Are things (Australia/society/the world) getting better or worse?

[nicky]

If that was intentional, that was very very good.

I'm out.

It wasn't intentional, it was genuine.

 

[Poseidon]

This is what mothers used to do around the kitchen table, now younger people just do it in a public forum. People have been irrational idiots demanding extreme solutions to minor problems since civilisation. It was up until now that those opinions were kept indoors rather than made public

Agreed. The internet hasn't created idiots, it's just given them a public stage.

 

[neroblack]

Things rarely turn out as people expect. For example, 20 years ago people were saying that there would be less travel for business, etc as the internet would make communications across the globe so good that travel for business purposes wouldn't be as necessary. What actually happened was that international opportunities were opened up for more companies, and travel increased, as regardless of the ability to communicate, people still have a desire to meet face to face.

I'm not really confident in saying things will be a lot better in the future, however, people are generally able to adapt and advances in technology will prevail (in my opinion).

 

[The_Reaper]

I'm 20.

I honestly think there is going to be a real major war during the next century which is going to **** us all up.

 

[Rod Stroker]

We're screwed!

Shit scared parents, mollycoddling their kids. You only have to see all the SUV's dropping children off at school to come to the conclusion that the next generation will be entitled, acopic neurotics.

Will keep me in work, though

I'm 44

Used car salesman?

Society will get progressively worse, the world is in decline I'm afraid.

 

[Caesar]

Some things will improve, other things will get worse. You can't really compare (say) increased gender equality to decreased housing affordability and say one is more important than the other.

It does appear that we are environmentally doomed so maybe that's a dealbreaker.

Most people are happy being born in the generation they were born in, so it's probably all a matter of perspective anyway.

 

[nicky]

It does appear that we are environmentally doomed so maybe that's a dealbreaker.

This is what concerns me the most.

 

[Daytripper]

Why worry about things that you have no control over?
Pointless in my opinion.

Far better to concern yourself with events that you have some influence on.

I'm an optimist. We haven't had a world war for almost 70 years, technology is moving at a rapid pace and most people have a higher standard of living than they ever did before.

Things could be worse.

 

[THRILLHO]

Agreed. The internet hasn't created idiots, it's just given them a public stage.

And cash-strapped mainstream media and lazy journalists have given them a larger audience.

If everyone spent less time being constantly outraged over trivial, relatively meaningless things (like Alan Jones) then the world would improve even further. We've become so accustomed and entitled to our very comfortable lives that we've lost sight of the big picture. Couple this with Australia's increasingly insular outlook and the media is forced to dig around the edges to scrounge up news stories.

Two recent examples highlight this: Alan Jones and, to a much lesser extent, Jill Meagher (I'm going to try to tie them in at some point).

First, Jill Meagher: What happened to her was a terrible tragedy but the news coverage of this event should only go to highlight just how safe we are. This just isn't something that happens very often, and yet, instead of reminding the wider public of this, the media simply tries to further perpetuate this idea that women aren't safe on our streets. According to the UNODC Australia had 229 intentional homicides last year, Brazil had 40 000, Mexico had 25 000, USA 13 000.

Did the media mention that all major crimes in Australia (robbery, sexual assault, assault, homicide, kidnapping/abduction) have all decreased since 2000 (or stayed relatively stable WRT to assault - and that's without factoring in population growth). Of course not. That doesn't fit with their mantra of keeping people in a perpetual state of fear. The only thing that has come from Jill Meagher is WE NEED MORE CCTV.

Now, Alan Jones: Right off the bat - did he break any laws? No. All he did was say something offensive. Except, in today's media landscape, when someone says something offensive, it's a race to be the most morally outraged. And everyone races to their chosen pulpit. Twitter, FB, forums, letters to the editor, to denounce what was said. Ignoring the fact that this was just a ploy by the ALP to tie Abbott to Jones the media coverage on this went way overboard. They were even pointing to a FB petition signed by 100 000 people. THAT MEANS NOTHING. No-one who signed that petition would ever listen to Alan Jones. My parents (one of whom doesn't even have a FB) wouldn't even know how to navigate off the FB status page to 'like' it. That's Jones' audience. Not some inner-city green warrior hipster. Just exercise personal choice and if you are offended, switch off. That's it. Don't petition, don't write some snarky, cynical, passive-aggressive "letter" on FB starting with "Dear Multinational Corporation, I will never spend my weekly five dollars at your store again". Just move on.

Here's where I try and link the two: Slacktivism is really hurting actual movements worth supporting. Liking a page on FB means nothing. Getting off your arse and marching down Sydney Rd to show Adrian Bailey that you won't accept, nor be intimidated by, his actions, is proper activism and is a worthwhile cause to honour a tragic loss of life is real change. Let's never confuse the two.

TL;DR: Just chill on the news. I listen to JJJ news once or twice a day and catch ABC news maybe once or twice a week. I feel much better for it. I went for a run yesterday and came back and switched on 9's afternoon news. I immediately felt more agitated as they try and manipulate your emotions and scatter your attention with the scrolling news feed and constant cuts from story to story and presenter to live field journalist. Just chill and remember the big picture.

Wrote this while eating my toast so it's a bit all over the shop.

 

[neroblack]

It does appear that we are environmentally doomed so maybe that's a dealbreaker.

I'm not meaning this to be as rude as it sounds, but this is absolute crap. Consider how far technology has advance in the past 25 years or so, then consider where we'll be in another 25 years. People need to understand that the result of any changing climate (whatever the cause) will not be that we all have to live like Amish people. The pessimistic views of people in this thread are pretty disappointing really..I don't understand them.

 

[neroblack]

Wrote this while eating my toast so it's a bit all over the shop.

Yet still makes more sense than most other crap written before it.

 

[nicky]

I'm not meaning this to be as rude as it sounds, but this is absolute crap. Consider how far technology has advance in the past 25 years or so, then consider where we'll be in another 25 years. People need to understand that the result of any changing climate (whatever the cause) will not be that we all have to live like Amish people. The pessimistic views of people in this thread are pretty disappointing really..I don't understand them.

The bees are dying, who will pollinate our plants?

 

[Daytripper]

First, Jill Meagher: What happened to her was a terrible tragedy but the news coverage of this event should only go to highlight just how safe we are. This just isn't something that happens very often, and yet, instead of reminding the wider public of this, the media simply tries to further perpetuate this idea that women aren't safe on our streets. According to the UNODC Australia had 229 intentional homicides last year, Brazil had 40 000, Mexico had 25 000, USA 13 000.

Whilst I agree with most of what you posted I have to disagree with the above.

Its simply an impossibility for the media to do what you're suggesting when covering the Meagher case. It would look ridiculous to show that CCTV and then in the next breath mention how safe we are comparatively.

Simply not the time nor the place.

 

[neroblack]

The bees are dying, who will pollinate our plants?

Maybe the 10% of flowers that don't require animal pollinators will flourish, or maybe the remainder of the 200,000 animal pollinators that exist will be enough.

 

[THRILLHO]

Whilst I agree with most of what you posted I have to disagree with the above.

Its simply an impossibility for the media to do what you're suggesting when covering the Meagher case. It would look ridiculous to show that CCTV and then in the next breath mention how safe we are comparatively.

Simply not the time nor the place.

I agree that you don't go that angle while the story is fresh and we're chasing down blue_hoody, but it's seriously not hard to work in "isolated case" in the aftermath of the story when they are reporting on the outpouring of grief and the 30 000 who marched to honour her.

 

[Caesar]

I'm not meaning this to be as rude as it sounds, but this is absolute crap. Consider how far technology has advance in the past 25 years or so, then consider where we'll be in another 25 years.

Honestly, that is pretty naive. Even if you don't buy into climate change, things like peak resources still mean that we are looking at a pretty grim future. We will need a whole host of seminal scientific breakthroughs in order to maintain things at their current level because quite simply the society is growing exponentially and the building blocks are running out.

Forget the last 25 years - even if we had a revolution in physics similar to quantum mechanics, and quickly worked out how to implement it in such a way that we could solve the energy problem, you still have the problem that the population is growing at a far higher rate than is environmentally sustainable.

 

[bomberfan11]

Why does everyone always says that in the past it was better I even saw an ad for a show that was set in the 1940's called it the good old days. We are in a peaceful country with improving life expectancy and living standards with heaps of spare land and the future is going to be worse?

 

[King Elvis]

But worse, if we have another world war it will be nuclear - any war after that will be with sticks and stones A LOOOOOONNNNNNNG way into the future.

Nah, the big Nations wouldn't dream of using Nukes; it'll only be a terrorist thing or a crazy like Iran.

Nukes are the biggest deterrent for genuine large scale war we've ever seen.

If there is a war, it'll be financial and resources based (as in, not open conflict, but the manipulation of them to screw the other party), right @tex21 ?

Agreed. The internet hasn't created idiots, it's just given them a public stage.

It's empowered ****ing morons.

Strong THRILLHO post.

 

[neroblack]

Honestly, that is pretty naive. Even if you don't buy into climate change, things like peak resources still mean that we are looking at a pretty grim future. We will need a whole host of seminal scientific breakthroughs in order to maintain things at their current level because quite simply the society is growing exponentially and the building blocks are running out.

Forget the last 25 years - even if we had a revolution in physics similar to quantum mechanics, and quickly worked out how to implement it in such a way that we could solve the energy problem, you still have the problem that the population is growing at a far higher rate than is environmentally sustainable.

For starters, I never said I don't believe in climate change, although that is pretty well irrelevant to discussions around peak resources.

There are a number of things, such as peak resources, etc that is essentially a waste of time debating. They're not infinite resources and they will run out at some point. However, I'm optimistic that there will be advances beyond what can be predicted right now that will make a real difference. There'll be a point in time where companies will be able to make money from new technology that they cannot really make money from now, that's where the change will come from (whether that's right or wrong).

I agree that population growth is another key factor globally (not so much in Australia though). I don't have a solution to that one (apart from continuing to always wear a condom myself...).

Don't try to get away with calling someone naive because you don't agree with them. Actually change will only come from hard work, and not from the young population of Australia essentially giving up or just complaining. I just think people should be more optimistic. Unless you're a Carlton supporter.

 

[Daytripper]

Honestly, that is pretty naive. Even if you don't buy into climate change, things like peak resources still mean that we are looking at a pretty grim future. We will need a whole host of seminal scientific breakthroughs in order to maintain things at their current level because quite simply the society is growing exponentially and the building blocks are running out.

Forget the last 25 years - even if we had a revolution in physics similar to quantum mechanics, and quickly worked out how to implement it in such a way that we could solve the energy problem, you still have the problem that the population is growing at a far higher rate than is environmentally sustainable.

You assume though that technology remains stagnant and solutions won't be found.

Humans are very good at finding solutions to problems. There may well possibly be all sorts of 'building blocks' used in the future that we haven't even considered yet. 30-40 years ago the idea of the internet was the stuff of sci-fi movies. And 30-40 years before that nobody even considered that man would walk on the moon.

 

[Caesar]

I just think it is naive to blithely assume that science will find a way. Usually people espousing that view are not scientists. The problems are enormous and the timeframes are very compressed.

Science is the hope, but scientific revolutions don't appear out of nowhere. And as impressive as the advances of the last 25 years have been, they are not really the sorts of advances that are going to solve these big issues. There is a difference between inventing the silicon chip and, say, redefining our understanding of atomic energy.

 

[kickazz]

Why does everyone always says that in the past it was better I even saw an ad for a show that was set in the 1940's called it the good old days. We are in a peaceful country with improving life expectancy and living standards with heaps of spare land and the future is going to be worse?

Medical advances alone point to life being better now. Even compared to say 100 years ago, life expectancy was so much shorter, and there was higher infant mortality. Even compared to 30 years ago, things like cancer is survived by more people now.
Then there's things like human rights, etc. Torture was much more commonplace in medieval times. People were less enlightened - burning 'witches' at the stake because they were a bit weird.
The environemt might be a big concern now, but at least (for the most part) we care about it now. We don't just let our faeces wash out into the street and wonder why people are getting sick. (I could start a tirade about how Engineering has done more to improve human health than Medicine here but that's another discussion)
I aint saying the future is all rosy without its problems, but yeah, as I said in a previous post, we sometimes forget how far we have come. Maybe I've been reading too much Dickens, but if any of us were to be transported back in time 100 years for a year, well I recon we'd be hangin' for that year to end.

 

[Daytripper]

I just think it is naive to blithely assume that science will find a way. Usually people espousing that view are not scientists. The problems are enormous and the timeframes are very compressed.

Science is the hope, but scientific revolutions don't appear out of nowhere. And as impressive as the advances of the last 25 years have been, they are not really the sorts of advances that are going to solve these big issues. There is a difference between inventing the silicon chip and, say, redefining our understanding of atomic energy.

Why is it naive?

Science has always found a way since eternity. In my opinion its extraordinarily pessimistic to think that all of a sudden the human race is suddenly going to run out of ideas or ingenuity.

For all we know, cars could be powered by sand in 30 years time. All food could be being genetically produced on Mars. A simple process could have been invented to convert our sea water into drinkable water.

Who knows what will happen?

 

[Caesar]

It's not just about ideas and ingenuity you know.

This is sort of what I'm talking about - people who worship science basically as a religion, who think that there is no problem it cannot solve.

 

[neroblack]

That displays a really poor understanding of science. It's not just about ideas and ingenuity you know.

This is sort of what I'm talking about - people who worship science basically as a religion, who think that there is no problem it cannot solve.

That may be what you're talking about, but it's not really what anyone else is. We're just saying that whilst there are problem, there are also reasons to be optimistic and (dare I say it) excited about the advances that mankind will achieve within our lifetime. This will happen because it has to happen. Get excited!!