I think there are two intersecting issues. The first is the dwindling of easy resources. The second half of the 20th century was so easy it was wasteful, and we don't want to give that up -- that abundance of resources, readily available and on the cheap.
But the bigger issue right now is the end of the US/NATO empire. It matches with the end of other empires like Rome: the spending, the inflation, the corruption and the splintering/partisanship, where groups hate other groups because they blame them for what's going on. They say, "if it wasn't for this group, or if only they would agree with our side, we'd be fine again," but in the end nothing was going to stop it. What goes up must come down.
>if only they would agree with our side, we'd be fine again
I'd argue a lot of problems today would be solved if people stopped buying into the massive intra-class war propaganda pushed onto the working class and had a little more empathy for one another.
I sort of agree. A lot of the normal people, like neighbors, tend to be more empathetic and are accepting of people who are more or less affluent than themselves. But the normal people aren't the ones that run the country.
The article seems to be blaming the division of society on the Like button. I'm saying it was going to happen with or without that for the reasons I listed.
Yes... the article that this article was responding to is the kind of thing you get when you rule out an analysis of material conditions and focus exclusively on the ideological superstructure.
But the bigger issue right now is the end of the US/NATO empire. It matches with the end of other empires like Rome: the spending, the inflation, the corruption and the splintering/partisanship, where groups hate other groups because they blame them for what's going on. They say, "if it wasn't for this group, or if only they would agree with our side, we'd be fine again," but in the end nothing was going to stop it. What goes up must come down.