Although gaining some perspective is good advice, there is a tacit assumption here that the world just happens and that the tide of history ebbs and flows as it will. Long periods of peace and prosperity happen partly from luck but also partly because key people make them happen. I think it is interesting to consider Bismarck [0] in relation to World War I. We need people like that in high offices trying to promote peace.
Times of stress are exactly the right time for people to stand up and say "wait a minute, I don't see how this can end well - lets try something different" and "if we keep doing this, eventually it will end badly - lets pick a different route". Or even "what exactly are we relying on and what are our options if something happens"; which can be surprisingly useful as a conversation starter. If people can't answer that one in the good times they certainly don't have a plan for when there is a crisis.
We've entered a really dangerous period where the people who remember WWII and the aftermath are dead or dying. A lot of quiet actors were shepherding the post WWII era - the last era of relative peace - and just assuming it works out from now going forward is not a strategy. And that is before even starting on the resources questions about how much of society can be sustained for 3 generations.
> People have been writing about how the world is going to shit since they could write
The first person I know to complain like that in writing was Socrates who lived to see the fall of Athens/Athenian hegemony in 404BC. He wasn't exactly wrong.
> The first person I know to complain like that in writing was Socrates who lived to see the fall of Athens/Athenian hegemony in 404BC. He wasn't exactly wrong.
What? Wasn't he completely, utterly wrong though?
Isn't life today incomparably better in general?
Now, of course, you could argue that for one particular group of people life will never be as good as it used to be at one particular point in history ... but that misses the point - overall humanity is much better off.
Humanity will figure something out. Humanity will be okay.
People in developed world retiring in 20 years from now however will heave zero support from state. Zero return on their investment. Will have to work full-time till they are dead basically to get healthcaretthey need.
That is definitely not end of the world, but neither was original ponzi scheme collapse.
I am still figuring out my retirement and "invest more" might not be the best answer
Where are the statistics proving overall humanity is much better off? I'm doubtful anyone can prove "overall" humanity is better or worse than "x" generation. Also how do we measure it?
Times of stress are exactly the right time for people to stand up and say "wait a minute, I don't see how this can end well - lets try something different" and "if we keep doing this, eventually it will end badly - lets pick a different route". Or even "what exactly are we relying on and what are our options if something happens"; which can be surprisingly useful as a conversation starter. If people can't answer that one in the good times they certainly don't have a plan for when there is a crisis.
We've entered a really dangerous period where the people who remember WWII and the aftermath are dead or dying. A lot of quiet actors were shepherding the post WWII era - the last era of relative peace - and just assuming it works out from now going forward is not a strategy. And that is before even starting on the resources questions about how much of society can be sustained for 3 generations.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck
EDIT
> People have been writing about how the world is going to shit since they could write
The first person I know to complain like that in writing was Socrates who lived to see the fall of Athens/Athenian hegemony in 404BC. He wasn't exactly wrong.