This is an interesting article, but the twenty reasons could use an edit down to, say three. For example, #11 belies #1's claim of a 'new sociological type':
1.At the heart if it all is a new sociological type: the graduate with no future
11.To amplify: I can't find the quote but one of the historians of the French Revolution of 1789 wrote that it was not the product of poor people but of poor lawyers. You can have political/economic setups that disappoint the poor for generations - but if lawyers, teachers and doctors are sitting in their garrets freezing and starving you get revolution. Now, in their garrets, they have a laptop and broadband connection.
Other reasons are redundant, or not really reasons, etc. The three I would consolidate things down to:
* The livelihoods of the bourgeoisie being affected (cf. Emmanuel Goldstein's immortal tome)
1.At the heart if it all is a new sociological type: the graduate with no future
11.To amplify: I can't find the quote but one of the historians of the French Revolution of 1789 wrote that it was not the product of poor people but of poor lawyers. You can have political/economic setups that disappoint the poor for generations - but if lawyers, teachers and doctors are sitting in their garrets freezing and starving you get revolution. Now, in their garrets, they have a laptop and broadband connection.
Other reasons are redundant, or not really reasons, etc. The three I would consolidate things down to:
* The livelihoods of the bourgeoisie being affected (cf. Emmanuel Goldstein's immortal tome)
* Modern connectivity
* A domino effect exacerbated by the above two.