Why has "today" started since the year 2000?

[Tr4sh_Kun]

I don't remember where did I heard the term exactly but you could say we pretty much reached the "end of history", no major historical events have happened and we have pretty much reached a point of stagnation where everything seems to be pretty much the same but repackaged for nostalgia sake.

Things will probably remain the same and those who are currently children will eventually have the same feelings towards the past we currently have

 

[Aisf]

Pre COVID feels like a long while ago and it's kinda crazy.

 

[Stingy Perry Stingy Perry]

Well maybe because of the rapid advancement in technology and people felt it got a boost after Y2K.

 

[medisinn]

I have been thinking about this a lot since I saw this video talking about it a couple weeks ago:

I agree and do think because there wasn't a catchy name for the 2000s or 2010s, there just wasn't one accepted and adopted by the majority of people. Even if only subconsciously, that makes a difference. One of the takeaways of the video is that by using decades, it bunches everyone together in a group regardless of age, wealth, and other factors. They have the common, shared experience of having lived through that decade and having seen those trends and events first-hand, which bonds them together. By contrast, what we do now is refer to people by generations, which strictly separates them based on when they were born, and thus creates division. It may be a little hyperbolic, but I don't think it's wrong, perception becomes reality over time.

We are definitely in the unique position of having access to large portion of our past recent history through media and preservation, which older generations didn't have. It's a lot harder for things to feel new when you can constantly look to the past. Even moreso when you are constantly encouraged to by consolidated media companies ran by corporations who want to use your nostalgia as a safe bet to make money instead of taking a risk on something entirely new. It's not always bad, and there were remakes of movies being made decades ago, just not on the level we have now.

 

[Nidoking's icon Nidoking Nidoking]

I honestly feel like the decades after 2009 started to sort of lose identity and blend together. I think part of it is the growing use of social media, it kind of keeps things mixed up and blurs them. Yeah, memes and things come in phases, but old ones just gradually phase out and still pop up every now and then.

There's definitely differences and trends if you look closely, but they just don't stand out as immediately.

 

[miguk miguk]

I have been thinking about this a lot since I saw this video talking about it a couple weeks ago:

I agree and do think because there wasn't a catchy name for the 2000s or 2010s, there just wasn't one accepted and adopted by the majority of people. Even if only subconsciously, that makes a difference. One of the takeaways of the video is that by using decades, it bunches everyone together in a group regardless of age, wealth, and other factors. They have the common, shared experience of having lived through that decade and having seen those trends and events first-hand, which bonds them together. By contrast, what we do now is refer to people by generations, which strictly separates them based on when they were born, and thus creates division. It may be a little hyperbolic, but I don't think it's wrong, perception becomes reality over time.

We are definitely in the unique position of having access to large portion of our past recent history through media and preservation, which older generations didn't have. It's a lot harder for things to feel new when you can constantly look to the past. Even moreso when you are constantly encouraged to by consolidated media companies ran by corporations who want to use your nostalgia as a safe bet to make money instead of taking a risk on something entirely new. It's not always bad, and there were remakes of movies being made decades ago, just not on the level we have now.

I wouldn't give too much credibility to Adam Conover's arguments. He doesn't get everything wrong, but he has a tendency oversimplify things based on a few cherry-picked examples.

The linguistic hypothesis (it's not a theory like he claims) he mentioned has some popularity but is not considered some end-all be-all way of explaining how we think. If it was, we couldn't adapt new concepts to our way of thinking or create neologisms. And his examples only show how language effects other forms of expression, not thought itself.

Likewise, arguing that we look upon eras negatively because we use tragedy to name them is so short sighted that his own attempt to make it look better defeats itself. Every "good" thing he mentioned from the post-9/11 era was also something widely hated. And that era had a lot else that is looked down upon, from bad mainstream movies to post-grunge/butt rock to bad fashion to the general fratty good-ol-boy attitude that was so common then. (And there are plenty of socio-political things that also made that era look bad in the eyes of most, moreso than the cultural aspects, but I'll spare the details.) People remember all those things and don't see that era as something respectable as a result, so they sum it up with the worst thing that kicked off that era because it sums up their feelings about it. And the last 10-18 years have had a similar reception, often with similar reasons.

Also, generations are not a new thing that people are defined by. That was already a thing over half a century ago. And there are some very noticeable differences between some generations. The earliest Boomers were born into a world that just started to use tetraethyllead gasoline. The last of them were born a little before it was illegalized (with some early Gen X caught up in it). A huge portion of the Boomer generation got some level of neurotoxic lead poisoning, which can cause lower cognition and increased aggression. Many of the most effected died off (through involvement in violent crime during the peak crime era of the 70s-to-early 90s and other risky behaviors), but a lot are still alive and thoughtlessly raging. They aren't just different because of fashion and other marketable ephemera; they are measurably mentally different from people born after tetraethyllead had decreased in the environment.

Of course, Adam Conover doesn't have time to go into that much detail because he's a budget comedian who does short-form videos. And if he did make the effort, he might undermine his own infotainment-based arguments.

 

[medisinn]

I wouldn't give too much credibility to Adam Conover's arguments. He doesn't get everything wrong, but he has a tendency oversimplify things based on a few cherry-picked examples.

The linguistic hypothesis (it's not a theory like he claims) he mentioned has some popularity but is not considered some end-all be-all way of explaining how we think. If it was, we couldn't adapt new concepts to our way of thinking or create neologisms. And his examples only show how language effects other forms of expression, not thought itself.

Likewise, arguing that we look upon eras negatively because we use tragedy to name them is so short sighted that his own attempt to make it look better defeats itself. Every "good" thing he mentioned from the post-9/11 era was also something widely hated. And that era had a lot else that is looked down upon, from bad mainstream movies to post-grunge/butt rock to bad fashion to the general fratty good-ol-boy attitude that was so common then. (And there are plenty of socio-political things that also made that era look bad in the eyes of most, moreso than the cultural aspects, but I'll spare the details.) People remember all those things and don't see that era as something respectable as a result, so they sum it up with the worst thing that kicked off that era because it sums up their feelings about it. And the last 10-18 years have had a similar reception, often with similar reasons.

Also, generations are not a new thing that people are defined by. That was already a thing over half a century ago. And there are some very noticeable differences between some generations. The earliest Boomers were born into a world that just started to use tetraethyllead gasoline. The last of them were born a little before it was illegalized (with some early Gen X caught up in it). A huge portion of the Boomer generation got some level of neurotoxic lead poisoning, which can cause lower cognition and increased aggression. Many of the most effected died off (through involvement in violent crime during the peak crime era of the 70s-to-early 90s and other risky behaviors), but a lot are still alive and thoughtlessly raging. They aren't just different because of fashion and other marketable ephemera; they are measurably mentally different from people born after tetraethyllead had decreased in the environment.

Of course, Adam Conover doesn't have time to go into that much detail because he's a budget comedian who does short-form videos. And if he did make the effort, he might undermine his own infotainment-based arguments.

I appreciate the thoughtful, and it sounds like well-researched insight. I've not looked into the subject further than his video, so it doesn't surprise me most of his info is wrong or based on sweeping generalizations.

Yeah, you're right. Thinking about it, the "Greatest Generation" moniker has existed for many decades, and seemingly refers to the generation of those who fought in World War II in a positive light. Even Boomers was once a positive moniker when Baby was still in front of it.

When you say that the era had a lot of things that are looked down upon, are you speaking anecdotally?Thinking about the 2000s, there's a lot that I didn't like or wasn't into, but there were certainly things that were popular. For movies franchises, there were Harry Potter, Twilight, Lord of the Rings, Pirates of the Caribbean, The Matrix, Shrek, Fast and the Furious, etc. Those were definitely a big part of culture then, some of them are still now, others have faded due to diminishing returns from botched sequels and spin-offs. For music, some of those pop-punk bands that were prevalent at the time are making somewhat of a nostalgic resurgence through things like the When We Were Young festivals. For video games, well you had the PS2, doesn't really get more iconic then that, but also the Gamecube and Wii were beloved then and/or now. It's easy to take things like Halo or Call of Duty for granted, since they've never stopped pumping out games. These are cherry-picked examples, sure, but the same could be said for other decades, as they all contain shitty games, movies, music, events, and cultural movements. As for socio-politcal stuff, yeah, a lot of bad happened, but that's nothing new. With hindsight we can look back on much-loved decades and see corruption, ignorance, and greed, even the 80s. The Reagan administration rolled out plenty of bad and malicious policies and programs that did irrevocable damage. The "War on Drugs", the handling of the air traffic controller strike of 1981, etc.

I'm not saying the 2000s and on were better, quite the opposite, I think the world in general is getting worse in various ways. Just thinking that the winners write history, and a lot of the unpleasant things in previous decades get remembered less than the relatively recent ones. Even if Adam's video is overgeneralized infotainment, which I agree with, it would still be nice to have decade names. We may perceive the post-2000 era as a congealed mass of time, but if nothing else we should find good names and take them so that people in the 2100s and 2110s can't use them, heh.

And of course, I'm speaking as an American, I have no idea how this sort of thing is perceived elsewhere. Something like 9/11 is not going to define a generation or decade the same way in another country, for example. I'd be curious to hear more from folks elsewhere about the things that generally define decades where they live.

 

[miguk miguk]

I appreciate the thoughtful, and it sounds like well-researched insight. I've not looked into the subject further than his video, so it doesn't surprise me most of his info is wrong or based on sweeping generalizations.

Yeah, you're right. Thinking about it, the "Greatest Generation" moniker has existed for many decades, and seemingly refers to the generation of those who fought in World War II in a positive light. Even Boomers was once a positive moniker when Baby was still in front of it.

When you say that the era had a lot of things that are looked down upon, are you speaking anecdotally?Thinking about the 2000s, there's a lot that I didn't like or wasn't into, but there were certainly things that were popular. For movies franchises, there were Harry Potter, Twilight, Lord of the Rings, Pirates of the Caribbean, The Matrix, Shrek, Fast and the Furious, etc. Those were definitely a big part of culture then, some of them are still now, others have faded due to diminishing returns from botched sequels and spin-offs. For music, some of those pop-punk bands that were prevalent at the time are making somewhat of a nostalgic resurgence through things like the When We Were Young festivals. For video games, well you had the PS2, doesn't really get more iconic then that, but also the Gamecube and Wii were beloved then and/or now. It's easy to take things like Halo or Call of Duty for granted, since they've never stopped pumping out games. These are cherry-picked examples, sure, but the same could be said for other decades, as they all contain shitty games, movies, music, events, and cultural movements. As for socio-politcal stuff, yeah, a lot of bad happened, but that's nothing new. With hindsight we can look back on much-loved decades and see corruption, ignorance, and greed, even the 80s. The Reagan administration rolled out plenty of bad and malicious policies and programs that did irrevocable damage. The "War on Drugs", the handling of the air traffic controller strike of 1981, etc.

I'm not saying the 2000s and on were better, quite the opposite, I think the world in general is getting worse in various ways. Just thinking that the winners write history, and a lot of the unpleasant things in previous decades get remembered less than the relatively recent ones. Even if Adam's video is overgeneralized infotainment, which I agree with, it would still be nice to have decade names. We may perceive the post-2000 era as a congealed mass of time, but if nothing else we should find good names and take them so that people in the 2100s and 2110s can't use them, heh.

And of course, I'm speaking as an American, I have no idea how this sort of thing is perceived elsewhere. Something like 9/11 is not going to define a generation or decade the same way in another country, for example. I'd be curious to hear more from folks elsewhere about the things that generally define decades where they live.

As I said, the big thing people remember badly about the 00s was the socio-political problems, which the term "post-9/11" directly connects to. Those had a huge direct impact on people, especially the Great Recession at the end of the decade. (Which is still impacting society; some colleges are now at risk of shutting down due to the birth rate sharply declining during the Recession, causing the supply of young adults to be really low now.)

There are some pop cultural things that are seen in a positive light, but they are side by side with others that aren't as well liked. That's true in other decades, but a lot of high quality media was on top back then, with the low quality stuff simply be behind it in popularity. Compare all the butt rock that dominated in the 00s to the same stuff failing to compete with alternative in the 90s. There wasn't really any argument that there was a better genre outpacing the lesser stuff.

And the same is even truer for movies. Look at the most popular movies of the last 25 years and compare to most popular of the 25 years before it. Everything that gets big now is an adaptation, remake, or franchise continuation, all with big budgets and little artistry outside of CGI. Independent cinema would be near dead if A24 wasn't around, as the Big Five are dominating with blockbusters and the mini-majors (all 3 not yet absorbed into the Big Five or Lionsgate) are acting like the Big Five. (I will say that the mini-majors did really good in the 00s, but outside of a few films, they were ignored in the cultural zeitgeist.)

And yes, there was plenty of bad in the 90s, 80s, 70s, and so on. On a technical and statistical level, we have it much better now than back then. The big issue, from what I can tell, is that the recessionary aspects of life are more prominent now, while the progressing aspects are more subtle and harder to notice side by side with things that are making life harder. It was the opposite way around in those decades, as the improvements to life were in your face and big, while the problems were often "over there", not in the lives of most people. (Not trying to discount the experiences of anyone, including myself, with this; just trying to keep it as neutral as possible.)

Same goes for technology and media. Things rapidly advanced between the 60s and the 90s. Computers, music, film, TV, games, and even print (thanks Photoshop) evolved rapidly during that time, even speeding up once we got into the 90s. But that speed didn't last forever. Computers became somewhat standardized and improved more incrementally. Games left the "retro" phase and changed slowly. Music barely changed at all; the only advancements have been Vocaloid & AI. Film & TV went digital and then did nothing else new. Print isn't even around as much.

All this gets back to the main topic. It feels like it's always "today" because we went through an age of rapid progress and then switched to an incremental one. It's not because we can't, in theory, start progressing rapidly again; there is so much more we can do, and we often know that. But we have tons of factors in the way, many of which are related to economics not being as they could be, education being mishandled (frequently due to various forms of access restrictions), politics getting in the way, and corporate nonsense blocking change.

Decade names are fine, but they aren't some panacea that will fix the world. And we're probably better off just giving time periods names that fit events and trends (like some other cultures do), not fixed borders based entirely on numerical changeover. I remember someone once saying "the 90s began in September of 1991, and ended in September of 2001." That sounds more true than the literal definition.

 

[medisinn]

Is it solely due to birth rate that some colleges are struggling, or is it also the cost of education being unaffordable/unappealing for more and more people? The birth rate slowing down definitely has advantages, at a certain point overpopulation is a real problem. A college having less prospective students is certainly a problem, though if some colleges are failing and others aren't, there could be other causes to blame, such as mismanagement. Overall, entertainment is cheaper than in decades past, but basic costs of living have skyrocketed, so I can definitely see how that would dampen the perception of the last couple decades. Although, if you go back even further to the late 1800s and early 1900s, you had things like Company Towns where conditions were also bad and the workers/citizens had little in the way of other options. Things are certainly better than they were then, although corporations are increasing their power and influence and wealth disparity only keeps increasing.

Is that butt rock notion really true? A lot of the rock that to me was very generic and forgettable in the 2000s, like Three Days Grace and Buckcherry, was probably liked by at least some people who were into that music then, or else it wouldn't have been as successful. I'm a huge fan of 90s rock, but for someone who doesn't like Alice in Chains or Pearl Jam, they're also not going to like bands that are derivative of that sound, which was everywhere that decade, or least until the late 90s. It's the same with 80s rock, I love hair metal but there were tons of bands trying to be the next Motley Crue or Poison. Someone who didn't like that music could look back on it in the 90s or 2000s as all being terrible. Certain stuff gets overplayed and pushed by radio stations and record labels, but that's nothing new. Getting into the 2000s, digital music took off, and later streaming services like Spotify; this dovetailing with the de-emphasis on music videos meant that things became more fragmented, and thus forgettable. You could say the same thing about TV shows. The series finale of M*A*S*H was allegedly viewed by 105 million people, which is insane. However, they also had far fewer options on what to watch or do for entertainment. Those kind of numbers just don't happen now outside of the Super Bowl, even something like Game of Thrones didn't have that kind of pull.

I'm definitely not going to argue with that, but people are still going to see these movies. Remakes, endless sequels and rehashes are still a part of culture, even if I dislike them. Again, nothing new, the Brendan Fraser Mummy movie from 1999 was a remake after all. There's just wayyyy more of them now. It felt like there was more room for independent and visionary movies for a while, when they were being greenlit left and right by streaming services to add content. Now that things are being canceled and removed left and right from Netflix or Disney+ for tax breaks, it does feel a lot more grim creativity-wise.

I agree, incremental growth isn't as noticeable. Technology has felt stagnant by comparison if you look at the evolution of common products and computer technology between 1965-1995 and 1995-2025. Hmm, if we go off of major influential events then, like Nirvana's first album changing the music landscape, what else is there in the last 25 years besides 9/11 and the Covid Pandemic that is particularly noteworthy? Maybe the release of the iPhone in 2007? It's a big deal in retrospect, although it was just an improved iteration of earlier phones like the Blackberry. Perhaps YouTube launching in 2005? It's tough to think of things that affect almost everyone because things are so fragmented now. TikTok launching? I abhor it, but it's everywhere now, shaping trends and dictacting discourse, and has been for at least the last five years. It feels like the things that have shaped society the most are more subtle, such as the algorithms that control what people are presented with when they make an internet search or log into a social media site. After all, that's what is so coveted about TikTok apparently is the algorithm they have. Propaganda and advertising have been ever-present in human society, but it feels insidious how much they are woven into every facet of media nowadays.

 

[miguk miguk]

Is it solely due to birth rate that some colleges are struggling, or is it also the cost of education being unaffordable/unappealing for more and more people? The birth rate slowing down definitely has advantages, at a certain point overpopulation is a real problem. A college having less prospective students is certainly a problem, though if some colleges are failing and others aren't, there could be other causes to blame, such as mismanagement. Overall, entertainment is cheaper than in decades past, but basic costs of living have skyrocketed, so I can definitely see how that would dampen the perception of the last couple decades. Although, if you go back even further to the late 1800s and early 1900s, you had things like Company Towns where conditions were also bad and the workers/citizens had little in the way of other options. Things are certainly better than they were then, although corporations are increasing their power and influence and wealth disparity only keeps increasing.

Is that butt rock notion really true? A lot of the rock that to me was very generic and forgettable in the 2000s, like Three Days Grace and Buckcherry, was probably liked by at least some people who were into that music then, or else it wouldn't have been as successful. I'm a huge fan of 90s rock, but for someone who doesn't like Alice in Chains or Pearl Jam, they're also not going to like bands that are derivative of that sound, which was everywhere that decade, or least until the late 90s. It's the same with 80s rock, I love hair metal but there were tons of bands trying to be the next Motley Crue or Poison. Someone who didn't like that music could look back on it in the 90s or 2000s as all being terrible. Certain stuff gets overplayed and pushed by radio stations and record labels, but that's nothing new. Getting into the 2000s, digital music took off, and later streaming services like Spotify; this dovetailing with the de-emphasis on music videos meant that things became more fragmented, and thus forgettable. You could say the same thing about TV shows. The series finale of M*A*S*H was allegedly viewed by 105 million people, which is insane. However, they also had far fewer options on what to watch or do for entertainment. Those kind of numbers just don't happen now outside of the Super Bowl, even something like Game of Thrones didn't have that kind of pull.

I'm definitely not going to argue with that, but people are still going to see these movies. Remakes, endless sequels and rehashes are still a part of culture, even if I dislike them. Again, nothing new, the Brendan Fraser Mummy movie from 1999 was a remake after all. There's just wayyyy more of them now. It felt like there was more room for independent and visionary movies for a while, when they were being greenlit left and right by streaming services to add content. Now that things are being canceled and removed left and right from Netflix or Disney+ for tax breaks, it does feel a lot more grim creativity-wise.

I agree, incremental growth isn't as noticeable. Technology has felt stagnant by comparison if you look at the evolution of common products and computer technology between 1965-1995 and 1995-2025. Hmm, if we go off of major influential events then, like Nirvana's first album changing the music landscape, what else is there in the last 25 years besides 9/11 and the Covid Pandemic that is particularly noteworthy? Maybe the release of the iPhone in 2007? It's a big deal in retrospect, although it was just an improved iteration of earlier phones like the Blackberry. Perhaps YouTube launching in 2005? It's tough to think of things that affect almost everyone because things are so fragmented now. TikTok launching? I abhor it, but it's everywhere now, shaping trends and dictacting discourse, and has been for at least the last five years. It feels like the things that have shaped society the most are more subtle, such as the algorithms that control what people are presented with when they make an internet search or log into a social media site. After all, that's what is so coveted about TikTok apparently is the algorithm they have. Propaganda and advertising have been ever-present in human society, but it feels insidious how much they are woven into every facet of media nowadays.

The cost of college is getting more and more unappealing, but let's be frank here: people will gladly f*** themselves for a chance of hope. Most don't want to go into the literal backbreaking trades or do working class work like construction; even less want to go into the underpaying service sector. There's not much else to choose from aside from fantasies of "influencer" money that is statistically hard to get. And to even have those people, they need to be born, which is just not happening as much now.

Overpopulation is a myth. Malthusian disaster theory has long been debunked, and all sociological and economic studies show underpopulation as the real threat. No fully developed country is replacing any more (with the exception of the US, but only due to high immigration from high reproducing nations). And some, like South Korea, are rapidly spiraling towards an ever worsening birth crisis, with other developed countries doing basically the same at a slower rate.

There's a number of factors beyond QoL to consider. High cost of living is one, but also high demand for better living based on modern concepts of it (all the technology, safety, and other modern considerations), which themselves cost more. And there's also the decline of traditional beliefs: less willingness to risk having kids in bad times, less religious influence to do so, less social pressure, and so on. And most importantly, we don't need kids anymore for farmhands and other financial gains; they are just expensive burdens on a practical level now. They now only serve emotional needs, which we can get elsewhere, and macroeconomic purposes, which almost no one gets pregnant for.

Music in the 00s went downhill because there was nothing pushing it forward. The synthesizer was normalized and perfected while simultaneously looked down on as "inauthentic" for a while. Guitars had nothing new after the distortion pedal. All those new genres of the 90s did everything you could with the technology available. And after that, there wasn't anything else developed but some robot anime girl that could theoretically take your singing job. What we ended up getting was derivative stuff that imitated what came before in a radio-friendly but sluggy way.

Yes, there was music in the 80s and 90s that some people didn't like. But those bands were side by side with others doing a range of things. Don't like hair metal in the 80s? You've got synth pop, new wave (punk derived version), hardcore punk, pop punk, post-punk, college rock, new wave of British metal, alternative dance, hip-hop, new jack swing, and a lot more genres. Don't like grunge inthe 90s? A flood of new and emerging rock genres was available side by side with multiple innovations in hip-hop. Yes, music fragmented in the 00s, but also, the mainstream still dominated, and it didn't promote the best as often as the most willing to be servile to the labels concerns for "radio friendly unit shifters" (songs that will more likely be one and done hits rather than all time greats). And those bands weren't often the most talented.

Yes, like you said, remakes aren't; neither are sequels or franchises. But that's most of what Hollywood will invest in now; the rest is low-budget-high-earners (always horror films, as they attract the only fan base that's, err, generous enough to watch anything) and near none of it is mid-budget films, which were the lifeblood of the industry in the preceding decades. And yes, streaming has the potential to make it work better, but they are very budget obsessed, and they ditch literally anything that begins to cost more. (See Netflix cancelling any show not called Stranger Things that gets to 3 seasons to stop union rules from requiring them to pay cast and crew more on season 4.)

I think you are getting at the problem with using the cultural events we have now: we're not as proud of them as the past ones. The iPhone, YouTube, TikTok, etc are all soulless corporate products. They aren't artistic achievements, and they are all derivative on something else. They are also monopolized, which further makes them unlikable. And like I said, people are having trouble finding a work of art that truly represents the current time when most "art" is just a reproduction of a previous one.

 

[medisinn]

The cost of college is getting more and more unappealing, but let's be frank here: people will gladly f*** themselves for a chance of hope. Most don't want to go into the literal backbreaking trades or do working class work like construction; even less want to go into the underpaying service sector. There's not much else to choose from aside from fantasies of "influencer" money that is statistically hard to get. And to even have those people, they need to be born, which is just not happening as much now.

Overpopulation is a myth. Malthusian disaster theory has long been debunked, and all sociological and economic studies show underpopulation as the real threat. No fully developed country is replacing any more (with the exception of the US, but only due to high immigration from high reproducing nations). And some, like South Korea, are rapidly spiraling towards an ever worsening birth crisis, with other developed countries doing basically the same at a slower rate.

There's a number of factors beyond QoL to consider. High cost of living is one, but also high demand for better living based on modern concepts of it (all the technology, safety, and other modern considerations), which themselves cost more. And there's also the decline of traditional beliefs: less willingness to risk having kids in bad times, less religious influence to do so, less social pressure, and so on. And most importantly, we don't need kids anymore for farmhands and other financial gains; they are just expensive burdens on a practical level now. They now only serve emotional needs, which we can get elsewhere, and macroeconomic purposes, which almost no one gets pregnant for.

Music in the 00s went downhill because there was nothing pushing it forward. The synthesizer was normalized and perfected while simultaneously looked down on as "inauthentic" for a while. Guitars had nothing new after the distortion pedal. All those new genres of the 90s did everything you could with the technology available. And after that, there wasn't anything else developed but some robot anime girl that could theoretically take your singing job. What we ended up getting was derivative stuff that imitated what came before in a radio-friendly but sluggy way.

Yes, there was music in the 80s and 90s that some people didn't like. But those bands were side by side with others doing a range of things. Don't like hair metal in the 80s? You've got synth pop, new wave (punk derived version), hardcore punk, pop punk, post-punk, college rock, new wave of British metal, alternative dance, hip-hop, new jack swing, and a lot more genres. Don't like grunge inthe 90s? A flood of new and emerging rock genres was available side by side with multiple innovations in hip-hop. Yes, music fragmented in the 00s, but also, the mainstream still dominated, and it didn't promote the best as often as the most willing to be servile to the labels concerns for "radio friendly unit shifters" (songs that will more likely be one and done hits rather than all time greats). And those bands weren't often the most talented.

Yes, like you said, remakes aren't; neither are sequels or franchises. But that's most of what Hollywood will invest in now; the rest is low-budget-high-earners (always horror films, as they attract the only fan base that's, err, generous enough to watch anything) and near none of it is mid-budget films, which were the lifeblood of the industry in the preceding decades. And yes, streaming has the potential to make it work better, but they are very budget obsessed, and they ditch literally anything that begins to cost more. (See Netflix cancelling any show not called Stranger Things that gets to 3 seasons to stop union rules from requiring them to pay cast and crew more on season 4.)

I think you are getting at the problem with using the cultural events we have now: we're not as proud of them as the past ones. The iPhone, YouTube, TikTok, etc are all soulless corporate products. They aren't artistic achievements, and they are all derivative on something else. They are also monopolized, which further makes them unlikable. And like I said, people are having trouble finding a work of art that truly represents the current time when most "art" is just a reproduction of a previous one.

Very true. Just look at how many people keep getting duped into investing into shitcoins over and over again while getting the rug pulled out from under them. Kids don't want to grow up to be farmers or astronauts, they want to grow up to be influencers. Sports betting is fucking everywhere now that it's been legalized. I understand the appeal of people wanting to take a shot on one of various things that essentially boil down to gambling. It's the only way that feels somewhat fair to get rich, even if it's a fool's errand.

How is it a myth? I agree after looking it up that the Malthusian disaster theory is overblown, but the population could only grow to some sort of finite amount. It may be billions more than what we have, but at some point there's just not room, not that I think the population would get that far. If nothing else, the more people there are, and the more industrialization advances, the more pollution there is, which is going to lead to more climate disasters. That could get better in time as technology improves, but that also depends on each country and who is in charge. To me, the positives outweigh the negatives. Otherwise, wouldn't humanity have to always maintain population or be increasing? That doesn't seem sustainable, although neither does forced population control.

I hadn't thought about it like that, there's less practical need for children in a society that depends less on traditional agriculture and family businesses. I can't imagine having a pet would fulfill the same emotional need or desire as having a children, but who knows. I don't have children and haven't had a pet of my own in many years, so I can't relate.

True. What was the most recent musical innovation that caught on? Autotuning? It's prevalent now, but it didn't really lead to a new avenue for music, just a different style or perhaps shortcut depending on opinion.

How is that much different than music in the 00s? I listened to rock, but hip hop really became mainstream, and pop-music was ever-present. I didn't like the music in that decade nearly as much as the previous ones, and because of that I don't look back on it fondly, but it's subjective. People who loved it will look back on it fondly. Bands like Creed get a band rap, and perhaps deservedly so, but there are also lots of people nowadays who will fork out money to go see them during a legacy stadium tour. I agree with you that the music is worse, but I'm also bias, and as I keep saying, this stuff is nothing new. The term "radio friendly unit shifter" makes me think of a Nirvana song, so that's been happening since at least 1993 when In Utero came out. A singer or band getting favored and pushed heavily based on their looks or perceived appeal by the record label instead of their musicianship or singing quality happens in every decade. It may have happened more in the 00s, that's something I couldn't possibly verify without doing lots of research. Otherwise, we are just saying it was a worse decade subjectively as if it was an objective fact.

Is that why most Netflix shows don't make it past three seasons? I'd wondered about that. Netflix was great for viewers when they took in everything they could to provide constant growth for investors. Once that slowed down, it became entirely about increasing profitability, and the enshittification set in. That is definitely something that feels worse in the 2000s onward, we are feeling the effects of big-ass companies consolidating and controlling markets with little to no competition. If Facebook had been a fad for a few years and then left, I could see people having nostalgia for it. Since it never went away, and just kept getting worse, it feels difficult to look back on it fondly or as being important.

I think there could be an argument that those products and services may have started out with an artistic vision. If anything, they were too successful, which lead to them being relied on more and more for profit, slowly stripping them of what made them special in the first place in the name of increased marketability. In a micro sense it reminds me of Magic the Gathering. The game has existed for decades, but in the last several years has undergone extreme price hikes, lowered card quality, an increased number of sets, and a watering down of the lore and effort put into worldbuilding. It probably wouldn't have happened if it wasn't by far the most profitable division of Hasbro. I can see that happening with lots of things.

Are there any positives that you can think of for the last couple decades? It's not like I can really argue against any of your points, I agree things feel worse and worse, I'm just curious if your viewpoint is fully cynical or not. I certainly can't blame you if it is.

 

[Gorse]

What was the most recent musical innovation that caught on?

I hate to break it to you, but the answer to this is AI-driven music generators like Suno. Songs from these platforms have already charted in certain countries, and now make up a significant part of many streaming platforms’ libraries. That’s the innovation — they’ve eliminated the need for a musician entirely. It’ll come to the U.S. soon enough.

 

[miguk miguk]

Very true. Just look at how many people keep getting duped into investing into shitcoins over and over again while getting the rug pulled out from under them. Kids don't want to grow up to be farmers or astronauts, they want to grow up to be influencers. Sports betting is fucking everywhere now that it's been legalized. I understand the appeal of people wanting to take a shot on one of various things that essentially boil down to gambling. It's the only way that feels somewhat fair to get rich, even if it's a fool's errand.

How is it a myth? I agree after looking it up that the Malthusian disaster theory is overblown, but the population could only grow to some sort of finite amount. It may be billions more than what we have, but at some point there's just not room, not that I think the population would get that far. If nothing else, the more people there are, and the more industrialization advances, the more pollution there is, which is going to lead to more climate disasters. That could get better in time as technology improves, but that also depends on each country and who is in charge. To me, the positives outweigh the negatives. Otherwise, wouldn't humanity have to always maintain population or be increasing? That doesn't seem sustainable, although neither does forced population control.

I hadn't thought about it like that, there's less practical need for children in a society that depends less on traditional agriculture and family businesses. I can't imagine having a pet would fulfill the same emotional need or desire as having a children, but who knows. I don't have children and haven't had a pet of my own in many years, so I can't relate.

True. What was the most recent musical innovation that caught on? Autotuning? It's prevalent now, but it didn't really lead to a new avenue for music, just a different style or perhaps shortcut depending on opinion.

How is that much different than music in the 00s? I listened to rock, but hip hop really became mainstream, and pop-music was ever-present. I didn't like the music in that decade nearly as much as the previous ones, and because of that I don't look back on it fondly, but it's subjective. People who loved it will look back on it fondly. Bands like Creed get a band rap, and perhaps deservedly so, but there are also lots of people nowadays who will fork out money to go see them during a legacy stadium tour. I agree with you that the music is worse, but I'm also bias, and as I keep saying, this stuff is nothing new. The term "radio friendly unit shifter" makes me think of a Nirvana song, so that's been happening since at least 1993 when In Utero came out. A singer or band getting favored and pushed heavily based on their looks or perceived appeal by the record label instead of their musicianship or singing quality happens in every decade. It may have happened more in the 00s, that's something I couldn't possibly verify without doing lots of research. Otherwise, we are just saying it was a worse decade subjectively as if it was an objective fact.

Is that why most Netflix shows don't make it past three seasons? I'd wondered about that. Netflix was great for viewers when they took in everything they could to provide constant growth for investors. Once that slowed down, it became entirely about increasing profitability, and the enshittification set in. That is definitely something that feels worse in the 2000s onward, we are feeling the effects of big-ass companies consolidating and controlling markets with little to no competition. If Facebook had been a fad for a few years and then left, I could see people having nostalgia for it. Since it never went away, and just kept getting worse, it feels difficult to look back on it fondly or as being important.

I think there could be an argument that those products and services may have started out with an artistic vision. If anything, they were too successful, which lead to them being relied on more and more for profit, slowly stripping them of what made them special in the first place in the name of increased marketability. In a micro sense it reminds me of Magic the Gathering. The game has existed for decades, but in the last several years has undergone extreme price hikes, lowered card quality, an increased number of sets, and a watering down of the lore and effort put into worldbuilding. It probably wouldn't have happened if it wasn't by far the most profitable division of Hasbro. I can see that happening with lots of things.

Are there any positives that you can think of for the last couple decades? It's not like I can really argue against any of your points, I agree things feel worse and worse, I'm just curious if your viewpoint is fully cynical or not. I certainly can't blame you if it is.

If you need evidence overpopulation isn't happening, the Wikipedia article on birth rate is a decent starting point. Only a few parts of the world are replacing or increasing, and they are going to eventually approach the development plateau. In the event that we need more room, we can make room through higher density living with more vertical architecture. (And with the worldwide trend towards abandoning rural/suburban life for urban life, that will not be too hard.) But that's not likely to be an issue, as the places that would need that most are where the births rates are declining fastest.

Population control is not necessary. Economic stability, incentivization, and a good social safety net would go a long way to helping alleviate the problem.

Pets are much cheaper than kids. They eat cheap but satisfying diets, don't need clothes, and don't accumulate any other human expenses other than occasional medical help. And you can also just live the DINK lifestyle and get love and positive income.

Autotune was a dead-end. Vocaloid didn't catch on outside of Japan, where replacing workers with machines is part of the norm. (Vending machines are so common because companies can't hire workers to sell soft drinks either due to costs or underpopulation in the region decreasing the workforce.) AI is the new big thing, and it produces lame inauthentic-sounding imitations. We just haven't got anything new that musicians generally want to make use of.

You mentioned reunion tours. How many of those are for bands from the 00s? I've seen more shows for little-name artists from the 90s like Kay Hanley than 00s bands. Keep in mind, Gen X and older have more money to buy the ludicrously-priced concert tickets for today's concerts. Millennials don't go to concerts for big-name bands as much since they don't have the money for it. (Younger generations barely ever go to rock concerts for local bands, let alone big names.) And the 00s bands simply are not the headliners for big event concerts; it's mainly 90s bands and a few 80s bands as well. (Though I have no clue who is shelling out a week/month's pay on those money vampire events.)

Yes, that is Netflix's rule. They won't cancel Stranger Things because it would be bad for their image and the show is going to end itself anyways. (The plan has always been to end it when the kids become adults, which is already true now.) The only show that seems to have a workaround is Castlevania, which was canceled and relaunched as a new show with a new cast (probably new crew as well).

Products that have nothing artistic to them outside of conjecture are not going to be treating like art, but consumer products. As for Magic the Gathering, I've never been into it myself, but from what I've been told the whole Pinkerton scandal has made it decline sharply. That makes sense, as no one should trust a company that will sick Pinkertons on their own fan base.

I don't see things as entirely cynical. There are plenty of practical advances, such as medicine (vaccination tech is getting really good), display tech (high-res displays are just better than CRTs), green tech, and so on. And socio-political advances are inching forward in many ways at the same time that they are slipping backwards in other ways. The many of the arts are technically better despite all the poor uses of them. And streaming is better than cable/sattelite in most ways. (And would be much better if we could switch it to a decentralized network ala Mastadon or Bluesky instead of letting YouTube, Netflix, and Big Five services dominate.)

 

[Vetusomaru]

And seriously, folks – you look me dead in the eye and tell me you can't immediately identify which decades these pieces of media came from without Googling:

(*HARD MODE: Don't mention the St. Louis World Fair.)

Thanks for reminding me the abomination called Thundercats Roar!

Post automatically merged: Feb 26, 2025

I've seen few people already feeling nostalgia about 2010s. And I'm like "Pinga, WHAT!". There is nothing to feel nostalgic about 2010s besides 3DS.

 

[Mr. SyS]

Pre COVID feels like a long while ago and it's kinda crazy.

Covid hit me like 9/11. Yes, really. I can't think of one other event in my lifetime that messed up America that badly.

 

[Waffles's iconWaffles]

Honestly? I think our brains just want to be lazy. Everything after January 1st, 2000 can be calculated in an instant, whilst every other decade needs at least some brain power to process. I don't think there's any moment from the aughts that feels "old" to me if I don't think about how it was a quarter of a century ago.

 

[RageBurner]

Because we are all stuck in "Groundhog Day".

 

[BomingWaffle]

Each time we're speaking of cultural decades we are making clear distinctions between each (from at least the 40's) up until the year 2000 where the 00's and 10's are sometimes blended together (as well as the 20's more recently).

Is there a massive cultural stagnation (with the many remakes, reboots, remasters and making sequels after decades) or we are psychologically wired to think that the year 2000 was like 4-5 years ago?

I've been thinking of that old post

https://twitter.com/x/status/1397709801891713026

And
View attachment 30373

You say the 00's and 10's are sometimes blended together but I haven't really felt that. I feel like 90's and 00's get blended a lot but that's maybe I see it a lot with aesthetic. Maybe late 00's gets blended with the 10's and early 00's is blended with the 90's. Maybe youre thinking to hard about the numbers but who really knows I wont say Im that smart about that.

Your cultural stagnation part does make me think. It seems like youre only talking about pop culture in this case? Stuff like binge watching is so normal now and places like Korea and Japan seem to get noticed a lot by their entertainment market.

I think this is just a long way for me to say if its stagnating it may come wanting entertainment all the time as well as something they are use to. That or it's easier to make something people know than something original in the business side of things.

Maybe try looking into other forms of cultures and see where that takes you? Mind you that life can feel the same when youre an adult sometimes.

 

[Gorse]

I have a theory that both anime and K-pop are going to be seen as a “2020s thing” in the future, like the British Invasion in the 60s and Britpop in the 90s were. COME BACK TO THIS POST IN 20 YEARS AND SEE IF I WAS RIGHT!!!!!!!

 

[bjork]

I have a theory that both anime and K-pop are going to be seen as a “2020s thing” in the future, like the British Invasion in the 60s and Britpop in the 90s were. COME BACK TO THIS POST IN 20 YEARS AND SEE IF I WAS RIGHT!!!!!!!

I can't wait for the gatekeepers on this. "Only 2020s kids will remember this" and it's Goku

 

[Jotaro]

its both funny and tragic, that the mentality between from 2019 up now, is, like a decade gap tier

and somehow, it gets worse, people need Jesus, with all of this insanity that happens, worldwide

 

[RageBurner]

I can't wait for the gatekeepers on this. "Only 2020s kids will remember this" and it's Goku

It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when, haha.

 

[medisinn]

If you need evidence overpopulation isn't happening, the Wikipedia article on birth rate is a decent starting point. Only a few parts of the world are replacing or increasing, and they are going to eventually approach the development plateau. In the event that we need more room, we can make room through higher density living with more vertical architecture. (And with the worldwide trend towards abandoning rural/suburban life for urban life, that will not be too hard.) But that's not likely to be an issue, as the places that would need that most are where the births rates are declining fastest.

Population control is not necessary. Economic stability, incentivization, and a good social safety net would go a long way to helping alleviate the problem.

Pets are much cheaper than kids. They eat cheap but satisfying diets, don't need clothes, and don't accumulate any other human expenses other than occasional medical help. And you can also just live the DINK lifestyle and get love and positive income.

Autotune was a dead-end. Vocaloid didn't catch on outside of Japan, where replacing workers with machines is part of the norm. (Vending machines are so common because companies can't hire workers to sell soft drinks either due to costs or underpopulation in the region decreasing the workforce.) AI is the new big thing, and it produces lame inauthentic-sounding imitations. We just haven't got anything new that musicians generally want to make use of.

You mentioned reunion tours. How many of those are for bands from the 00s? I've seen more shows for little-name artists from the 90s like Kay Hanley than 00s bands. Keep in mind, Gen X and older have more money to buy the ludicrously-priced concert tickets for today's concerts. Millennials don't go to concerts for big-name bands as much since they don't have the money for it. (Younger generations barely ever go to rock concerts for local bands, let alone big names.) And the 00s bands simply are not the headliners for big event concerts; it's mainly 90s bands and a few 80s bands as well. (Though I have no clue who is shelling out a week/month's pay on those money vampire events.)

Yes, that is Netflix's rule. They won't cancel Stranger Things because it would be bad for their image and the show is going to end itself anyways. (The plan has always been to end it when the kids become adults, which is already true now.) The only show that seems to have a workaround is Castlevania, which was canceled and relaunched as a new show with a new cast (probably new crew as well).

Products that have nothing artistic to them outside of conjecture are not going to be treating like art, but consumer products. As for Magic the Gathering, I've never been into it myself, but from what I've been told the whole Pinkerton scandal has made it decline sharply. That makes sense, as no one should trust a company that will sick Pinkertons on their own fan base.

I don't see things as entirely cynical. There are plenty of practical advances, such as medicine (vaccination tech is getting really good), display tech (high-res displays are just better than CRTs), green tech, and so on. And socio-political advances are inching forward in many ways at the same time that they are slipping backwards in other ways. The many of the arts are technically better despite all the poor uses of them. And streaming is better than cable/sattelite in most ways. (And would be much better if we could switch it to a decentralized network ala Mastadon or Bluesky instead of letting YouTube, Netflix, and Big Five services dominate.)

I don't need evidence in the sense that I do believe it's happening in certain countries, but the worldwide population is still increasing if I'm not mistaken. I knew about countries like Japan and South Korea struggling with the birth rate, it was interesting going through the wiki and seeing how each country has dealt with the concept. The Australian approach seems like the most practical, which is just giving people money to have kids. It's pretty similar to offering greater tax rebates for families with children, although it said it was over a few payments, so it could be less effective if a new family needed an influx of cash in the beginning. I also wonder, how many humans do we need on the planet? 8 billion seems sufficient to me, even with that we've pushed out and made extinct so many other species. The more humans spread out, and the more land that is converted to house dwellings, the less room everything else has. I agree that population control is not necessary, I just don't think population encouragement is necessary either, although it of course depends on the country.

I am surprise Vocaloid didn't catch on in a wider way than it did. It seems like it would fill the inevitable space between autotuning and just removing the human element entirely with AI. There are definitely 2000s bands out there selling out festivals if not stadiums, My Chemical Romance is the biggest one that comes to mind. That could be a temporary surge in interest since it's a recent reunion, but you could say the same about Oasis or any other 90s/other decade band reuniting. The younger Gen Xers would definitely be interested in spending money on 2000s acts by that logic. Younger generations aren't going to rock concerts as much I'm sure, not big bands, but there are less big bands. They are certainly paying out the asshole to see Beyonce, Sabrina Carpenter, and Chapelle Roan though. That could be a symptom of the insane ticket scalping and reselling culture. A couple months ago I looked up how much tickets were for when Amyl and the Sniffers come to Portland and the resale sites were selling them for several hundred, which is fucking insane for a band that is only recently gaining traction.

The Pinkerton scandal is a symptom of the corporate rot at the top. It's certainly not a good look, but there are various other things scaring away long-time players and keeping new players from investing in the game. It's always been a consumer game for sure, but it certainly felt more like art previously between the effort put into creating lore for the game through text on the actual cards and more in spin-off novels, as well as the actual card art being much higher quality. It went from imperfect but interesting(to me at least) paintings, to computer-enhanced paintings, to now what more and more seems like AI slop. I'm not sure at what point something like that stops being art, it's in the eye of the beholder really.

I agree, decentralized is the way to go from what little I know. Hell, just having options in general are good. It does seem like people often prefer a mostly comfortable monopoly to an imperfect alternative, there are some things I can't see getting off the ground, such as a viable competitor to Youtube.

Covid hit me like 9/11. Yes, really. I can't think of one other event in my lifetime that messed up America that badly.

Agreed. It's rare to have an event that changes the behavior and beliefs of a large amount of people to that degree. I still feel like I haven't regained the social skills I had prior to the lockdown. It definitely made certain divisions, politically or other beliefs-wise deeper, based on how each person reacted to the news of the time and the source of that information.

You say the 00's and 10's are sometimes blended together but I haven't really felt that. I feel like 90's and 00's get blended a lot but that's maybe I see it a lot with aesthetic. Maybe late 00's gets blended with the 10's and early 00's is blended with the 90's. Maybe youre thinking to hard about the numbers but who really knows I wont say Im that smart about that.

Your cultural stagnation part does make me think. It seems like youre only talking about pop culture in this case? Stuff like binge watching is so normal now and places like Korea and Japan seem to get noticed a lot by their entertainment market.

I think this is just a long way for me to say if its stagnating it may come wanting entertainment all the time as well as something they are use to. That or it's easier to make something people know than something original in the business side of things.

Maybe try looking into other forms of cultures and see where that takes you? Mind you that life can feel the same when youre an adult sometimes.

We are looking at it from an American perspective, or at least I am. Some of the stagnation could be on our end, as innovation and influence is increasingly coming from elsewhere. Anime started gaining popularity here in the 90s, but otherwise I can't think of many things from other cultures that really had a big influence in America nationwide. In the last few years, Tiktok has taken a stranglehold on the attention span of many, and Korean music and TV has exploded in popularity. Compared to that, what has America been sending the rest of the world that is new? I'm sure there are things, but I can't think of anything offhand.

 

[miguk miguk]

I have a theory that both anime and K-pop are going to be seen as a “2020s thing” in the future, like the British Invasion in the 60s and Britpop in the 90s were. COME BACK TO THIS POST IN 20 YEARS AND SEE IF I WAS RIGHT!!!!!!!

Anime is nowhere near a 2020s thing. Definitely not in Japan, but also it has been a thing in the West since the 80s (Voltron, Akira, Nausicaä, etc) and picked up steam in the 90s (DBZ, Ninja Scroll, GitS, etc) with South/Central America being a bit ahead of North America. K-pop is similar, being a thing in Korea since the 90s, getting big in Asia in the 00s, then getting big in the West in the 10s.

Compare to Brit Invasion and Britpop, both of which became big in Britain and overseas at the same time and were isolated to only 1-2 decades regardless of location.

its both funny and tragic, that the mentality between from 2019 up now, is, like a decade gap tier

and somehow, it gets worse, people need Jesus, with all of this insanity that happens, worldwide

Post automatically merged: Feb 28, 2025

I don't need evidence in the sense that I do believe it's happening in certain countries, but the worldwide population is still increasing if I'm not mistaken. I knew about countries like Japan and South Korea struggling with the birth rate, it was interesting going through the wiki and seeing how each country has dealt with the concept. The Australian approach seems like the most practical, which is just giving people money to have kids. It's pretty similar to offering greater tax rebates for families with children, although it said it was over a few payments, so it could be less effective if a new family needed an influx of cash in the beginning. I also wonder, how many humans do we need on the planet? 8 billion seems sufficient to me, even with that we've pushed out and made extinct so many other species. The more humans spread out, and the more land that is converted to house dwellings, the less room everything else has. I agree that population control is not necessary, I just don't think population encouragement is necessary either, although it of course depends on the country.

I am surprise Vocaloid didn't catch on in a wider way than it did. It seems like it would fill the inevitable space between autotuning and just removing the human element entirely with AI. There are definitely 2000s bands out there selling out festivals if not stadiums, My Chemical Romance is the biggest one that comes to mind. That could be a temporary surge in interest since it's a recent reunion, but you could say the same about Oasis or any other 90s/other decade band reuniting. The younger Gen Xers would definitely be interested in spending money on 2000s acts by that logic. Younger generations aren't going to rock concerts as much I'm sure, not big bands, but there are less big bands. They are certainly paying out the asshole to see Beyonce, Sabrina Carpenter, and Chapelle Roan though. That could be a symptom of the insane ticket scalping and reselling culture. A couple months ago I looked up how much tickets were for when Amyl and the Sniffers come to Portland and the resale sites were selling them for several hundred, which is fucking insane for a band that is only recently gaining traction.

The Pinkerton scandal is a symptom of the corporate rot at the top. It's certainly not a good look, but there are various other things scaring away long-time players and keeping new players from investing in the game. It's always been a consumer game for sure, but it certainly felt more like art previously between the effort put into creating lore for the game through text on the actual cards and more in spin-off novels, as well as the actual card art being much higher quality. It went from imperfect but interesting(to me at least) paintings, to computer-enhanced paintings, to now what more and more seems like AI slop. I'm not sure at what point something like that stops being art, it's in the eye of the beholder really.

I agree, decentralized is the way to go from what little I know. Hell, just having options in general are good. It does seem like people often prefer a mostly comfortable monopoly to an imperfect alternative, there are some things I can't see getting off the ground, such as a viable competitor to Youtube.

The Australian approach would not work for the US. There's just not enough social safety net in place for money alone to work, and not enough of a shield from corruption. The US went over this when Andrew Yang advocated for universal basic income, and that failed miserably because he tried to "balance" it by claiming it would allow the US to pull out the safety net it has. (Note that the list of famous US advocates for UBI contains an alarming set of untrustworthy millionaires and billionaires, none of which I'd trust with a system that does not directly benefit them.) Though I think some form of UBI could fix a lot of problems, it's a system that just doesn't work on its own, nor does it work in the hands of a malicious individual or government. It's a good starting point for an idea, though.

Human development requires birth at replacement. That's simply a fact of the world we currently live in. To change that requires massive changes to socio-economics, such as robotic workers doing all the work (that itself being a huge dilemma) and a revolutionary change in how economics work on level with the shift from feudalism to capitalism. Otherwise, institutions shut down, food doesn't get farmed, and economies fail. We don't need infinite growth (unless we are thinking in cold inhumane capitalist terms), but balance is required until the next economic changeover of history.

Like I said, Japan and the West have very different mindsets about how to use technology. Japan is already okay with replacing human workers, while the West is not. This is even true for music, where the West is okay with autotune at most (since it requires human vocals), but not doing away with the vocalist entirely. (Though a notable exception is the band Sisters of Mercy, who have had a drum machine as a replacement for their drummer since the 80s.)

Younger people have less money to spend on concerts. Young Gen X/Millenials lost a lot of income from the Recession and aren't as comfy with going to concerts now. Zoomers are still young and have disposible income (and often have been raised with a bad financial mindset due to DLC, microtransactions, etc being normal for them), and their generation sees rock as historical, not current, so they aren't going to rock concerts to see old people on stage. And they have no clue how much cheaper concert tickets were prior to Ticketmaster's monopoly. (I'm reminded of the scene from Fast Times at Ridgemont High where the scalper "rips off" people by selling concert tickets for $20. That scene would make no sense to today's younger generation.)

MtG stops being art when the public no longer acknowledges it as such. Fans ought to abandon it and create their own CCG, preferably one that doesn't require tons of money wasted on the collection aspect. There isn't going to be any other way of escaping the enshittification of it.

(As for my opinion on AI art, I'm not 100% for or against it. If it is used by artists as a tool instead of as a replacement for the artists themselves, then it's fine as long as they are trying to fix all the AI's mistakes. If it eliminates the artist altogether and goes wild with Cronenbergs, then that's a problem. Ultimately, I'm hoping for something to come of it that doesn't damage the economy at the worker level or the art world on a creative level while also allowing for the increased production of ero doujinshi tasteful fan art.)

 

[medisinn]

The Australian approach would not work for the US. There's just not enough social safety net in place for money alone to work, and not enough of a shield from corruption. The US went over this when Andrew Yang advocated for universal basic income, and that failed miserably because he tried to "balance" it by claiming it would allow the US to pull out the safety net it has. (Note that the list of famous US advocates for UBI contains an alarming set of untrustworthy millionaires and billionaires, none of which I'd trust with a system that does not directly benefit them.) Though I think some form of UBI could fix a lot of problems, it's a system that just doesn't work on its own, nor does it work in the hands of a malicious individual or government. It's a good starting point for an idea, though.

Human development requires birth at replacement. That's simply a fact of the world we currently live in. To change that requires massive changes to socio-economics, such as robotic workers doing all the work (that itself being a huge dilemma) and a revolutionary change in how economics work on level with the shift from feudalism to capitalism. Otherwise, institutions shut down, food doesn't get farmed, and economies fail. We don't need infinite growth (unless we are thinking in cold inhumane capitalist terms), but balance is required until the next economic changeover of history.

Like I said, Japan and the West have very different mindsets about how to use technology. Japan is already okay with replacing human workers, while the West is not. This is even true for music, where the West is okay with autotune at most (since it requires human vocals), but not doing away with the vocalist entirely. (Though a notable exception is the band Sisters of Mercy, who have had a drum machine as a replacement for their drummer since the 80s.)

Younger people have less money to spend on concerts. Young Gen X/Millenials lost a lot of income from the Recession and aren't as comfy with going to concerts now. Zoomers are still young and have disposible income (and often have been raised with a bad financial mindset due to DLC, microtransactions, etc being normal for them), and their generation sees rock as historical, not current, so they aren't going to rock concerts to see old people on stage. And they have no clue how much cheaper concert tickets were prior to Ticketmaster's monopoly. (I'm reminded of the scene from Fast Times at Ridgemont High where the scalper "rips off" people by selling concert tickets for $20. That scene would make no sense to today's younger generation.)

MtG stops being art when the public no longer acknowledges it as such. Fans ought to abandon it and create their own CCG, preferably one that doesn't require tons of money wasted on the collection aspect. There isn't going to be any other way of escaping the enshittification of it.

(As for my opinion on AI art, I'm not 100% for or against it. If it is used by artists as a tool instead of as a replacement for the artists themselves, then it's fine as long as they are trying to fix all the AI's mistakes. If it eliminates the artist altogether and goes wild with Cronenbergs, then that's a problem. Ultimately, I'm hoping for something to come of it that doesn't damage the economy at the worker level or the art world on a creative level while also allowing for the increased production of ero doujinshi tasteful fan art.)

Yeah, I don't know what the best approach for that would be. The less transparent a social benefit system is, the easier it is for corruption to settle in, and I can't imagine the average person wants to be required to frequently pay attention to that sort of thing. A UBI system would need safeguards and guarantees, and even with legislation, I wouldn't have faith in it. With most things, companies can break the law and just pay a fine equal to far less than the money they made doing something illegal or the money they would have lost playing by the rules. The current system, or lack of one, definitely sucks though. Trickle-down economics just do not work, and eventually as companies either replace workers with AI or cut jobs and just make do anyway, that's what we'll have to rely on.

That's interesting, I didn't know that about Sisters of Mercy, probably because I've only heard a handful of their songs. I believe The Smashing Pumpkins used a drum machine for the majority of Adore since their drummer was out of the band at the time. I suppose it's all in perspective, where the line is between a machine replacing a human worker and a machine helping make an existing employee's work more efficient. The more machines you have, the less people you need, but the amount of employees you need is based on the amount of work available, which is in part based on the population. What is the main incentive in a city or country leader wanting to expand the population? I'm sure there are benefits to having more people, but what are they? Is it to gain an advantage over competitors, i.e. other countries? A larger population means a larger military, but also in theory the more people you have in your country that filter into various fields of work, the more of a chance you have of innovating occurring in those fields. It makes me think of playing SimCity on SNES back in the day. The goal was to grow the city and keep growing it, but I didn't really know why having a larger population was better, in fact it kept making the game harder trying to balance everything. A very simplified view of course, but it does make me curious about the motivations of population leaders.

Damn, what an accurate and bleak point. All of these bullshit feeds added onto tickets are microtransactions of sorts, someone who has grown up with it has no reason to think it abnormal. I can't say the view of rock being historical is wrong, the same artists that were classic rock or metal icons when I was a kid are still out there doing tours, and there haven't been many replacements. The only really large new rock band in the last couple decades I can think of is Avenged Sevenfold, even then I don't know how mainstream they are per say.

I agree, the only way out is to start over. I wonder how closely one could come to duplicating MTG while changing just enough to make it legally distinct. It probably doesn't matter either way, even if someone did do just that, Hasbro would drown them in frivolous lawsuits. I was going to say SLAPP suits, but that's not accurate since that's more of a thing used to silence critics. That's fair, an argument can also be made as to where to draw the line between AI doing the work, and something like Photoshop using algorithms to aid in work. I think it's a race to the bottom unfortunately, as there's no real consequence for stealing art beyond public shaming. That is largely based upon being able to identity AI art, which will become harder as technology gets better. Also, I think public shaming will become less and less effective as a deterrent, there are enough unrepentant criminals famously doing well in life without real consequence to make lesser acts like stealing art seem trivial by comparison.