23 comments

    1. I am a Baby Boomer born in 1949. I love this cartoon. As a child, I could not understand why we made bombs that could possibly end all life on Earth. I was pretty sure it was not ethical at all to wipe out two, major, Japanese cities full of civilians just to make a point. I have been weeping for weeks about the climate, the end of life on this planet and how the humans on this planet seem to be rushing to destruction one way or another. I can only confess that over most of my life, I believed the “grownups” or possibly all the “wise and good people” would not actually let these things happen. I was wrong. they are unthinkable but true.

  1. concoct a guardianship?..there is one already in place – mother earth

    1. @cfraser
      Yes, if you live within natural limits. Not if you circumvent those limits, live unnaturally, and grossly overpopulate. Humans have chosen the latter for the past 10,000 years. And of course nuclear war not only overwhelms the Earth as our guardian and mother, but it also destroys it.

      1. That’s hubris.

        We certainly CAN kill ourselves off (and probably nearly all the other largish & photogenic land animals).

        We are nowhere near being able to “destroy the earth”. The planet has taken hits that ended a majority of the larger organisms repeatedly (and earth will certainly be subjected to more such even if we don’t have a go at it ourselves).

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

      2. @Diverticulitis
        It’s not hubris at all. It’s a viewpoint that humans are a cancer on the planet, have caused immense harm never caused by any other species, have ALREADY destroyed the Earth to a large extent, and are capable of wiping out the large majority if not all life on Earth permanently.

        If you were to look at the Earth 10,000 years ago and look at it now, you’d think you were looking at two different planets because of human destruction and killing. Therefore, humans already have destroyed the Earth, as in the natural Earth that existed before humans started using agriculture. Furthermore, some of the ionizing radiation that would contaminate our atmosphere after a nuclear war would last until the sun burns out. It’s possible that new forms of life that could tolerate that radiation could evolve, but it’s more likely that nuclear war could make it so that life could no longer exist here. And you don’t even need nuclear war for that. No less than Stephen Hawking said that if humans don’t stop emitting carbon dioxide into our atmosphere from industrial emissions, the Earth could turn into Venus.

        Saying that humans can’t destroy the Earth just boils down to being an anti-environmental comment. What it really means is that humans should continue to destroy the Earth and kill all the life here for their own benefit, because hey, we really can’t hurt anything. Utter BS.

  2. true… scenario created by the “greatest generation”, what a legacy. and baby boomer Lily has no idea what possibilities could await her.

    1. The Greatest Generation were born from 1900 through the 1920s. Boomers were born from 1946-1964. Each generation consisted of a political left and right, rich and poor, and people of all races.

  3. Boomers gave birth to a generation taught in school/by media to grab hold of stereotypes, who often think all (name race/age/gender) are alike. Boomers were the generation of the civil rights battles, the mass anti-war protests, the push for equal human and civil rights. They spent their lives standing up for the New Deal/Great Society — a social agenda largely killed off by the Clintonites to the cheers of the Boomers’ kids. Boomers took a stand (if less successfully) for real education (not merely rote memorization) for ALL — even the poor. Tremendous progress was accomplished in that era, only to be reversed by the masses of Reagan Youth.

    1. @DH Fabian
      I don’t know which side of the political fence the Boomers’ kids were on, but the Boomers played a large role in supporting the disgusting Clinton politics. People get more conservative as they age (of course with some exceptions for those of you for whom I have to say that), and Boomers as a whole sold out their values as they aged. Most hippies eventually got jobs and became part of the establishment they had been fighting. Etc. The most conservative voting demographic is Boomers. The people who vote in the highest percentages are old people. Boomers spoiled their kids rotten, basically abdicating any discipline except for that needed for the kids’ survival and to get good grades in school (in other words, only things that help the kids themselves with no regard for others). So whatever problems you have with the Boomers’ kids, look at the Boomers, they caused this.

      1. Jeff,
        Yes we get older and many get more conservative. But any counter culture is usually a fairly small part of the population, in any generation. But often we are able to make changes anyway. Personally, I have continued to become more radical over the years to the point now where I most people do not want to hear what I now understand.

      2. @Chris+Rodgers
        I too have gotten more radical as I’ve aged, but we’re exceptions, not the rule. I always try to stay conscious of and avoid falling into getting conservative as I age, as I’ve always abhorred that.

      3. It’s far from clear that people become more conservative as they age. What we know for certain is that the wealthy are conservative and the life expectancy of the poor is substantially lower than the wealthy. The wealthy live longer, so they outweigh in influence and/or numbers those who aren’t as conservative. It’s more accurate to say that social murderers are more conservative.

        The above equation is especially poisonous with Boomers. By the time they’re gone by natural or other means, it will be much too late politically and especially ecologically. It’s interesting that, as time to make changes has run out, it’s become oddly more acceptable to criticize Boomers.* It’s very likely extinction-even over-type-over, so who cares what the proles say?

        * even against some Boomers’ shrill ‘Stop the generational warfare… before it comes back to roost.’

      4. @Lionel M
        It’s not far from clear at all; in fact, it’s PERFECTLY clear. For one thing, older voters are more conservative than younger ones. If you think that this is caused by richer people living longer, show me the statistics and analysis that support your position. For another, it only makes sense, as the pressures of life (family, paying rent or mortgage, etc.) cause people to become more conservative. Finally, you can see it with your own eyes. Friends who were radical in high school have become pro-establishment (Democrat or Republican, it doesn’t matter). I’ve told some of them that their younger selves would have laughed at the attitudes and statements of their current selves, because the current ones are exactly what we fought against and made fun of.

        We agree that the rich are the problem. We also agree that the ecological situation on Earth is quite dire and the outlook is quite grim, though I strongly disagree that this has much to do with Baby Boomers or any other specific generation; it’s a HUMAN problem that goes back thousands of years to at least the use of agriculture, and perhaps even to when humans left Africa and caused extinctions wherever they went. But my comment was in response to DH Fabian, who’s clearly a fellow Boomer, and who was bragging about what a great generation it was. I couldn’t disagree more. The “60s,” which actually didn’t start until sometime in the mid-60s and ended in 1972, were a great time in U.S. history because of all the rebellion against the establishment and the questioning of basic assumptions in this totally immoral country. But Baby Boomers as a whole, just like 60s hippies, quickly sold out their values for money and good jobs as they aged. I never said that this phenomenon is exclusive to Boomers; in fact, it’s the norm for all generations and people. As I said, people get more conservative as they age.

    2. DH Fabian: Being a Baby Boomer, I agree with the above, completely.

      1. So you’re unable to find support for class as a prime determinant for lifespan* and have trouble accepting that Baby Boomers are not only the most privileged in American but very likely world history, and prefer to fulminate and deflect and insist that everyone simply gets more conservative as they age?

        OK Boomer.

        * there exists a fantastic study out of the UK, using detailed NHS info, showing precisely that.

      2. @Lionel M
        I never said that people with money don’t live longer. What I said is that if you are claiming that this is the main reason that older people are more conservative, provide some evidence for that proposition. We agree that older people are more conservative; our difference is why. We agree that richer people living longer is a factor in older people being more conservative, but it’s a minor factor. Rich people are a small minority; many if not most old people are poor.

        I also never said that Baby Boomers are not the richest generation so far and probably ever, because they are. What I said was that they sold out their values as they aged and that they spoiled their kids rotten. The facts — that Boomers are the richest generation ever, that people get more conservative with age, and that richer people are more conservative — are not mutually exclusive at all. All three can be, and in fact are, true.

        I gave you perfectly logical reason why people get more conservative as they get older. I also provided anecdotal examples, which I’m sure you can also see for yourself if you’re not blinded to reality by your ideologies. Did you have radical friends when you were young? What are they like now politically?

  4. @ Jeff
    Your arguments might hold water except you’re missing the obvious point that so many non-Boomers understand: an enormous generation (only recently outnumbered by the much-poorer Millennials) with a working class that had access to more wealth than any before it and which still controls great wealth, puts the lie to fewer, richer old people becoming more conservative. Boomers are still legion, privileged, and largely impervious to reason, no matter the cost to others. And that’s before we delve into lead-brain as a public health phenomena.

    Ironically, your dissatisfaction is with your own cohort. Don’t try to pawn it off on others or semantic shadings. If you want kinder views on Boomers, earn them with political behavior that no one who’s come after has yet seen. We’ll all be quite relieved.

    1. @Lionel M
      I’m not missing any point. For one thing, you ARE so blinded by your hatred of Boomers that you can’t even process what I wrote. Instead, you falsely claim that I said that Boomers aren’t rich & privileged, when in fact I said that they are. You also write in vague, nonsensical generalities: “puts the lie to fewer, richer old people becoming more conservative;” “your dissatisfaction is with your own cohort. Don’t try to pawn it off on others or semantic shadings.” What the hell does any of that even mean?

      Address what I said, which you don’t seem to be able to do. I asked you questions, you answered neither of them. Try that for starters. We were discussing whether people age as they get older; we agree that Boomers are rich & privileged, and that they sold out their values.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: