It is, to say the least, surprising not to see nuclear power and nuclear weapons mentioned anywhere in this timeline. I feel like any general historical treatment of the 20th century, however superficial, that entirely omits the Cold War still has some work left to be done.
(Also weird to see that the images are only rendered at 72dpi, and thus have a lot of scaling artifacts on a high-DPI display. I haven't even looked at it on a phone yet, but that also lends me to think this whole thing is a little undercooked.)
I agree with you - people seem to forget how terrified we all were, of the Soviets and Americans annihilating us all in a blinding flash, within minutes of the first sirens going off.
I recently had a chance to talk to some kids about this (20-something, to my 50-something years old), and there was, seriously, befuddlement over the idea that we grew up in the 80's under the threat of nuclear annihilation. Somehow, they'd been aware that it was there - the parents had communicated it - but that it was such a significant factor in real life was just unfathomable to them.
But, it really was something we were terrified of, all through the 70's and 80's. Within minutes, our entire world could be turned into a blinding flash and it would all be over - all it took was a politician to lose control.
Seems we are still in that position today, but the kids don't seem to care.
>But, it really was something we were terrified of, all through the 70's and 80's
Not me, in the 80s, and I never heard any one talk about it. I mean, I read tons of books, and so the narrative you describe I'm very familiar with. But I never heard anyone in "real life" talk like that, not once.
I'm not sure what you mean by "we are still in that position today" - surely we are not, because if a nuclear weapon goes off there is no reason to launch them all. And it's been proven so many times that nuclear powers do not respond to non-nuclear threats with nukes that it's taken for granted now.
We aren't really in that position today. The size, deliverability, and maintenance levels of both the US and the Russian nuclear stockpiles are nowhere near where they were forty years ago, and recent history has raised a lot of questions over whether even then they were where the zeitgeist believed them to be. No other country has stockpiles even remotely approaching the size it'd take to produce a conflict equal to Cold War fears.
Unfortunately, the major change between the Cold War and now is that the existential risks facing our civilization back then turned out to be a lot more straightforward to solve.
I interpreted the timeline as focusing on perceived threats that didn't pan out. I would consider the threat of extinction by nuclear war to be a real threat that may yet pan out. So to me, it seems reasonable that it was omitted - lumping the 'danger' of vaccines with the dangers of nuclear war seems to understate the threat of the latter.
They do include some some fears they describe as justified, though, such as print destabilizing the institutional power of the Vatican, and automation and mechanization putting people out of work.
There are persistent fears about technology increasing unemployment. I remember elementary school classmates in the early 1980s in rural southwest Missouri having a very dim view of computers because they were going to 'put people out of work'. This may be subsumed by the 1811 - 1816 "Looming Unemployment" entry, but I feel like it's given short shrift in this timeline...
I think it's clear that automation can eventually lead to a total lack of subsistence work. However I think there will long be volitional work that humans enjoy -- things like performing music, writing books, serving each other physically (like massages) and other things that are just fun/entertaining more than in the pursuit of resources.
(Also weird to see that the images are only rendered at 72dpi, and thus have a lot of scaling artifacts on a high-DPI display. I haven't even looked at it on a phone yet, but that also lends me to think this whole thing is a little undercooked.)