What generation fucked everything up and why was it the Boomers?

Conservatives did not push for legalization of drugs, abortion, lgbt movement, feminism and the myriad of other "social issues" that millennials piss their life away on
>mfw I see BLM protestors distrupt a library where other blacks are trying to study
Hmm makes me think

They did push for race diluting politics and Jew fellating though.

I never understood what all the intergenerational hate is all about and why it's so widespread, boomers had it better and grew up in a better time and I'm supposed to hate them for it? Hurrrrrrrr

Actually, all those things happened with the boomers. Abortion was legalized in 1973. How the fuck is that the fault of people born in the 1980s?

But don't let that get in the way of your "Le wrong generation" circlejerk.

>tfw all the boomers will be dead in your lifetime

Were the judges sitting on the bench of scotus in 1973 boomers?

The boomer phenomenon is easy to understand in the context of post-WW2 america and r/K selection theory. Quite simply, the economic resources available to americans increased so rapidly after yurop/asia was bombed or enslaved by communism that it caused excessive breeding and attainment of political power by r-selected individuals.
Not only are these individuals concerned with quantity over quality, but they are also anti-collectivism, preffering to hoard resources and advantages disproportionately to their peers. America thus became a culture of greed which is rapidly having to contend with its lack of sustainability.

Then you're even further up shit creek, because we can't judge Millennials for anything, yet. I'm sure the boomers did a great job once they got into government though, right?

>support radical femenism (sic) and multiculturalism to the point where your sons will be unable to find wives and keep families, and your entire race may be in danger of extinction
>/pol/ actually believes this

You can say the same thing about the Boomers' parents.

Yes, the Silent Generation created the potential utopia that allowed the Boomers to fuck everything up for every later generation.

Is this image edited? I've seen it several times before and I don't remember seeing that.

because ideological subversion

youtube.com/watch?v=SZnkULuWFDg

Degeneration is a result of declining energy per capita

Same thing happened in the roman empire when they burned all the good forests, shortages of slaves, and increasing energy devoted to paying taxes.

Because the energy requirements to achieve their true human potential is not being met, they wallow and degenerate into entertainment consumption to distract themselves from their failed potential and disappointment to their ancestors.

Everybody knows the millennial generation is a failure relative to previous generations, their grandparents invented jet aircraft, nuclear power, and landed on the moon. The millennials made...some social media startups.

The boomers aren't to blame they merely assumed the same energy growth would be available to the millennials, if that were true most people today would have multiple cars, a nice house, tons of disposable income, but the resources are simply not there. Not only has the population quadrupled since WW2, but the EROEI of energy resources has also declined, there is simply not enough energy to go around for the millennials to achieve the same lifestyle as their parents.

Nuclear renaissance when

except your graph literally shows no significant change in energy per capita for millenials and the supposedly great grandfathers of ours clearly operated with a lot less.

>your entire race may become extinct
>caring about hundreds of years in the future when you're only going to live on average 70-80 years max
>implying my race (black) isn't already on the slow decline in America

Why should I care about that specifically?

Not in my backyard

Boomers were not particularly conservative, they practically invented the modern conception of social democracy. It's because of them that all these social programs are going bankrupt and they aren't producing enough babies to support them in the future, yet don't want to let go of "muh government free stuff."

Millenials aren't all that leftist either. You can point to BLM all you want but leftist groups were rioting and destroying things for a century now, and back before boomers were fascists destroying things. The only good thing boomers really brought was more civility to political discourse. Millenials have unprecedented economic hardships which boomers created, such as massive student loans, a sluggish economy, and social programs that are, at this point, practically impossible to support for much longer.

Despite this, millenials are still going into the workforce and trying to make a living. Millenials have often been at the forefront of scientific advancement in the current decade.

Boomers are trash, millenials are fine.

>Z

Z is all underaged. Seriously, they're still being born right now. How the fuck are they higher?

10/10 for making me reply.

and this graph doesn't take gini coefficients into account; of course richer means more powerful thus consuming more national resources.

divide each data point by its country's gini score and you it would show their national IQ

I worked as a camp councillor with exclusively Gen Z kids this summer and they are cool as fuck so there's that.

The Boomers created a social democracy for boomers, and only boomers.

When you leave out spending for the elderly, there's little to nothing left.

>Conservatives did not push for legalization of drugs, abortion, lgbt movement, feminism and the myriad of other "social issues" that millennials piss their life away on

They did in the 60s and 70s dumbass. Ever wonder why young generations are all the same? They ARE.

It doesn't include differences in wealth, most of the wealth gains went to the top 20% of the population while the rest have stagnated or decreased, it also doesn't include the skyrocketing costs of basic services such as healthcare and education. Which is why the whole "get married at 20 buy a house and a car and have 3 kids by age 25 while working a single income blue collar job" is no longer possible for the vast majority of Americans

yes i agree, but i mostly don't agree that it can all be abstracted into energy per capita

>Everybody knows the millennial generation is a failure relative to previous generations, their grandparents invented jet aircraft, nuclear power, and landed on the moon. The millennials made...some social media startups.

Now I know this is bait, but on the off chance that it isn't, Millennials are born between the early 80s and the early 2000s. Aren't the vast majority of them just a little too young to be doing those things?

So one example rules over millions?

Look, all I'm saying is that you should at least wait until the 2020s to judge an entire generation like that, most of them aren't even close to being adults yet.

Well all the "low hanging fruit" technology has already been discovered so unless they invent fusion energy or something miraculous they're not going to appear as impressive as past generations' innovation

Also most genius scientists make their major breakthroughs in their 20's to early 30's which is the age of millennials now so if the innovation is not happening now or the next 10 years it probably won't happen at all

Pastor Anderson really says it all:

youtube.com/watch?v=xa7hbj4RI00

Also, being the kids of war heroes, they started their mature life with a generation-wise frustration of doing something great. So they tried and experimented with everything without ever thinking of the consequences, just to quench that thirst of recognition from their heroic parents

ah, another le boomers ruined everything for us thread

it was a different era fuckfaces. it has nothing to do with them as people. it's also naive to ignore the fact that the current generation is most entitled, instant gratification, consumerist pieces of trash that has ever existed

>
>
>Nuclear renaissance when

What this user said.

This horse-shit notion that 'resources are depleted' is just that: Horse Shit.

We are not 'running out' of a damn thing.

The problem is environmentalism has metastasized from a well-meaning and well-intentioned social movement into a toxicly anti-human religion.

Yes, I said religion.

Environmentalism is a religion which makes it dogma that no source of energy except the anointed one "renewable energy" is to be allowed, period, ever.

Unfortunately, the laws of physics do not give a damn what your dogma is, and as ten years and hundreds of billions of dollars of investment have proved is: Renewables don't fucking work.

We need to dig the memetic cancer that is the environmental religion out of governance worldwide and get back to using power sources that work.

A big whack of infrastructure upgrades that are not cell-towers would be nice too, come to think of it.

>Renewables don't fucking work

Aren't a lot of those renewable energy sources in Germany heavily subsidized?

millenials are the least consumerist though. we buy the least houses, cars, clothes, dine out the least of any extant generation. most only have one phone and computer

All energy is subsidized because its the most important and profitable investment a country can make

Uhh I 'm pretty sure that hydro, oil and gas are profitable in their own right.

Yeah, that's why you subsidize them dumbass

Wait, there's no black people on Veeky Forums..

>mfw boomers are responsible for millennials
>mfw millennials will be responsible for the turbocancer generation
>mfw the turbocancer generation will soon mature
You ain't seen nothin yet

...What?

>comparing shit energy sources that need heavy governmental support and have an extremely long payback period to proven, trusted energy sources under control of the most powerful corporations

>>Renewables don't fucking work

Ah, look, a dutiful green worshipper shows up to defend their dogma.

How did that whole 'shut down the nukes' idiocy work out for your religion, mate?

Don't worry though! You have lots and lots of delicious brown coal to burn.

Are you calling yourself turbocancer?

>This horse-shit notion that 'resources are depleted' is just that: Horse Shit.

What do you mean by this? Are you telling me that we have infinite resources?

I'm fairly sure most people here are millenials. R-right?

No, Gen Z are even more isolated than Millennials and more dependent on electronics but at least those kids seem to be more aware of how shitty the world is around them. They didn't grow up in the 90s after all and aren't being coddled as much

Did a hippie steal your girlfriend or something?

So you're one of the "i'll be dead when we run out of resources so it's not my problem" guys?

Why is there such a stigma about Nuclear energy anyway?

Far from infinite, but they are abundant enough and we are becoming progressively more efficient.

The real problems imo are soil erosion, the destruction of habitats and the extinction of species.

Chernobyl

>Are you telling me that we have infinite resources?

Straw man argument, appeal to infinities.

By definition, there cannot be any infinite resource. I am ashamed that you would even bring that word into this conversation, but this IS 4-chan, after all.

I spent years, YEARS, telling all the Peak Oil and Die-off lunatics they were full of shit, and I got lambasted roundly for it.

We will never, in a matter of practicality, "run out" of any natural resource. Period.

Teach yourself about the resource response curve, namely, the economic feedback cycle.

In a nutshell:

Resource becomes scarce.
Price rises.
Because the resource is now valuable, the market searches for more of it.
More of the resource is found, or, replacement resources become economically viable.
Resource becomes plentiful.
Price falls due to abundance.
No one searches for more of resource, because other things are better investments.
Resource becomes scarce.
Return to beginning of cycle.

People have been gutting themselves over Peak Oil nonsense for decades, and it is UTTER IDIOCY.

We're not running out of a damn thing.

A history of nuclear accidents combined with the problem of what to do with the waste which lasts for bloody ever.

Not him but I think it's idiotic that we are taxed to support "green" energy projects. If they cannot compete they should not be built.

When do you estimate that we will run out of oil then? Since you say you believe we will.

>Because the resource is now valuable, the market searches for more of it.

And what if there's none of it left on the planet?

I know it's not gonna happen anytime soon. Everyone here will be long dead before that happens. But even if it's in thousands of years, it's gonna happen. And we're going to need to find a solution eventually.

>pol hates boomers
>boomers are the only thing as a population which bulwarks white genocide
Really makes one ponder

>Not him but I think it's idiotic that we are taxed to support "green" energy projects. If they cannot compete they should not be built.

I agree, more research should be done so that it can eventually become efficient enough to compete.

they voted liberal when they were 18

There are almost infinite resources in the Solar System. Really, we won't run out of resources

>admits White genocide is real
Really flips my pancakes.

>Price rises.
>Because the resource is now valuable, the market searches for more of it.
>More of the resource is found, or, replacement resources become economically viable.
>Resource becomes plentiful.
>Price falls due to abundance.

If new resources become economically viable, the prices will not fall back to their old levels because they have only become viable at this risen price.

And what happens if we run out of resources before we find a way to discover and extract resources from asteroids and other planets?

>He thinks mining coal in outer fucking space is more efficient than solar panels and windmills.

lol we are nowhere near that point

>
>A history of nuclear accidents combined with the problem of what to do with the waste which lasts for bloody ever.

Horse Shit.

Nuclear energy, even using plants we designed sixty years ago with chalk boards, is the safest form of electrical generation, period.

Look it up.

As for nuclear waste, we know exactly how to get rid of it. We've known exactly how to get rid of it for fifty years. It's called the closed nuclear fuel cycle, where you feed in heavy metal and output a small stream of long-lived fission products, of which there are only seven and we know exactly how to handle all of them.

Namely, dig a deeeeeeep hole and drop them in.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-lived_fission_product#Long-lived_fission_products

This myth that nuclear waste is this terrible and intractable issue that cannot be solved is utter baloney.

Learn some facts.

>blaming the energy source because the accidents are more spectacular, even though it has killed less than the other options
Also the waste problem is an issue, but maybe we could find a solution if we actually, oh I dunno, invested in Nuclear energy. I mean fuck most reactors are the shitty old light water reactors when we have better and more efficient (and safer) reactor technologies but nobody wants to bother replacing the old ones because 'muh nuclear boogeyman'.

> (You)
>When do you estimate that we will run out of oil then? Since you say you believe we will.

Did....

Did you even read what I wrote?

I said repeatedly, and forcefully, that we WILL NOT RUN OUT, of anything, ever.

Wow. What are they teaching kids these days.

why did you quote me? I was just asking why Nuclear energy has such a bad rap. I know it's not really all that bad. Hell I'd go so far as to personally call myself pro-nuclear.

Buying it in the ground and pretending like it's not there is not a real solution.

Would you rather cover entire countries in solar panels or windmills to obtain the same energy?
Of course going back and forth to space will become more economical over time as well

>Buying it in the ground and pretending like it's not there is not a real solution.

You do realize, that if it's buried in the ground...IT'S NOT A PROBLEM.

So, yes, as a matter of fact, burying it IS a solution.

Hell, the LLFP's are so minor, it's completely viable to get rid of the worst of them (technetium-99) by just dissolving it into the oceans.

We've been doing that for years, and it works perfectly.

Burying it is actually a step in the right direction. :)

>we could find a solution if we actually, oh I dunno, invested in Nuclear energy

That is a big maybe and a big cop out on the "if we only invested" bit? If it is a sound idea with good potential it can find investors on it's own.

There aren't? Then...what the hell am I?

>IT'S NOT A PROBLEM

This is just retarded.

There is a very good reason why nuclear waste is not just dumped into "really big holes" and forgotten about. You need to keep it sealed and isolated so it does not just contaminate the fuck out of everything. We don't build giant concrete bunkers to put the stuff in just for fun.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cask_storage

>the problem of what to do with the waste which lasts for bloody ever.
Make them into nuclear weapons, problem solved.

Strawman, plenty of countries now have a significant share of their electricity generated by renewable sources without having to "cover entire countries in solar panels" (see Germany, China, Norway).

I don't think you understand just how expensive space travel is. Even traveling to Mars takes years and would easily cost billions, not to mention solving the current psychological problem of locking a group of people up for years in such a small space. And then we're not even talking about mention the immense cost of the research of how to get there, how to make it habitable, research whether there are even fossil fuels in the first place and how to extract them efficiently.

Also, do you know how current spacecraft generate most of their energy? Solar power, which you still say "doesn't fucking work". I know you're probably a troll but this kind of thinking annoys the shit out of me.

>>IT'S NOT A PROBLEM
>This is just retarded.
>There is a very good reason why nuclear waste

Stop right there.

I am not talking about traditional nuclear waste.

Nuclear waste from today's fleet of reactors is 'spent' nuclear fuel rods. (And some activation stuff, blah blah, that crap is pretty minor.)

I am referring specifically, and only, to a closed nuclear fuel cycle, whose only externalized wastes of note are the seven long-lived fission products.

The nuclear waste in dry casks is the product of the current once-through fuel cycle, also known as burn and dump, which is only used because, let's be frank, Uranium is CHEAP.

Uranium is so abundant, and so cheap, the only way to keep a lid on access to it is by limiting enrichment plants...which is why the Iran deal is such a colossal stinker.

But that's another discussion. :)

Do any of those reactors exist?

Are they economically viable?

>There are almost infinite resources in the Solar System. If those reasources aren't economically viable to extract (they're not) they might as well not exist.

Coal is made from dead plant matter. There's no coal in space.
>A fossil fuel, coal forms when dead plant matter is converted into peat, which in turn is converted into lignite, then sub-bituminous coal, after that bituminous coal, and lastly anthracite.

Fear mongering after Chernobyl basically
The Rise of Nuclear Fear by Spencer Weart covers it pretty well

They exist, for example Fukushima used mox, which is reprocessed fuel, (and it's a problem because plutonium is worse than uranium in terms of pollution.)

Nuclear fission is not economically viable in any case. (Well it is for the private businesses which take the profits as long as the state pays for the buildings and the waste processing)

>Do any of those reactors exist?
>Are they economically viable?

No, because in 1994 our good buddy President Clinton killed the Integral Fast Reactor project as a political sop to the Green Religion.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor

Twenty-three years of stagnation and counting!

The amount of harm this foolish act has caused to the planet is nearly incalculable. Fukushima was a direct result of President Clinton cancelling the IFR, for example, not to mention all the Green Church organizations worldwide who have made it their religious jihad to stymie all advancement of the industry.

As for economic viability, absolutely. The fuel source for a closed-fuel-cycle reactor is effectively free, compared to the fuel source for any fossil-fueled plant.

The plant footprint required for a closed-fuel-cycle plant is miniscule compared to any 'renewable' technology, because nuclear is very energy dense and benefits from the square-cube law.

The square-cube law is a detriment to solar and wind, for example.

The Green Religion has spread their dogma so far and wide these days, it'll be a generation before the brainwashing clears.

And honestly, with fracking, it's not like we NEED nuclear power, we have all the fossil fuels we can stand to use.

What could go wrong? :)

NOT IN MY BACKYARD

>NOT IN MY BACKYARD

Oh, look, a Green Believer uncritically recites the dogma he's been spoon-fed his entire life.

I'm kind of amazed, I've never seen that happen before.

>And honestly, with fracking, it's not like we NEED nuclear power, we have all the fossil fuels we can stand to use.

True but eventually we will need it.

Our lack of need is another reason we don't build them come to think of it. If electricity prices were astronomical I'm sure it would get more support from the public.

>The fuel source for a closed-fuel-cycle reactor is effectively free, compared to the fuel source for any fossil-fueled plant.
Buying fuel is one of the least expensive parts of operating a nuclear power plant. Most of the money goes into building the plant itself.