and fairness in this century.

~~~
alexwestholm
That may be true in some portions of the developed world (where I assume you
are probably located), but I assure you that areas where resources are tight
and there's a high degree of stratification in society, that's just not the
case. Look at Africa. Furthermore, the altruism of the first world is not
always beneficial for goals of peace. Intruding into other people's wars in
the name of peace may in fact worsen them. Again, look at Africa.

~~~
eof
Right; I am in the developed world and I do recognize to some degree what is
going on in Africa and rural parts of Asia and South America.

I think most of the first world's 'intruding into other peoples wars in the
name of peace' are generally flat-out lies. We are invading their countries
for resources, political gain, or strategically place military bases. So I am
with you on that one, I think.

However, the rise of information sharing in the lower rungs of society, of
which we are going to see all but the opt-outs being a part of by the end of
this century, is going to breed (in my estimation) a feeling of camaraderie
trans boarder.

It's really a matter of class consciousness. As people come to realize the
similarity of their situation with others, those people will naturally ally
with each other; and the shrinking middle class will see the direction it's
heading and ally with the lower class as well.

The fact is, 98%~ of people on earth would greatly benefit from an fair world,
its only the very very top that stand to lose something; and as people come to
realize this (which they will as cheap information sharing gets to every
corner of the globe in the next 15-20 years) the power will inevitably move
away from those who keep their power by misinforming their constituency.

~~~
alexwestholm
But there are many problems that information sharing just can't solve. Let's
take African village X, imbue the population with a shared desire to break
free of their government bondage, and give them a very poor infrastructure.
Once they stop celebrating their defeat of the government, they're going to
have to face issues such as who gets how much water. These things can't be
solved by the Internet, and this is basically my original point about
competing for resources.

I'd also take issue with the idea of the middle class being allied to the
poor. Doesn't seem to work that way in the U.S., at least.

Don't get me wrong - I wish you were right. A more fair and equal world would
undoubtedly be a better place, but I think the probability of that occurring
anytime soon is pretty slim. Even if you solve issues like famine, medicine
and economic development (which is a pretty gigantic if), something new will
take their place as a focal point for competition.

EDIT: We could argue this til the cows come home. I think it just comes down
to your optimistic view versus my pessimistic view. Only time will tell who's
right.

~~~
eof
Well let me try and convince you anyway that optimism is the rational view in
this case.

    
    
        I'd also take issue with the idea of the middle class being allied to the poor. Doesn't seem to work that way in the U.S., at least.
    

You're actually just wrong here; liberalism is inherently an ally with the
poor; and you will find more liberals in the middle class than any other
alignment.

Beyond that, the reason I am optimistic is because I perceive a clear trend
between sharing of information and 'fairness'. In virtually all cases of
inequality, a small percentage of people control, have power over, or exploit
a majority of people. The only reason they are able to maintain their regime
is that when isolated instances of rebellion start to quell, they are quickly
extinguished through force or other manipulation.

Historically, it's organization of these exploited-majorities, including
efficient means of internal communication which has led to successful
revolutions; and without the internal communication they are bound to remain
fragmented, and thus easily extinguished.

The internet has completely changed the game in that regard; the total
ramifications have not been seen yet; as the first people to mass adopt the
internet were middle class and upwards and used it for what those people do
with all their lives, entertainment and work.

However, that's not what poor people do. Not having ever been poorer than an
avg broke 20-something; I can't speak directly; but at least in South America
I know there is intense power struggles happening between the rich and the
poor.

The rich can 'stay on top' the poor due to their power-advantage. They have
control of the social structure, and beyond that just generally have capital,
more freedom and ability to move and communicate, etc.

However, as the information age progresses, more and more things that used to
require capital, or large amounts capital can now be infinitely distributed
for free (or nearly free) as software; thus raising the power of the poor.

As the power of the poor, or the lowest classes of society raises, they will
be more and more successful.

Beyond that, having an attitude of brotherly love and compassion for all
humans is the best 'meta-game' strategy. That is, if life is a game and being
altruistic or selfish is a strategy, altruism is going to win in the long run.
Players tend to trend toward successful strategies as a game gets played more
and more (and results of others success get more and more eyeballs), and thus
I have to assume that overtime altruism will become more and more common as a
life-strat.

------
ojbyrne
I wonder what Francis Fukuyama is up to these days:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Last...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Last_Man)

------
elai
I think part of this is following a time line as he grew up. Just look at the
abuses 1970s, and the 1980s was a recession time for many.

------
pmichaud
It's an emotional plea that I can related to, but flag it I must, not HN
material.

