Missing the obvious hypothesis: people in the past had real problems, like living through a war (by fighting in it or having it fought where you were, not by seeing it on TV), or the Great Depression, or other real, actual threats to life and limb. Something happy was a counterbalance. Now, if you're a member of a pampered elite able to work at movies/TV/other mass media for a living (for each one who can, many try and cannot finagle their way into that industry for lack of connections), you make it "dark and gritty" to cover up for the fact that you don't really know anything about real suffering.
I frankly feel kinda great in a crisis. The more serious, the better. All the dumbest parts of my brain shut down and I do what has to be done. Squeamishness, fear, anxiety, second-guessing, rumination—all shoved in a closet and the door slammed.
Gotta be an acute crisis I can do something about, though. "Climate change" or whatever doesn't trigger that state.
If not for being pretty happy with being alive and having a body that's not broken and logically knowing how fast those things can change, I'd probably be really into extreme sports.
I have a very similar crisis reaction. Acute crisis bring out the best in me. Unfortunately conversely, long slow simmering ones without agency break me over time.
Anectdote: I was very into “extreme” sports as a kid and into adulthood. I eventually took up skydiving and had quite a bit of fun with it. Met a lot of old timers with a lot of jumps under their belt. An observation really struck me talking to them: the people at the top of “extreme” sports are not really adrenaline junkies, but control freaks.
If you're interested in reading more about this I highly recommend the book "Tribe" by Sebastian Junger - it goes into exactly what you say - why people sometimes feel better in a time of crisis.
The main reason is the temporary flattening of social hierarchies and true meritocracy where you are more valued for your skills than for your position in society.
A crisis is acute and inherently short-term. But despite mountains of marketing meant to make it a series of deadlines and checkpoints, climate change is a fundamentally continuous, long-term problem that grows a little more every day.
The Ukraine situation by contrast had the contours of a crisis, and so did COVID-19 in the beginning. And in both cases we in the "developed" world watched our leaders squabble and foible and generally reveal their total unpreparedness. I can see how that's depressing.
Almost everything in the news is either gonna trigger anxiety or nothing. Outrage, maybe. That's about it. Farther away from local news, the more true that is.
Luckily, keeping up with that stuff day-to-day or even week-to-week is pretty pointless, so easy to avoid.
The knowledge of all those problems just goes on the pile of shit that I can't possibly deal with, so just have to try not to think about, along with things like existential dread, the fact that my living the way I do (so, like a normal developed-world person) is probably indirectly causing misery for someone somewhere (The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas is, like much good speculative fiction, not about a fictional place but rather our current world), my hunch that cosmic horror probably comes about as close to capturing the nature of our existence and place in the universe as anything does (if only metaphorically), all that and the rest of the unhelpful crap that's probably true and real but also not especially actionable short of "kill yourself, or else devote yourself body and soul monk-/batman-like to some cause all the time every day, probably to no real effect except personal satisfaction".
That's exactly the point of those news: to trigger the viewer. That's all they care about. Now that we pile up on those anxieties or whatever, not the news channel's problem.
I too like when crises time hits, when I have something I need to act upon and deal with. And I think that's a lot of it - WW2 people could do their part for the war effort, their enemy had a face, they could fight it, they could win. You can understand this at the simplest levels, everyone understands fighting.
I can't fight climate change, I can't fight COVID. I'm powerless against the specter of fascism. We have all these anxieties about what's happening, but no way we can do better. Frustrations and anger pile up but there's no catharsis. A lot of the time embracing the darkness in media is cathartic.
This resonates. I'm in a highly regulated industry and nothing makes my happier than a Sev 1 emergency where I can push all the mind numbing process to the side and actually FIX shit. Otherwise it's process, and review boards, and iterating on the change til someone is happy about some arbitrary documentation issue.
In a way, isn't that exactly what evolution prepared us for, as opposed to a life of overabundance afforded by work with no personal meaning?
Perhaps we're simply missing having and being able to overcome pressing challenges as much as we're missing physical activity, nights without light pollution, or contact with nature?
On the one hand, yeah, sure, on the other, that concern does nothing but hurt me. It's entirely pointless. You don't need to maintain a constant state of concern/anxiety to remember to work toward solutions to those sorts of things when possible.
And anyway, I only wrote that those kinds of things don't trigger that pleasant crisis-flow-state for me, not that I'm not worried about them.
I agree. My dad had to fight in WW2 at 17, got shot twice, almost lost a leg, had to leave their home with nothing. My mom spent a lot of nights in a bunker while bombs were falling, they had to watch for fighter planes shooting at them while working on the fields during the day. The generations that grew up in the west after WW2 have seen nothing in comparison.
I think people like the idea of overcoming suffering so these days they exaggerate a lot of things.
It’s not so much they were “real” problems, as they were acute problems. Acute problems - bad guy with gun - are easier to portray on screen than chronic problems. Anyone who thinks we don’t have real problems anymore and this is the end of history has their head in the sand. But it’s more difficult to visualize. How do you make a war flick out of climate change? How do you make an action thriller from wealth inequality? Even Covid, I mean I don’t know of any influential movies inspired by the Spanish Flu.
Some “dark and gritty” does suffer from a true lack of maturity on the point of the screenwriter - Zac Snyder does not have the writing talent to support his darkness without it seeming cheesy and silly - but a lot of it - Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight - very much does touch on the real suffering of the modern era: terrorism, surveillance, class divisions.
War breeds connection and community. Many of the greatest minds in the world came from these wars. Hemingway, St. Francis of Assisi, Konstantin Batyushkov, Whitman
are some who are top of mind for me today. What other great thinkers were breed in war environments?
or perhaps it's because the world is falling apart and we're on a solid trajectory to make it worse, and unlike a war, it's not something easy to bounce back from?
Let's be fair, humanity has been saying that everything is falling apart for centuries.
There's in the front page a post that's named: "A brief history of nobody wants to work anymore"¹ that shows registers from as early as 1894 of media saying "Nobody wants to work anymore".
Even the classic "Kids these days" can be tracked back to 624 BCE².
Socrates said too something along those lines: «The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.»
You are forgetting a very important thing: the ever-increasing power of misplaced technology - once upon a time ability for damage equaled to a rock or a stick, today...
The "great responsibility" that should have accompanied the "great power" is dwarfed. Wisdom should needingly¹ increase more than power - of course this is not how things go.
(¹I cannot find the term for the modality: not "deontically", not "absiologically"... The idea is "X, or you are in trouble".)
So, "in the times of yore, civilization was falling apart". Today, it is with boosted damages.
Well, we've never had microplastics inside literally everything before, and I'm not too thrilled about it, and forever chemicals aren't too flash either. We get a pass for asbestos because the earth made it (thanks for nothing, gaia), and radiation because it goes away, but we've really taken the cake for worst idea with these things.
It’s probably because car headlights and grilles become squintier and angrier every year. People drive too much and everywhere they look is angry car faces.
Is'a "good" idea: it implies a proposal of a model according to which people absorb acritically more and more, subliminally, iow process the input stimula less and less. The poster points an accusing finger against passivity.
People will always find a way to feel pity for themselves, that absolves them of personal responsibility, and maybe attract some sympathy. Depression and sadness as a form of entertainment is very old.
I wouldn't dare deny that many parts of the world are slowly approaching a tipping point, but even if the world was perfect, people will invent their own struggles. Seems like we instinctively crave challenges, and emotional challenges are the low hanging fruit.
While I think there is correlation here, I think a better arugment would be for the cyclical nature of art. When society goes one way art may go another. (or at times the same way, I doubt it's a 180 relationship)
> Now, if you're a member of a pampered elite able to work at movies/TV/other mass media for a living
Hasn't this always been true? I can't imagine a time in history when plays/literature/music has been more accessible to the working class.
I'm of the opinion that most of the "dark, gritty" stuff we keep seeing in media just boils down to standard trend-chasing and market pressures to continue to use existing IPs. The cheesy, feel-good stuff from the 60s has already been done, so the darker stuff, especially when it's a darker take on those same characters, is still somewhat subversive to most viewers. When artists can't get real novelty, subversiveness is at least still generally respectable. Eventually, as the audience gets tired of this and it gets done to death, it will shift. Maybe not to the happy-go-lucky stuff, but I think surreal and absurdist humor is still fertile ground (see shows like: Nathan For You, The Review, Informercials, Corporate, American Vandal), and could be another future avenue for continuing to exploit existing IPs.
As for the general happiness of the population decreasing, I think that's mostly unrelated to the media trend. Economic troubles (low wages, housing unaffordability), societal strife, and social media all seem like obvious causes. However, Movies and TV are still generally viewed as an escape to most people, so while they reflect greater trends to some degree, I don't think they're as tied to it as the author may expect.
A very measured take. I was personally of the opinion it was because we don't experience "real" problems today (mentioned by another commenter), but this is at least an equally plausible explanation for the media trends. Well done!
People looked happy in movies and TV because that's simply how it was done. One of the things that made shows like The Simpsons and Married With Children so revolutionary was their rebellion against this artificial happiness, peeling away the veneer to show the dysfunction that was always lurking beneath. This "peeling away of layers" defined much of the 90s, and eventually led to a kind of one-upmanship to see who could be the grittiest, the most provocative, the most extreme.
There's a similar revolution brewing at the moment in Japanese TV with the release of shows like The Naked Director.
Feels like theres some cherry picking going on. eg whilst “the power rock of the ‘80s is… incredibly cheerful’ the 80s also played host to Joy Division and Suicidal Tendencies neither of whom exude incredible cheer (though the angst is expressed very differently). Similarly the cheerful rock’n’roll of the 1950s might be contrasted with the mournful blues and jazz which spawned it. Or what about the 50s novels of Richard Yates pretty bleak stuff compared with the life affirming tone of best selling contemporary novelists such as John Green and Becky Chambers.
The 80's also had some of the darkest horror and dystopian sci-fi that we've seen in popular culture. Interesting in the article he never mentions Seinfeld or Peanuts as those were turning points into more realistic or less sympathetic characters for their genres (tv comedy and comics respectively)
edit as I'm still reading: "The one note today’s entertainment strikes is the depressive tone" is an eye roll level of reductionism.
I'd be curious how the reduction in influence in religion has played a roll as well. The FCC rules on what you could say in TV/radio used to be downright archaic, and I think religion espouses this idea that good people are happy and everything turns out ok in the end because god.
Painting phenomena with gross partial strokes is very easy if one myopically does not consider roots: if you follow the structure of paths behind the outcomes there are different expressions (modulated by personalities) of recognizable instances, more significant than "a mood".
Isn't it because depression and anxiety were taboo topics then? I think these topics have been normalized only relatively recently. Even in the 1980s none of the superstars would come out and admit they are suffering depression (Whitney Houston and Michael Jackson come to mind). Or a more recent "coming out" by Sinead O'Connor that she's in deep depression was a complete shock to me (and to many). I couldn't even watch her video in full, was so painful to see her saying those things.
So I think it's more about the "coming out" and normalization of the darker side of human nature, which was always there of course, just wasn't OK to talk about out loud, at work or on stage and especially if you are a celebrity.
True, but I also think the romanticization of depression is a factor as well. Just look at "Doomer" culture on the internet, or "black pill" types. Watch one of those videos on youtube, and all of a sudden you get a deluge of those types of vids. That is what I fear for future generations. When depression is seen as an aesthetic, some people(mostly teenagers) try to identify with it and accidentally end up depressed for real.
For most people, it is more complex than that. However this is a trend that I worry about.
You can (and IMO should) disable youtube suggestions based on your past browsing. You can also have it only store 3 months worth of tracking (in case you ever turn the suggestions back on).
It definitely lowers the quality of the suggestions... but that's kind of the point.
I take it one step farther and only watch YouTube in a private session and don't log in. When the recommendations get strange, I close the window and open a new one.
It's important to realize where doomer culture came from. It largely began as a response to feel good messages which were decorating the truth of things at the benefit of no one.
The main issue being, doomer culture can be embraced as a way to accept things that are beyond your power and double efforts on what you can change, or as a way to toss away all efforts and be in a perpetual state of not caring. It also serves as a counter to society continuing to polish turds.
Does no one remember goths? Or before them, whatever the '80s subculture around gloomy New Wave bands like Joy Division, Depeche Mode, or New Order were called? And before them, the punk movement that was a reaction against the carefree utopianism of the hippies? Rockers? Greasers? Romanticism?
Yeah, the over-romanticizing of mental illness, and how prevalent it is thanks to always-on digital culture, is a real concern. But historically, there are always subcultures centered on unhappy and negative emotions, in contrast to the subcultures that focus on happy and positive ones.
I agree, but back then they didn't have algorithms based on online activity to fuel the spiral. What we are getting is that, but worse because it is harder to escape
Very curious coincidence, an article just appeared at OurWorldInData.org - and by very Max Roser:
'The world is awful. The world is much better. The world can be much better - We need to see that [these three statements] are all true to see that a better world is possible'
Proposed example: "4.3% of children globally - 5.9mil/year - die before the age of 15; BUT: in the past it was 50%; YET: in the EU the current value is 0.45% [HENCE: progress is possible, goals are available]".
...Which is more times relevant: difficulties are increasingly topical, but complications in dealing with them are in public conscience, and an approach to make them increasingly present is explainable in more branches of said conscience.
While true, this likely has nothing to do with the happiness experienced in western culture.
Short term happiness comes from things that release dopamine/oxytocin: (1) Drugs, (2) Sex, (3) Cuddling (4) Video games... etc
Long term [personal] happiness usually comes from self-actualization (I am doing meaningful work and am competent at it) and having an upward sloping trajectory in life (i.e. things were worse for me before, but they're getting better and they will be better in the future). It's affected by expectations (i.e. did things turn out better than I expected). It can also come from having meaningful relationships with other people.
Modern society:
(1) Sets high expectations of what is achievable which sets people up for disappointment for what they will actually achieve
(2) Reduces in person connections due to a lot of work being more solitary/computer work and people interacting with the physical world less
(3) Does not highlight the "bright future" of tomorrow (and specifically how things will improve if you live in a western nation)
(4) Lots of people end up choosing whether to do meaningful work or get paid well - meaningful work rarely pays appropriately (teachers, nurses, etc. even things like nuclear engineers being paid less than frontend software developers for ex.). Partly this is due to bad incentives and cost of capital that is too low (i.e. software/finance has gotten disproportionately "fat" relative to it's contribution to social well-being. Higher interest/hurdle rates would solve some of this)
Not sure if this is a frame of reference effect, or maybe just a local minimum, but alternative/rock music from the early 00s was extremely depressing compared to the modern stuff (which seems to have settled into an abstract/esoteric niche). I have sometimes wondered why it seemed like depression was "cool" in the late 90s/early 00s. For instance, if you look up the lyrics for Chevelle - Send The Pain Below, you'd quickly realize such a song would set off a bunch of red flags in 2022, yet this was a song played daily on the radio.
What is considered alternative/rock these days? I followed alternative rock in the 00's, and then the indie rock scene through the early 2010s, but it seems like rock in general has dropped off significantly. I'd be happy to be wrong though. Russian post-punk (Molchat Doma) is the only "new" thing I've been familiarized with, and it does seem pretty depressing (not that I can understand the lyrics though). As for the aughts being so depressing, I'd imagine the popularity of the emo scene was a big factor in that.
Indie rock still exists, but rock music in general seems like a spent force that's been overshadowed by hip-hop, pop, and electronic music, for now. There's still plenty of alternative music, they just don't get as much radio play as they did in past decades. Plenty of those bands are still putting out new music. Interpol just released a new album, Arcade Fire did in the last few months, ditto Foals, Metric, Bloc Party. The Yeah Yeah Yeahs are releasing one in September.
Short term happiness comes from things that release dopamine/oxytocin: (1) Drugs, (2) Sex, (3) Cuddling (4) Video games... etc
Long term [personal] happiness usually comes from self-actualization (I am doing meaningful work and am competent at it) and having an upward sloping trajectory in life (i.e. things were worse for me before, but they're getting better and they will be better in the future). It's affected by expectations (i.e. did things turn out better than I expected). It can also come from having meaningful relationships with other people.
Modern society: (1) Sets high expectations of what is achievable which sets people up for disappointment for what they will actually achieve
(2) Reduces in person connections due to a lot of work being more solitary/computer work and people interacting with the physical world less
(3) Does not highlight the "bright future" of tomorrow (and specifically how things will improve if you live in a western nation)
(4) Lots of people end up choosing whether to do meaningful work or get paid well - meaningful work rarely pays appropriately (teachers, nurses, etc. even things like nuclear engineers being paid less than frontend software developers for ex.). Partly this is due to bad incentives and cost of capital that is too low (i.e. software/finance has gotten disproportionately "fat" relative to it's contribution to social well-being. Higher interest/hurdle rates would solve some of this)
Watching television / using the computer isolates us from real meaningful human connections and causes depression / cynical world view. It is often hard to have meaning or purpose in the world and hard to interact with others in a real life meaningful way. As the internet and media continue to be front and center in our life depression and sadness are inevitable.
I agree with some other commenters; this is a lot of cherry picking. You could just as easily compare Nosferatu (1922) with Blade (1998) with Twilight (2008) and ask why culture gets happier and less serious as time goes on, “aren’t we all becoming like Brave New World???” Comparing Adam West’s Batman with today’s Batman is just lazy. They’re apples and oranges at this point: different genres, different climates (today the more “fun” stuff is Marvel), different film technology. And if we want to get into it, it’s not “depression” that’s trendy; it’s realism. 60’s Batman dealt with all the same “dark” themes as current Batman: mafia, crime, trauma and grief, etc. But the visual portrayal was different because it was a “comic book” before comic books adaptations were commonplace blockbusters. That doesn’t mean all of 1960s cinema is somehow a comic book movie. Hello: Psycho (1960), Dr. Strangelove (1964), The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly (1966).
To chime in about how the article is cherry picking rather than doing deeper analysis: Dark and gritty superhero deconstruction was a product of the '80s and maybe early '90s, and then the '00s had the gritty reboot/reimagining trend for TV shows and movies in general. You also had a lot of prestige drama doing gritty realism with complex, dark antihero male protagonists starting in that era, which kicked into high gear in the '10s. Sopranos to Breaking Bad. Also shows where society was the gritty complex realistic antihero. The Wire to Game of Thrones.
I wouldn't say contemporary culture is any more unhappy than that era, it's just harder to read because there's no GOT type "event" series that everyone is watching right now. Maybe there will be a new cultural phenomenon, or maybe with this glut of streaming content, there won't be. (And if we look at blockbuster films, so many of them are shiny happy Disney-MCU fare, which are definitely not dark and gritty.) It just feels like right now we have a huge array of choices. When presented with that variety, it's really hard to say that it's generally more or less happy.
I do wonder what will replace comic books as the dominant subgenre of pop entertainment. I was hoping we'd get a reconstruction trend with comics like Astro City or Kingdom Come getting adapted, but in writing the previous section, I realized there's no need. For every dark and gritty realistic The Boys, there's multiple Disney+ shows. Batman is a character who's inherently going to have darkness. The majority of superhero comic screen media is escapist and optimistic, and this not-study is cherry-picking.
I don't know. Even if this anecdotal narrative has any merit, I'd still take doom-and-gloom over the recent infantile direction of popular music and film. Thankfully there's some decent TV still.
There's a book. It's called The Birth of Tragedy. On the one hand, Nietzsche is pretty persuasive that, basically, tragedies are the highest form of drama. So, one would expect ambitious artists to want to tell stories with realistic characters and without happy endings. (Stories with happy endings are comedies.) On the other hand, the ambition to create tragic drama, or at least attain its status, gets dumbed down and applied imitatively in "dark and gritty" takes on pop culture.
Not having life and limb threats in our day to day lives does not mean our mind will not go seeking threats. Our mind will find/create a threat to arrive at some kind of balance. And, having no way to actually to react to a 'threat' our minds will terrorize us.
Though it is true the speaking of anxiety and depression has been normalized, there is a substantial non-linear spike in these maladies in our modern times that cannot be reconciled just with normality. Just take, for instance, what the 'threats' in social media are doing.[0]
The saying, 'all things are relative' applies here. If you have never experienced a true threat to your life, actually continuous threat and/or actual bodily harm, threats to your food or shelter then social media might be the meanest worst thing you have ever seen and thus a true terror to you.
If you go back past the 1950s-1960s TV era to the early 20th century, there's quite a bit of the dark and gritty stuff. The movie "Metropolis" (1927, Fritz Lang) is a fairly dystopian work, for example. A lot of popular writing from that era has a similar flavor. By that measure, the 50s and 60s were an unhealthy aberration, a one-sided positivity culture similar in style to fascist and communist propaganda regimes that never mentioned the negative aspects of those systems.
I personally like William Gibson's take on this, from Gernsback Continuum:
> "But the couple in front of me lived in it, and they frightened me. They were the children of Dialta Downes's '80s-that-wasn't; they were Heirs to the Dream. They were white, blond, and they probably had blue eyes. They were American. Dialta had said that the Future had come to America first, but had finally passed it by. But not here, in the heart of the Dream. Here, we'd gone on and on, in a dream logic that knew nothing of pollution, the finite bounds of fossil fuel, or foreign wars it was possible to lose. They were smug, happy, and utterly content with themselves and their world. And in the Dream, it was their world."
> "Behind me, the illuminated city: Searchlights swept the sky for the sheer joy of it. I imagined them thronging the plazas of white marble, orderly and alert, their bright eyes shining with enthusiasm for their floodlit avenues and silver cars. It had all the sinister fruitiness of Hitler Youth propaganda."
The real world is a lot less dramatic than it was in the past in many ways.
A movie about chasing the love of your life down at the airport right before they board would be solved with a text message and some emoji instead.
A movie about everyone going off to war would instead be droning some people from far away. Even getting droned is less dramatic... no chase or fight or glory, just one second there and the next second not. The war in Ukraine would be implausible as a modern movie (An evil villian attacks with tanks and blows up schools to rebuild some mythical empire? Uh, sounds dated and cliche.)
So drama in movies is now mostly due to people making unnecessary drama. And has anyone else noticed that political dramas are almost always about what people say and never what they do?
In the Hindu mythology there is the concept of Kali, or the ultimate suffering and pain. Rather than being evil, Kali is worshiped because without her (or at least the _idea_ of her) we could not truly experience happiness. This is based on a (religious) psychological idea that to enjoy anything you must have the really terrible awfulness there in the back of your mind, as something that could spring out from the corners.
Something like that anyway. Horror films and dark stories make everyday life feel more enjoyable. Or they could, if we can take things in that light.
The Monitoring the Future graph shows a pretty good uptick in youth happiness up until 2009/2010 and then we basically see a precipitous drop ever since. I would say the initial introduction of social media was pretty awesome(as a 90s) kid. As time went on it has become a cesspool(now my adult view)...and from what I have heard, it isn't great for the younger generation.
Happiness is ultimately a pretty subjective matter, no less when trying to compare across many generations.
The 50s were a sort of golden era for North America, it really did seem like opportunities were boundless for a while there. An average family could expect to own their own home and a car in the suburbs. The cities weren't as grossly over-crowded as they are now. California only had a quarter of the population it does today, just imagine how much more pleasant that must have been. There was no social media. No quick and easy access to mood-altering drugs. A culture that valued long-term committed relationships. There were no 24/7 new networks broadcasting minute-to-minute updates on the latest mass shooting or climate catastrophe. Certainly there were still issues back then, but maybe we've just made culture less happy over time. When I look at culture today it's hard for me to imagine where do we go from here.
Ask black and queer people how golden the 50's were. Or women.
It was a culture that "valued" long-term relationships to the extent that they were Ok with the relationship completely destroying individuals. And it had an implicit nod to at least men seeking release value outside the relationship, as long as it was discreet.
It had a large amount of mind-alterning drugs - alcohol. Barbiturates. Valium. The latter two prescribed excessively if you deviated in any way from the norm. It was OK with performing lobotomies on people to have them perform within norm.
There were almost no news except what was officially approved. You'd mostly lose contact with friends who moved more than a few miles away - long distance contact through mail is hard.
Housework was hard manual labor, because there were little affordable tools. (They were just starting to become normal). In terms of performing arts, it was a wasteland because the vast majority of cities didn't have the size to support art scenes.
I could go on. But what I'd really like to say is: Both the picture you paint, and the one I paint, are likely overemphasizing certain characteristics. In that, we generalize way too much. Happiness is individual, not cultural. Culture is tribal, not general. And more importantly, culture is what we make of it - and so imagining where to go from here very much becomes "where do you want it to go, and what can you do about that"
Like I said, there were still issues back then. You're right, happiness is individual, not cultural. But one culture can be happier, on average, than another. And if I'm not just romanticizing the past it does genuinely seem like people were happier back then. The economy was booming. The United Nations seemed to promise global peace. We were taking our first steps into space. It seemed like there was a whole world of possibilities back then, not just economically but in the arts as well.
For the arts, the possibilities have exploded. You can shoot an entire movie for budgets that are in the budget of individuals/small groups. You can find an audience for your art orders of magnitude bigger than anything you could find then.
Commercially, you can start high tech businesses in your garage that weren't even dreamt of in the 50s.
As for space, we're currently landing rockets on ships. We're actively planning Mars exploration.
The UN still promises global peace. The second half of the 50s had much worse nuclear saber rattling than anything we see right now. The Korean war very much was a high risk of US and USSR clashing directly.
I really think you romanticize the 50s. (I strongly encourage talking to people who lived through the 50s, especially minority groups)
Again, I really want to say "you're completely wrong" here - in terms of GDP growth, the 50s were great. In terms of sharing that growth (as opposed to concentrating wealth in a small group), they were great. BOth of these only apply to white men/families, though. And I deliberately exaggerate the picture in the other direction to show how much this is a question of framing.
And your right, one culture can be happier than another. We know which cultures are happy, and we have a fairly good idea why they are happier. It's on us to change our culture if we want that happiness.
You see this as a dark picture. I see it as a call to action, and the potential to make the world so much better. I don't know what the chances of success are, but I can promise you that seeing the future as malleable and culture as an ongoing project makes life better than focusing exclusively on the darkness.
Ok you're right. I just think about how empires like Rome that collapsed in on themselves at the height of their power and can't help but see parallels with what is happening now. An affluent apathetic population that just let things slide back into chaos. But I suppose that's hardly an original observation
> Ask black and queer people how golden the 50's were. Or women.
Or people outside of North America. Really, the main cause for the '50s seeming like a golden age was that the U.S., protected by two oceans with its massive industrial capacity and population, emerged from WWII as accidental global hegemon. So it was easy to be optimistic when not only did America win the war, it was very prosperous and on its way to running the world. A decade after the Great Depression, American capital was helping to rebuild old Europe. All of the domestic cultural changes were just second order effects from this situation.
LSD was synthetized in 1938, its psychedelic potential discovered in 1943 and it was used both by psychiatry and for spiritual/recreational purposes through the 50s and 60s until Nixon started "war on drugs".
