I mean, in the 90s we bitched about mostly distant global things because things were pretty good in general for most. And we had time to worry about less-catastrophic domestic things like Mumia or Peltier or what have you.

Now things aren't so good and we end up bitching about far more local things because things around us are so bad.

It's a great trick

[–] ObviouslyNotBanana@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My point was that climate change was still occuring in the background, but I can of course appreciate the fact that it wasn't in the public zeitgeist in the same manner.

[–] ssfckdt@mastodon.cloud 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@ObviouslyNotBanana Oh, well, it was, but it hadn't reached "we're fucked" levels yet. It was still in the "we can stop this" stage. Again, this kind of got fucked up post-2000.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 year ago

We realized the powers with the most to gain short-term by continuing their global warming emissions weren't going to budge unless forced, and since government had already been captured long before I was born, no-one was going to force them.

So we knew even in the eighties, climate was going to kill us, but Reagan believed the biblical apocalypse was going to occur in his term via nuclear holocaust. But he wasn't willing to first strike and be personally responsible for hundreds of millions of casualties.

But he was so sure, he felt environmental conservation (what it was called then) was silly.