Comments by "TJ Marx" (@tjmarx) on "BBC Archive"
channel.
-
318
-
Modern "adults" are less emotionally and intellectually mature/developed than children were back then.
It's the result of the post modern psychology that gave the millennials rewards for showing up, constantly unearned praise and the insistence that the dumbest brain fart was an equivalent opinion in worth to the wisest, well considered analysis.
There's no going back from this. Each generation is limited by their own experience, can only work inside those limitations and can only past on those limitations to successive generations.
Successive generations will attempt to rebel, but when you're starting with faulty software, it's difficult to progress towards something better. Instead what we see is aimless "progress" towards an ever more limited, self indulgent and intolerant world view.
This is not by any means the fault of millennials themselves, they, as all generations are; are merely a product of their upbringing. Realistically this started with "the greatest generation" whom seemed determined to win that title by purposefully retarding the development of their children the baby boomers and it was all downhill from there.
However the reason I single out millennials is because they are the first generation whose development has been stunted to such a horrific degree that as a generation they are incapable of navigating daily life.
There are of course exceptions to every rule in individual cases, but overall they hold true on the generational level, at least in the west. This is how western civilization collapses.
Edit: Having a quick read through the thread has somewhat demonstrated my point.
25
-
20
-
@sweatyhaggis4303 You have to acknowledge the reality that there is a significant difference between the university of 1980/1990 and the university post 2000. They are entirely different places, where the value of a degree changed because universities changed.
In the 80s and 90s, University was difficult. It was hard to get into and even* harder to finish. It might seem clichè but when I went to university we were told at orientation to look to our immediate left and immediate right because only 1 of the 3 of us would likely finish the program. They were correct and that's how all programs were, only the creme of the crop got a degree. They also taught differently, they taught how to think,.
So degrees had value because an employer knew you came work ready, able to think and take initiative, you had creativity, understood the world, were well read and you were the creme of the crop.
The school you went to mattered because universities had reputations with employers for having graduates at X skill level.
Today's universities don't operate like that, they* operate more like what we used to call paper mills. That is, places where they were essentially giving away degrees for cash. They don't teach you how to think in universities today, they teach you what to think and that's having a negative impact on society.
More relevant to you however is that they don't teach students to be work ready anymore, they teach students to pass tests in order to get as many people through to graduation as possible so the university can make as much money as possible. They've gone from institutions making a few million a year, maybe double digits if they were a particularly prestigious school, to making tens of billions a year or more each.
That's why your degree no longer has the same impact on employers, because most of the people with them graduating after 2000 shouldn't have one.
And the new post grad study system is a complete joke. A masters used to mean you had worked in your field for a decade, then gone back and gotten your masters. A doctorate could only be gained after 25 years in your industry. Today they go from undergrad to post grad study without skipping a beat and having never worked a day in the industry. It makes those titles near meaningless.
The university system is broken. It's designed to be a system for the top minds and no one else. But it's being used to push as many inadequate people through as possible.
When too many people have a thing, and that thing is also provided at a lower quality, it has significantly less value to all.
Moreover, the labour market is a market the same as any other. Employees are the product, an employer looks amongst the available candidates, checks their features (education, experience, personality, etc) then decides on a specific model (individual). That is to say having a degree never guaranteed you employment, it's just an added "feature" on your resume, or perhaps a minimum starting point to even apply for a particular role. But it's only ever been a fraction of the equation, you still have to compete on all the other factors as well.
Edit: Fixed typos
17
-
17
-
14
-
13
-
11
-
10
-
7
-
@alpha-omega2362 So let's see, you scream that I'm wrong but are unable to state what you believe is wrong in my comment or why. Let's go through it bit by bit.
The overwhelming majority of his predictions were indeed false. That's objectively true and demonstrated by the fact the majority of his predictions indeed did not happen at all, least of all within the timescale he gives (by the year 2000).
Some of his predictions were indeed completely out of touch with reality. This also is objectively true, demonstrated by the fact they're based on fundamental misunderstandings of how those things work physically/biologically. Predictions like the idea whole cities would be knocked down and rebuilt or ape servants were obviously bunk from the get go. He can't even distinguish the difference between an ape and a monkey, nor does he appear to understand which group a chimpanzee (our direct relative) belongs to.
The two things that could at all be considered true were indeed exceptionally broadly worded, and were indeed true when he said them to the degree of the broadness he used. For example he directly references transistors, satellites, broadcast cameras and remote work. In 1964, satellite television, mobile phones and video phones were all in their commercial infancy. They existed. Indeed it is likely he knew they existed and was directly referencing them. Perhaps even more than likely given his description is exactly how two of them would be marketed just a few years later.
This program was recorded, that's how it was broadcast in 1964, and it's the sole reason we're able to see it today. 16mm home movies have existed since 1924. 8mm was popular in 1964, and it wasn't uncommon for middle class families to own a video camera to take home movies. That is to say the concept of recording video for future generations to view wasn't new to Clarke in 1964. It would have been an obvious expectation that people in 2000 would be able to view the recording. I mean crikey, we have video recordings from 1820 and beyond right here on YouTube. It's absurd to suggest Clarke wouldn't know future generations would be able to view the recording of this TV program.
Modern humans have always understood the past, and their relationship to it. That's the entire point of historical record, be it through dance, oral tradition, story, art or written history.
It would seem in review of my comment that my statements are indeed accurate.
7
-
7
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Those are some very pretty words @TheMagePie however they miss the mark entirely. Clark starts this video describing precisely why he gets his predictions wrong, and it has nothing to do with dreamy eyed nativity. In fact the only reasonably correct genuine prediction he makes is that his predictions will be incorrect.
The hope you speak of didn't possess but a single generation, it is the force behind every inventive field (even those destructive by nature) and the seeking of knowledge from the inception of our species through today and far into the future so long as humans may still exist. It is also the very same force that creates what you describe as an opposing pole, but is in reality one and the same.
When the atomic bomb was created the program wasn't envisaged to merely destroy, instead it's entire purpose, just like the invention of TNT a century before, was peace.
Hope for the future and a desire to use technology to ease suffering is an inherent trait of humanity. The Greeks didn't invent utopia, they just gave it a name.
These are not forces which caused Clark to get his prediction wrong, at most they are the reason he didn't stand up and declare there would be a great war or an extension of famine in the future.
No, he gets his predictions wrong because however much you might like or admire him he is merely a man. As a man he is limited in scope of the future by his knowledge and experience of today, and too by his imagination. That is why Clark and all others whom try to predict the future fail. There are simply too many variables to consider.
It is the identification of these missing variables for which this thread is concerned.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Xxewtz It's a bit more economically complicated than "cities fighting for power". Remote work robs a CBD of a population which in turn robs axillary industries, such as hospitality, public transport, small retail, etc of a customer base.
Centralised work enables competition and small business market entry. Decentralisation of work through remote work reduces market competition and increases the power large corporations have over our lives.
There are some important societal questions that need to be answered regarding remote work. Is working from home worth losing most, if not all of, your cities public transport network for example? Commuter fares pay for the bulk of it.
Is it worth the collapse of thousands of small businesses, a rise in unemployment, poverty and competition for remaining available work? Is it worth the power that gives large corporations and their ability to then put downward pressure on wages, resulting in even more poverty?
Is it worth the destruction of lifestyle as the increase in poverty has dampened sales for activities, shuttering further small businesses and potentially leading to recession?
Remote work is great, but ultimately we need to strike a balance and that's where flexi work comes in.
1
-
1