I've been reading a kids bible with my son, going through all the old testament stories (obviously making me a biblical expert now jk).
A key theme in the stories we're reading is that there is a right way to live and a wrong way to live, and if you live the right way you'll ultimately triumph and your children will thrive, and if you live the wrong way then you'll ultimately fail and your children will die. There is truth to this. The world is harsh, and if you don't find the right rules to live by and follow those rules you'll fail, and we're seeing that right now with entire bloodlines dying out and a population collapse on the way.
Because of that, once a way of living that is effective is found, trying to get other people that you care about to follow it isn't about control, it's about survival. If you care about people, then you want them to do the right things so that they can thrive. Especially if by doing the wrong things so they can die out.
The post-war period was one of the largest economic expansions in the history of the world. Workers rights got way better, the material comforts of the working class skyrocketed, and there was plenty for everyone. In such an environment, it looks as if you don't need to follow any given rules because you'll figure out a way regardless.
The problem is that it's such a golden age can't last forever, and it didn't. Even within the Boomer's lifetime they started to see a contraction. When you're not living in a golden age, suddenly it matters a lot more that you find rules that work and follow them.
Everyone is still going off of the old Boomer mindset, but I don't think that that can last much longer. The reality that you need to find the right things to do and do them or else you will suffer is already here, and eventually the people who think that they can do whatever they want without consequences are just going to die out. And therefore, if you actually love your neighbor you would want to pressure them to do the right thing because it will help them survive and thrive. You wouldn't want to pressure them to do the right thing because you want to control them, but because you care about them and you want to see them thrive.
A key theme in the stories we're reading is that there is a right way to live and a wrong way to live, and if you live the right way you'll ultimately triumph and your children will thrive, and if you live the wrong way then you'll ultimately fail and your children will die. There is truth to this. The world is harsh, and if you don't find the right rules to live by and follow those rules you'll fail, and we're seeing that right now with entire bloodlines dying out and a population collapse on the way.
Because of that, once a way of living that is effective is found, trying to get other people that you care about to follow it isn't about control, it's about survival. If you care about people, then you want them to do the right things so that they can thrive. Especially if by doing the wrong things so they can die out.
The post-war period was one of the largest economic expansions in the history of the world. Workers rights got way better, the material comforts of the working class skyrocketed, and there was plenty for everyone. In such an environment, it looks as if you don't need to follow any given rules because you'll figure out a way regardless.
The problem is that it's such a golden age can't last forever, and it didn't. Even within the Boomer's lifetime they started to see a contraction. When you're not living in a golden age, suddenly it matters a lot more that you find rules that work and follow them.
Everyone is still going off of the old Boomer mindset, but I don't think that that can last much longer. The reality that you need to find the right things to do and do them or else you will suffer is already here, and eventually the people who think that they can do whatever they want without consequences are just going to die out. And therefore, if you actually love your neighbor you would want to pressure them to do the right thing because it will help them survive and thrive. You wouldn't want to pressure them to do the right thing because you want to control them, but because you care about them and you want to see them thrive.
Along the same lines of this, and the homesteading act of 1909 removed the requirement to have access to surface water for a farm. This dramatically increased the number of people who are able to take advantage of homesteading.
Around the same time, there happened to be temporary change in climate, so the prairies were much wetter than they previously were.
People had decided that that changing climate was permanent. The saying was "the rains follow the plow". They ignored all of the old rules saying that you should make sure that you have access to surface groundwater, and just kept on building more farms. Eventually, the climate returned to the way it was previously, and the result was one of the largest ecological disasters in the history of the world, the dust bowl. All of the water thirsty crops destroyed the topsoil, and all of the native prairie grasses and plants had been driven out. Besides destroying the environment, the economic impact of massive loans being taken out in part thanks to the new Federal reserve system that made Banks think that they couldn't have Bank runs so they didn't need to worry about risk meant an economic catastrophe on top of a ecological one.
Seems to me that there's a lot of parallels in that story with the post-war economy. People gave up on previously held ideas that were important, and while their temporary boost was ok they made sense, eventually the previous status quo returned and there were dire consequences because the old rules were there for a reason.
Around the same time, there happened to be temporary change in climate, so the prairies were much wetter than they previously were.
People had decided that that changing climate was permanent. The saying was "the rains follow the plow". They ignored all of the old rules saying that you should make sure that you have access to surface groundwater, and just kept on building more farms. Eventually, the climate returned to the way it was previously, and the result was one of the largest ecological disasters in the history of the world, the dust bowl. All of the water thirsty crops destroyed the topsoil, and all of the native prairie grasses and plants had been driven out. Besides destroying the environment, the economic impact of massive loans being taken out in part thanks to the new Federal reserve system that made Banks think that they couldn't have Bank runs so they didn't need to worry about risk meant an economic catastrophe on top of a ecological one.
Seems to me that there's a lot of parallels in that story with the post-war economy. People gave up on previously held ideas that were important, and while their temporary boost was ok they made sense, eventually the previous status quo returned and there were dire consequences because the old rules were there for a reason.
- replies
- 0
- announces
- 1
- likes
- 4