..is a portrait of you.

[azekeil]

I don't think my viewpoint around change on a larger scale being ineffective is that uncommon. I wonder if it's a product of today's society?

There is so much more freedom today than there was even 60 years ago. Today's (western) society is far less constrained by peer pressure to conform to expectations and traditions; transport, communication and commerce is cheaper, faster, more plentiful. But this is a double-edged sword - with so much choice, people don't know what route to take as they realise they should fully consider all paths before choosing the right one for them. Quite commonly I believe this can lead to decision paralysis. I know myself and a few others in my social group suffer from this to varying extents leading to skill generalisation, commitment problems, "broad but shallow" hobbies, etc.

Back 60 years ago, there were stronger expectations on society. Women were expected to stay at home and raise a family. Men were expected to go out to work. It may not have been perfect, but it gave people a sense of purpose. Religion is another thing that lends purpose to people's lives.

Disturbingly, the younger generation of women are tending to follow the young men's example of drinking to excess and following their testosterone. I see this as a symptom of a lack of direction, or possibly a symptom of too much choice. Or perhaps they're both the same thing, really.

What's fairly interesting is that I've only been able to arrive at these thoughts as a result of this freedom from expectations and the benefit of hindsight.

And looking at the problems in the financial markets I can see (or is it read into it) facets of the same problems: the world is too complex for even sophisticated businesses to understand.

While if the world were too simple, people would become bored. Presumably there has to be a happy balance somewhere? I think this is possibly a reason why I content myself with focussing on a smaller scale of things that aren't too overly complex, but not too simple either. Something I believe I can grow to understand enough to change it for the better. Perhaps that's the purpose I choose for myself?

Comments

[theeighth.livejournal.com]

No, people use to get wankered in the past as well they would just do it without the opposite gender around.
Men in the pub, and a the wife sipping gin at home.
Alcohol is always reasonably cheap and available.

[azekeil.livejournal.com]

I'm not just talking about getting pissed. I'm talking about the aggressive and sometimes violent behaviour, the roving in gangs - all this apes traditionally male behaviour. This is different to times past where they'd do it 'behind closed doors'.

[theeighth.livejournal.com]

Young men wandering around looking for fights isn't anything new either, in fact, statistics show that street violence is on a general downwards trend.

The fact that women are being involved to a greater extent nowadays implies that you're falsely blaming testosterone, when the urge to violence itself might be shown to be a universally human trait.

[gerald_duck]

I wrote quite a lot about this (including recommending a book that might interest you) back in January.

Or, at least, about the consumer aspects.

Sixty years ago there was also a class divide. Although many things characterised the distinction between the lower and middle classes, one useful generalisation might be that the lower class concentrated on subsistence — doing what it took to put a roof over their heads and a meal on the table. They had poor job mobility, they had to live as a large family unit for economic reasons, they had little leisure time and not much prospect of a long retirement. For these reasons, choice was very restricted and life was largely automatic.

The middle classes had a lot more freedom and choice. Crucially, however, middle-class families tended to raise children who were comfortable with making those choices and finding a place for themselves in the world.

Now, sixty years on, everyone has the opportunities that only the middle classes used to have. But not everyone is equipped to cope.

Increasing secularism may also be an issue: religion may be the opium of the masses, but it's arguable the masses need that opium. It takes a certain amount of thought and integrity to be a good and moral person without the threat of hell and brimstone and promise of heaven to provide an incentive. Many of the people who, two generations ago, would have been Christians, are now atheists who lack the nurture to be moral.