I have talked about the differences between what is and what was. I have talked about how technology has changed the landscape of the family. I talked about how the idea of entitlement has shaped the economic and cultural landscape of our world today.
When I think of some of the other differences between now and then, one thing comes to mind. Apathy.
What do I mean by Apathy? Well apathy is defined as “a state of indifference — where an individual is unresponsive or “indifferent” to aspects of emotional, social, or physical life.” And one thing that has changed over the last 20 to 30 years is the increase in apathy across the world. Lets take for example the political election process in the United States.
In the 1952 presidential race 63.3% of eligible citizens cast their vote. The US population at the time was 157,552,740. What that breaks down two is that 99,730,884 people voted. On local levels the number was closer to 70%, and 75% of individuals stated they followed world events, and politics.
By 1972, the amount of people voting in the presidential election had dropped to 55.2% of the population of 209,896,021. This means 115,862,603 voted. The number is higher, but if you thin about it, it actually means 12,761,771 or almost 13 million less people voted. And by the 2000 election the number of voters had dropped to 51%, or 19,378,986, or 19 Million less people voted. Projections for 2008 many experts have at less than 50%. Do you realize that if only 48% of eligible voter vote in the next election, 144 Million people will chose what happens to over 300 million?
In a 2006 Survey of 18-25 year olds that average that said they kept up on world events was only 41%. Of that about the same amount had voted. Why? The most common answer was that it “didn’t impact them directly.”
What are the reasons for this apathy among us? Well some of them are caused I believe by technology, and entitlement. How do I mean that? Well I discussed on a previous blog post, how my grandfather compared the last 94 years he had lived. One thing he pointed out was even in the 40’s news and events were not so readily accessible. News was usually at least a day old when you got it. So you digested it and looked for it. Today it is at our fingertips. We can find it 24/7, 365. So what happens? I think we become numb to it. How easy is it to be involved in the world around you and truly understand it, when it bombards you relentlessly?
I think another reason is that today people are more involved with themselves as opposed to the world, and even their community. Gone are many of the civic organizations that once existed. And those that do have seen their membership drop significantly in the past two decades.
Thinks about our schools. Many today are focused on scores and grades, as opposed to well rounded children, in both education of facts and education of community. As much as we gain, we loose.
It’s up to us as people, to change this. And I do see the signs of positive change. People who remind us of the important things in life. And it is those things that will return us to a real world community again.
The next item in this series will be focused on the positive impacts of the last 20 years, because there are so many. So understand that this series is intended to balance both the positive and the negative, and provide us with insight into the world we live in, and how we can change it for the better.
The world is run by the people that show up. I hope I am one of them.
~Another Day
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed! Or Have my feed delivered To your Email
on Sep 15th, 2007 at 8:41 am
Interesting post, Family Man.
Although I can’t speak for the USA, I can say that a drop in the number of people voting can be interpreted as something not entirely negative.
Many people in England are becoming increasingly disillusioned with institutionalized political channels (i.e. voting) as a means for achieving political change.
For instance, many nowadays are choosing protest as a means of achieving certain goals, as they feel as though a ‘tick in the box’ will achieve nothing.
With respect to England then a notable example would be the environment where people are using a protest as a means of realizing their goals (a famous case would be the road protesters in the late 90s).
One more thing (I’m nearly done!) The internet (I feel) has actually helped facilitate political change, in terms of presenting a news agenda which is fundamentally opposed to the corporate agenda which is presented as *news*. Indeed, one only has to google 9/11 to see an alternative perspective.
This is an essay in itself but I wanted to throw in my *2 cents*.
Again, interesting post. Looking forward to the next.
on Sep 18th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
TS:
These are great points and also the flip side of the coin. I agree too that the internet has facilitated change good and bad. My next part of the series will look at just such positives. My goal is to show both sides of the coin. Thanks for stopping by!