>

Worse relative to what?
It seems to me that nobody has really engaged with what you've said here yet, because you've said a lot. To summarize as simply as possible, this is what I think you're saying: 
1) Human flourishing has improved a lot in the past, and
2) We're at the beginning of a downward trajectory that only seems to be accelerating. 
Does that sum it up well to start, at least in a like very TL;DR way? >

Yes, that would be an accurate TLDR. >

Ok. I feel like you did a great job of explaining in detail why you think that way, and I honestly don’t think you’re totally wrong about much of your supporting evidence. I agree with you that something like rapid decline is a very real possibility in our future. But there are two counterpoints I’d make. 
The first is that I think I see local politics a little differently than you do. I’ve spent a good chunk of time working on local issues, and the main assessment I have is that local activity is basically being abandoned. Local government in the United States provides us with really powerful tools to make change in the world, but basically no one is using them. When you start showing up to stuff, you quickly find that there’s a leadership vacuum and people will put you in charge of things by your second or third meeting. They’re desperate for people to do stuff, and this is the case all over the US—big cities, small towns, and so on. 
While that’s a bummer, and maybe a sad commentary on the state of polity, there’s honestly nothing stopping people from simply showing and picking up the tools available to them and starting to use them again. All you need is a will to do it, and a little bit of free time, and you can make enormous change in your community. 
Which brings me to my second point. Everyone alive today (in the developed world) happens to have been born into pretty sweet circumstances where human flourishing has done nothing but improve for multiple generations. Lucky us! But this improvement hasn’t just happened by accident or due to enormous structural forces no one can control. The generations of improvement occurred because generations of people lived through moments where things could have gone either way, and chose to do what it took to move things to a better place. Whether you’re talking about science, or politics, poverty or war, each improvement that occurred happened because somebody lived in a challenging and difficult time and decided to push things forward. 
History is full of moments like the one we’re living through now. I can imagine someone looking at the world in 1939 and thinking exactly as you do now. Fascists on the march, Franco just winning in Spain, world war coming. Who could have guessed that a mere decade later we’d be sitting on the precipice of a 70+ year period of relative peace and prosperity? >

You definitely see local politics differently than I do, because I have not found any such inroad. On the contrary, in my experience, trying to change anything through politics is pretty much a losing battle. This is why I don't believe there's a political solution to the current problems. In my experience, there are few traces of democracy left in the US at any level, and politics is a club that only a select few are invited to, and which resists outside influence. There are going to be some exceptions certainly, but they would seem to be just that — exceptions. In addition to fighting your way into that club, you also have to deal with the people in that community who support the current status quo and are going to make things nearly impossible for you at every step. And even if you have some success of that kind of incrementalism — all the while you're doing it, people are suffering and dying while they're waiting for that progress. It's like if a patient goes into cardiac arrest and the doctor's office, so, instead of emergency resuscitation, the doctor schedules them to see a cardiologist a month from now.
Secondly, while plenty of problems occur at the local level, the biggest issues and shenanigans seem to take place at the state and federal level, at least here in the US. The problem is, with the hierarchy of government the way it works, whatever kind of progress you make at the local level can be swept away at the state or federal level. I do believe that things need to start at the local level, but with how compartmentalized politics are, I don't see that as a viable strategy through political channels. Mutual aid and community organization, which then branches out into surrounding areas and spreads — that can certainly start local, but it also doesn't have to operate within the limitations of politics.
Thirdly, no, not everyone has been born into sweet circumstances. There are people born today, even in developed countries, who have the odds stacked against them far more than some people born centuries ago. There are people today who are never given a real chance. We like to think that we are so much better off because of our technology, and how much that improves quality of life — but that only applies to the degree people have access to it, and even then it's not the only variable. People today have far less free time than in most points throughout history, and social cohesion is pretty much gone. We have luxuries, but we have little peace, little rest, little connection. We can afford a smartphone with internet access, but when we get sick we're left to our own devices, without anyone to take the burden off of us, and instead usually have to go to work and bear somebody else's burdens through it. It's a miserable existence. Give me a mud hut and bland food with community, rest, and peace any day. Give me a shorter, fuller life over a long, miserable, lonely life any day.
For all the improvements we've made, we've regressed in so many critical ways, which is the core point I'm making. It is extremely privileged to be able to point to the technology we have today and call that improvement when so many people don't have access to many of its benefits, or when they experience hardships that outweigh them. >

I agree almost wholeheartedly except for the assertions that bigotry will be a thing of the past. Since the dawn of man there has been some type of othering of groups and treating them worse. The target group changes, the intensity ebbs and flows, but it is a line of thinking that will always require upkeep, and egalitarianism will require upkeep. For a lot of really racist people today, racism totally ended in the 60s. Most people say we have gotten worse since a certain high-level politician made bigotry accepted again. There will always be a need for anti-bigotry. Think of how many times the Jewish population got persecuted for roughly the same damn conspiracy throughout history.
I think pessimists see everything as one step forward, two steps back, when really it isn't the case. There's a lot of things that really fucking suck right now, but luckily they aren't incapable of changing, and we show the right trajectory. Some of the really bad things like right-wing power plays are the death throws of a dying ideology and place in time, desperately clinging onto whatever it has left. The only major concern for me is maybe we just can't rectify climate change, but even then our efforts seem to have been finding some payoff I hear >

Racism is an extension of tribalism. So yes it has always been with us. But it doesn't necessarily have to be part of us.
America is actually one of the least racist countries on planet earth. You know why? Cause black and white kids grow up going to the same schools. They are friends with each other. They don't see each other as members of the opposite tribe.
As wealth grows. So does integration. >

My premise is that there are some bad things that keep coming up throughout history. I believe that humans are innately more good than bad, but there are circumstances destined to come and go that make a population trend towards certain lines of thinking. As long as there is some type of hardship, and there will never be a true utopia, there will be a blaming type of negative reaction that takes hold. Always has, always will, even if the world is generally getting better. Some people will always be inclined to dry lines and divide, there will always need to be people protecting this from taking over. We will never be able to stop worrying about the problem, because it will come back up like a virus. Ignoring bigotry helps it take root, we will never be able to fully get rid of it. We will continue to get better over time, I agree >

Humans have gone through "regressive" periods before only to come through them, so there is reason to believe that this could happen again, despite our current trajectory.
People have been saying 'now is the end-times' since ancient Greece, probably earlier. >

I mean, you're right. In the far future, trends might reverse. Absolutely nothing lasts forever — but neither do we. It seems like we are heading into a dark age, which we might emerge from eventually, but does no good for anyone living today or those in successive generations.
That said, technology would be a factor that might throw a wrench and even this. That is, it allows for a more total and complete subjugation of people by those who hold the power — between omnipresent surveillance technology, automation rendering human labor obsolete, and even now automated enforcement systems that, if you recall, there was a recent debate about whether or not they should be allowed to use lethal force. That debate likely isn't over. There's a lot of talk in the futurist community about a singularity — a point of technological no return where the acceleration of advancement compounds on itself to a critical degree. Often, this is seen from an optimistic standpoint — but it's very easily go the other way as well, and that does seem to be the direction we're going. We may soon enter a point where the power and wealth difference between those on top and those on the bottom is so great, that we can't do anything to reverse it. And while I could be wrong on these predictions, they seem to be the most reasonable given the current evidence and trajectory. >


I mean, you're right. In the far future, trends might reverse. Absolutely nothing lasts forever — but neither do we. It seems like we are heading into a dark age, which we might emerge from eventually, but does no good for anyone living today or those in successive generations.

The way you describe it, it does sound like it does benefit 'successive generations'?
It's true that it could go one way, but, then again, it could go the other. >

Successive in the far future, not likely anytime soon. I'm not making claims meant to cover the span of all time. I'm not claiming that it is completely impossible for conditions to change in the far future. I'm pointing out the trajectory we are currently on, and that we are likely to stay on it for quite a long time unless something drastic happens. >


Successive in the far future, not likely anytime soon

Your CMV is about the future?

I'm pointing out the trajectory we are currently on, and that we are likely to stay on it for quite a long time unless something drastic happens.

Though perhaps we will learn from the mistakes we're making now and being forced to reckon with them that leads to the improvement, so even a bad trajectory can be part of a larger up-tick, potentially, no? >

My CMV is about trajectory. It is about the future, and I state that the future is bleak — and I hold to that. I stated in my original post about things getting much, much worse before they are likely to get better — I did not say that there was never a chance of that trajectory changing eventually in the far future. I did make the distinction in my original post, though perhaps not clearly enough. Things getting much, much worse before they get better would be a bleak future, even if some far off bright future was further out still. Again, that does no good for anyone now, or in the generation soon to follow.
Why would we learn from these mistakes? People don't seem to have learned from them so far. We are pretty much repeating the same mistakes we have always made, just with a new coat of paint so that people don't immediately recognize it. The only difference is that, with increased centralization and advancement in technology, the stakes are higher than ever. But if those in power succeed, who is there going to be to learn from these mistakes? From their standpoint, they won't even be mistakes — they'll have succeeded.
Yes, there are such things as down ticks that can be part of a potential uptick — but I'm not saying any evidence to suggest that this is a temporary slump. I know that it's still early on in the trajectory change — but I don't see a lot of evidence suggesting that it's likely only a hiccup. >


so the rich and powerful can provide for themselves with that automation, and maybe a minimal workforce, while they leave the rest of us to rot

There's way to much in there to address it all.  I'll speak to the above.  If the rich and powerful don't need you thats fine.  You don't need them.  If you rot it is due to you, not them.
You list many downward current trends as you perceive them.  But they are temporary, if real at all.  Wait a few... >

Not if the rich and powerful prevent you from accessing the resources you need to survive and thrive. Which we are currently already experiencing with total enclosure, less access to the ability to own your own home and business, and fewer public spaces where you can simply exist without having to spend money or get someone's permission. There is pretty much nothing akin to a commons anymore. You can't even go live in the woods like a primitive without the permission of an owner anymore.
What you're describing simply isn't a thing, and that noose is being squeezed tighter everyday. I know, because I'm living it right now. >

By definition the rich are few.  So how are these few consuming so much?
The rich derive their wealth from a robust middle class.  If they kill the middle class they deny themselves what makes them wealthy.
Its wrong headed to think those that prosper most from the system will lead to destruction of the system.. >


So how are these few consuming so much?

You know, if more people sincerely stopped to consider that question, and genuinely looked for the answer, we might actually stand a chance of turning this bad trajectory around. But that's not really happening. But it's not really a point of what they're consuming, so much as what they're controlling.

The rich derive their wealth from a robust middle class. If they kill the middle class they deny themselves what makes them wealthy.

Currently, yes. But it doesn't have to remain that way. If automation renders most labor and the consumer market obsolete, they won't have to derive their wealth from The Middle class. They can defend dig it directly out of the Earth and manufacture it for themselves, and they can enforce their claims themselves, cutting out the middle class and enforcer class along with the lower classes. Now, that's admittedly not going to happen really soon. At best, that's a few decades down the line. But remember, I'm talking trajectory here, not just how things are now. The lower class is currently being subject to eugenics, and among the lowest genocide. If the lower class is crushed, then the middle class will be the lower class. They will be next. >

I'm not going go into much here. But I'll just say this:
If you're African American, in the past few centuries you would've been a slave, segregated and abused, or worse. 
If you're a women, you would have have almost no power. if your husband raped you, no own would have given 2 shits. 
If you were Asian, no one would have even given you a decent job, because of xenophobia. 
LGBTQ? Better hide it if you want to live. 
If you were a white, straight man, with a perfect family, you lived til 60. And you better hope there are no wars, you don't get cholera or dynsentary. Oh, and meat was rare, food was scarce, no cell phones, little books. If you were born poor, you were lucky to have SOMETHING, anything to eat. >

I addressed pretty much all of this above. Again, this is not about the current snapshot of the world and its state, it's about trajectory. It's not a claim that, at a given time in the past, things were better — it's a claim that, at the very best, this is likely to be as good as things ever get, because our current trajectory is regressive. This doesn't deny anything about the improvements for the condition of people in the past including certain groups of people who have been oppressed. As I said, I'm a member of several of those groups. Great strides have been made in these areas — but these are now being outpaced by the negative, and will likely continue to be going forward unless something dramatic and out of left field happens. >

“There seems to be an accelerating decrease in individual political and economic self-determination…”
Do you see the problem with your argument? 
it’s the phrase “seems to be”.
If you were to say “extensive studies and data prove..”
And actually had that to back your argument up, you would still have a difficult time validating your entire point. 
Without that you have what equates to an old man on a porch complaining. >

This is a Reddit post, not a college thesis. It wasn't my intent to construct a rigorous argument that could stand up to academic security — it was my intent to present my sincere view based on the best evidence and observations I have. And I have not come to these conclusions lightly. I have looked at studies and data of all kinds — I did not save them, because I did not anticipate making this post when I read them. And besides, my purpose here is not to convince others of my view, but to invite them to convince me of theirs. That's the title of the subreddit — change my view. Not everything requires a rigorous peer-reviewed study before it can be believed. For instance, I don't need such a study to tell me that it's cold outside, that my foot hurts when I stub my toe, or that a car will stop when it runs out of gas or power. I can observe those things and draw conclusions from experience. While rigorous scientific study could potentially trump that — after being thoroughly scrutinized and verified — it's not a prerequisite for knowledge, let alone sincerely held belief. >

I feel as though the earth is flat. It seems to be much less round than it does in pictures. On the whole, I have a feeling that we live on a disc shaped platform in outer space. It’s only logical that this disc will become flatter as time passes until it is no longer habitable, and I feel like we are past the point of no return.
Your entire post is a house of cards built on a foundation of assumption.  I’m not saying you need to conduct scientific surveys yourself, but when your beliefs are based entirely on your own subjective general-sense of things, it’s not a view to be challenged, it’s just an unfounded opinion. >

It's really not. And dismissing it as such, instead of addressing what I've said, is not very convincing. >

Wow
You need to take a break from CNN and whatever internet social media sites and news sites you’re spending all day on 
The leftists scare monger sites spout this stuff all day every day to get more people to tune in and click their “ news “stories 
It’s all bullshit 
99.9% of Americans don’t give two shits about gays getting married .
They are fucking tired of guys using the girls bathroom though .
Read some stories about life 80 years ago 
Before all the govt welfare food stamps unemployment etc etc 
Before antibiotics and x rays 
Before cheap electricity and clean drinking water and municipal sewage treatment 
Before automobiles ,
Before affordable food and clothes
The poorest person in any western country lives better than the king of England did 100 years ago. >


They are fucking tired of guys using the girls bathroom though

You were doing ok until that. I don’t believe the majority of people give a shit about that either.  You want to talk about leftist media stirring up shit, this is a narrative by right-wing media to stir up shit.  And why does everyone think leftists watch cnn?  Who but old boomers get their news from these major 24hr outlets any more?  But I digress.  The world is a scary place because of people that spout lines like this.  It’s out of touch and borderline dangerous.  Whether you realize it or not it’s a dig at trans people and it needs to stop.  It’s the rising popularity of far-right propaganda and ideology like this that’s scary.   Not just here but all over the world. >

And this kind of transphobia is also a pretty good example of exactly what I'm talking about. >

Do you really think people in the past were less transphobic? >

Did I say they were? I'm pretty sure that from the beginning, my post has been about trajectory, not a snapshot of any given point in history or the present. >

No need to get defensive.  It's a simple yes or no question. Do you really think people in the past were less transphobic? >

No. But I also never claimed that, or even implied it. >

You definitely implied it, look:

CMV: The world is progressively getting worse and the future is bleak.
And this kind of transphobia is also a pretty good example of exactly what I'm talking about.

You listed transphobia as an example of one of things that's progressively getting worse.  But now you're saying that transphobia is not as bad as it used to be, which would mean it's progressively getting better. That indicates a Change in Your View.
Can you clarify? >

I did not imply it, you interpreted it that way. However, I can understand your confusion, and I will clarify. Let's use an analogy — a hill.
Say you're climbing up a big hill. You reach the top of the hill, so you start to climb down the opposite way. You've only made it a few steps from the top. What direction are you traveling, up or down? You're clearly traveling down. However, as you are still only a few steps from the top, you are also much higher than you were when you started out.
This is why I have emphasized, from the very beginning of this post, the difference between a fixed state or snapshot, and a trajectory. My point, from the start, has been about trajectory. Clearly, it is possible to be better off than you were at a particular point, and still be on a trajectory toward the bad — just as you can be higher up than you were at an earlier point in your climb of the hill, and still be on your way down.
Make sense? >

Almost.  Just fill in the blank to clarify what you're referring to as "the top of the hill":
"Transphobia was very bad, but it got better, and better, and better, and on ___ it was the best it had ever been, but then it got worse, and now it will continue to get worse and worse." >

I'd say a lot of your concern, and I feel them too, are more a result of short-term political trends, and can, perhaps will, be fixed. What happens when an animal that is being killed? Does it yield peacefully, or does it scratch claw and fight for whatever it has left. That's what is happening to the current state of right wing ideology. It's frustrating how some of its death cries will resonate in shitty laws that will take a while to undo, but the thing is, Republicans (which I can't help but feel is your primary gripe) have been getting steadily more unpopular, and more desperate. It hasn't won the popular vote in a long time, millennials aren't trending right like their prior generations, Gen Z is maybe the most vocal young activists we had, and there are plenty of smart and driven individuals setting the groundwork for what the solutions to our current woes. Historically, there's been many times where people thought the world was going to hell. Then the right leader comes along, or the right events that facilitate change come. 
Think about how the slaves were freed. Political sentiment was trending towards abolishment, and the south didn't like that. They got more vocal about protecting themselves, and pushed back. Hard. They seceded, a lot of people thought America would never recover. The still scared south then started a war with Fort Sumter. The most riled up the right has ever been in America facilitated Lincoln pulling the trigger to go for abolishment, and the country did come back into various levels of unity up until today. 
If things are going bad, there's almost always a rock bottom. You pray it doesn't have to get there, but sometimes that's what it takes. There will always be a time where the people have no alternatives than to get better. Say for automation and if it truly takes every job. Right now, people who would lose their job are mad, people who aren't at risk don't care so much. If everyone loses their job, everyone has to care, right? At some point things get unignorable, for everybody. 
In the grand scheme of things, there's bad era's and good era's, but on the whole it keeps going up over time. Provided we don't just lose to climate change, our kids will be doing better than us  and I'm speaking from an American perspective, most the rest of the world is on an uptick, especially places like Africa that we're down really bad for a long time. >


I'd say a lot of your concern, and I feel them too, are more a result of short-term political trends, and can, perhaps will, be fixed. What happens when an animal that is being killed? Does it yield peacefully, or does it scratch claw and fight for whatever it has left. That's what is happening to the current state of right wing ideology.

That's not what I'm seeing at all. Sure, when we're talking about the far right, there's probably some truth to that. The radical Trump wing of the right is likely in its death throes, and the equally radical but smarter DeSantis wing isn't exactly popular either. However, I believe your line of reasoning here overlooks two crucial points.
Firstly, because American democracy is already dead, a political faction doesn't have to be popular to take power. Let's not forget that Trump attempted a coup just a few years ago. He failed because he's an idiot — but DeSantis is not an idiot, and the same insurrectionist sentiments seem to be alive and well in his camp. Measures to undermine voting rights are already in full swing in several States. What happens if he games the system and wins? What happens if he succeeds where Trump fails? Let's not forget how Hitler fell from power and popularity too — only to rise from the ashes and take control of Germany once more.
But the second and perhaps more concerning issue is that you're wrong, the Republicans are not my primary gripe. The Democrats are also a right-wing party, and although they are not as far to the right as the Republicans, they are still quite authoritarian. It's the Democrats overseeing the genocide of homeless people here in Denver, for instance. Mainstream Democrats are a little more than sanitized Republicans, like the image of the anti-homeless architecture painted with pride colors that was circulating a few years back. And while a republican takeover would be an absolute disaster, a future under the Democrats looks a little better. I may not be legally persecuted for being transgender under them, but I will still be subject to arrest if I try to sleep or keep myself from freezing to death as a homeless person. We can argue all day that the latter is not as bad as the former, but for the countless people affected by it, the end result is the same.

What happens when an animal that is being killed? Does it yield peacefully, or does it scratch claw and fight for whatever it has left.

I'm really glad you said this, because it illustrates one of the biggest reasons why I feel like things are so hopeless. Because the proverbial animal isn't scratching, clawing, and fighting. It's rolling over and showing its belly. We had a good thing going in mid 2020, with the nationwide protests that shook the status quo to its core. But as soon as the elections approached, and people got it in their heads that they could stuff a paper in a ballot box and the problem with magically go away, so they could go back to ignoring it, all of that fizzled. All of that momentum disappeared and it hasn't come back. The solidarity we had going at that time is now nowhere to be found. People are being squeezed more and more every day, and almost none of the problems raised during those protests have been solved — and hardly anyone is doing more than whining about it. Sure, you see plenty of outrage to social media posts, but that's all the far it ever goes. They still continue to comply with the status quo, cast their vote blue out of fear of the Republicans, and nothing significantly changes.
In order to effectively create change, people have to have the means to do so. Why don't the workers in the blood diamond mines in Africa rebel against their overlords? Why don't oppress peoples everywhere overthrow their oppressors? Usually, because they are too busy scraping by trying to survive. Because they are outnumbered and outgunned. Most successful revolts take place because somebody in a position of power breaks away from their higher-ups and uses the lower classes as pawns to facilitate revolution. As I've heard one person put it, peasants are able to storm the palace because the army lets them in — because the army feels it's time to replace the current regime. But the more impoverished and disempowered people are, and the more centralized and solidified power becomes, the harder it's going to be to create change.
And in the meantime, those in power can get around stirring up an uprising by targeting one group at a time, while stirring up the populace against that group. I go back to homeless people as an example, since they are universally hated by both mainstream Democrats and Republicans, and since that's my personal status so I have direct experience. If you look at the anti-homeless rhetoric, it's designed to stir up hatred against homeless people by the populace so they not only don't stand beside them with solidarity, but they actually support and facilitate their oppression. And if you pay attention, this propaganda has been very effective. Like a pride of lions attacking a herd of animals, they don't try to take on the whole herd at the same time, but instead isolate the most vulnerable of the herd away from the rest and kill it. The rest of the herd, unaffected, doesn't really care as long as they're not the ones being eaten. And that's exactly what we're seeing right now. Lions picking us off, class by class, so that they don't rouse enough people to anger that momentum builds up against them. First they come for the homeless, the transgender, and the immigrant — and people don't speak up, because they aren't homeless, transgender, or immigrants. Then they come for women wanting reproductive rights, people of color, and other LGBTQ+ people — but people don't speak up, because they aren't any of those things. Then they come for the rest of the lower class. Then they come for the middle class — and at that point, there's no one left to speak up.
If there is any chance of me being wrong about this, any chance of reversing it. I believe it takes a realizing just how dire the situation is. I believe it's going to require that people realize that a good outcome is not at all guaranteed, or even likely. I believe it's going to take people becoming alarmed. And that's not happening. Just like your comment, and the comments of everyone else in this thread shows, people seem to be a very asleep about the possibility that everything might not turn out all right in the end. Which is why not enough is happening to reverse it. And if it comes the inverse of a self-fulfilling prophecy. >

The Dark Ages Part 2 won’t last forever. 
Isn’t it safe to say other generations thought the same thing as you only for things to get better hundreds of years later? >

Nothing lasts forever. The human race won't last forever. Everything comes to an end eventually. And yes, it's possible that, in the far future, long after it will do any good for anyone living today, or even the generations that will come soon after us, the trend might reverse. I'm not making a claim that's meant to span all the eons that are to come.
That said, as I have stated elsewhere here, the past is not necessarily an indicator of the future, and technology is a major difference between how things were on the past. I've explained, both in the original post, and in successive comments and replies, how automation, the omnipresence of surveillance technology, and other such advances stand a significant chance of causing things to play out differently this time — especially if people remain naive to the possibility because it's not how things played out in the past. I would say that naivety makes the danger greater. Could I be wrong? Of course. I want to be wrong. But I can't currently find a reason to believe that I'm likely to be wrong, unless something significant changes to alter our trajectory first. >

I would encourage you do to some world traveling. Sometimes our perspectives are limited by our surroundings. I appreciate your quality post and agree with a lot of it. Late stage capitalism is a thing. We are facing new challenges as a society. Generationally I think our parents had different problems than we do. I’m not here to change your view but my question is what was the tipping point where things changed? Was it 9/11? I find myself trying to pin down when this happened. Also your writing reminded me of Ted Kazinsky. >

I wish I could do some world traveling, but I don't have that luxury. That costs money I don't have. I have done some traveling recently, and it has only solidified my views as detailed above. I went from a deep red area to a deep blue area, hoping that a completely different kind of people, a completely different culture, and completely different values might open up a different and better world to me. Instead, I merely stepped from one sort of hellscape to another. I was feeling optimistic about the move, and that optimism is now entirely gone.
As for the tipping point — I don't know. I think it would be very hard to narrow it down to just one thing. I think it's a gradual accumulation of many things. The Nixon shock, Reaganomics, 9/11, the housing bubble burst of 2008, Obama overplaying his hand, Trump's shenanigans and hate — I couldn't point to a single event or point in time and say “that's where it all changed”. But I can look in the past and see that there has been a generally positive trend, and I can look at the present and see that the signs are showing that trend has come to an end. >

Poverty is not the only measure of progress. You've got to consider social progress, education, and political and economic self-determination as well. And yes, there are many developing countries, and even a small number of developed countries, still riding the wave upward in all of those categories.
However, if the most developed countries in the world start to go in reverse, how long do you think those countries will be able to continue to ride the wave upward? Let's not forget that those but developed countries, for all their faults and crimes, kind of paved the way. There are plenty of regressive forces in most of these countries that would be more than happy to see his power if given the chance. If the most powerful and wealthy countries in the world start regressing rapidly, how long do you think these countries will be able to hold out before they're swept along? These countries don't exist in isolation — they have plenty of economic and cultural contact with the rest of the world. Without global pressure pushing for that progress, I don't see it likely to continue. >

Dark times only last so long until you get an enlightened period. It will get darker before we enter an enlightened period. We'll have to get used to deglobalization in the coming years. China will not have the population to continue to be a manufacturing Powerhouse and Russia is on the same boat. They're going to lose they're able bodied men in this war with Ukraine, they won't have enough babies to keep the Russian federation going.
If you're in north America or an ally of America, you'll face a smaller darker period then the rest of the world.
Mexico will become a manufacturing Powerhouse. Canada is the largest producer of potash. Well have enough oil to get us into the green era.
No new enlightened stage has come without a dark period. You're thinking about it as being dark from now on. It will get dark, only for a certain time. Dark times pass. So do good times. It's a cycle. It's like forests, sometimes they need to burn for new trees to grow. This makes forests much stronger in the end. >

Worse relative to what? >

Worse in trajectory, in general trend. I've already made the point clear repeatedly throughout that I'm talking about trajectory, not a comparison of two points. >

OK; what are we headed for that's worse than before? >

As I said in my original post — we are heading in a general direction of decreasing personal autonomy, personal empowerment, and self-determination; of more power and wealth being concentrated into the hands of fewer people, so that we have less control of our lives and livelihood, and little to know personal resources; and we are heading in a direction where it will be increasingly difficult for those of us in the working class to justify our existence to those in the ruling class.
How exactly bad this will get, and how it will compare to previous time periods, I do not know with any certainty. But there seems to be quite a bit of a potential for it to get as bad as anything that has existed in human history — though it may also fall short of that. At least, it seems likely to erase much of the social progress we have enjoyed in the last century or two. >


At least, it seems likely to erase much of the social progress we have enjoyed in the last century or two.

You think we're going back to slavery, legalized rape, a complete lack of modern medicine and agriculture, no separation between church and state, and industrial-scale genocide? >

Are you familiar with Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Reunions? It’s where the ideas of the paradigm shift and the gestalt switch arose. In short, the old way is the thesis, the proposed change is the antithesis, and the compromise is the synthesis. 
The old way was divided nations, even within, and money rules. Capitalism, in and of itself, is not bad; it’s the human factor. Capitalism, coupled with religion, is a very vile combination and the cause of most of the world’s problems right now. 
The new way, the “woke” way, is that everyone should have an equal shot. Everyone should at least have an opportunity to achieve success, regardless of their sex/gender, race/ethnicity, age, or whatever other label. At its very core, that’s nice to say but far too idealistic to be realistic at present. 
So, we have the old way clasping on to their world, and we have the new way trying to find its place. Almost every protest right now are the people desperately fighting for the new way. The respective governments’ responses are to essentially quell the protests by placating them, giving them small victories to let them feel they’ve won. That tactic has worked for thousands of years (see back to religion), but for some reason, it isn’t now. 
People want change. They’ve seen others get it, and it empowers them. Things will most certainly get worse before they get better, but in the end we will see a paradigm shift toward that new way. >

No worries. A reset will happen when the threshold is broken >

You may be my soul mate.  We can be dark and gloomy about the future together.   You are very accurate.  I thought I was alone on this subject.
Nothing is reversible.  This is it.  We are on a downward spiral until i die or the world ends in nuclear war if not by another pandemic, the result of biological terrorism.   I have to come back to this as I just happened to wake up in the night and found this when I turned on my phone.   Lucky for me.  I am not alone with my opinions and observations of the world around us.   Technology, think Pegasus, a diabolical spyware that can literally infiltrate anyone's phone, suck out personal data, emails, contacts, chat room conversations and track you wherever you go without you knowing anything about it.   There is no place to hide.  No place for privacy.  It can watch me, read what I am typing now.   This will never be regulated.   It is like the US telling Russia it disposed of 25% of its arsenal and Russia says they did the same.   What would we know about the accuracy of this?  Nothing.  How did they dispose of the 25%?  Never to know, we just have to believe it's true.  I never believe anything and neither do I trust anyone.   Governments are the biggest liars, manipulators, propagandists...to be continued. >

We're living in the last days (Isaiah 2) before the Messiah's return.  Babylon and climate change are going to get worse and worse.  But Zion is going to grow stronger and stronger.  The future is as bright as your faith! >

Well, I don't have any faith. I'm a former Christian, now an atheist and an antitheist. I hold that the omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent God postulated by Abrahamic religion cannot possibly exist, as it would be a contradiction for being to exist with all three of those characteristics in light of how messed up the universe is. Further, I would assert that the god described in the Bible is a classic narcissistic sociopath, and Jesus was simply the love bombing phase. If that God existed, he would be exceedingly evil, and there would be no hope for any of us in the so-called end times, even those who believed. But, I'm reasonably certain that such a God does not exist. >

It seems to me that nobody has really engaged with what you've said here yet, because you've said a lot. To summarize as simply as possible, this is what I think you're saying: 
1) Human flourishing has improved a lot in the past, and
2) We're at the beginning of a downward trajectory that only seems to be accelerating. 
Does that sum it up well to start, at least in a like very TL;DR way? >

Yes, that would be an accurate TLDR. >

Ok. I feel like you did a great job of explaining in detail why you think that way, and I honestly don’t think you’re totally wrong about much of your supporting evidence. I agree with you that something like rapid decline is a very real possibility in our future. But there are two counterpoints I’d make. 
The first is that I think I see local politics a little differently than you do. I’ve spent a good chunk of time working on local issues, and the main assessment I have is that local activity is basically being abandoned. Local government in the United States provides us with really powerful tools to make change in the world, but basically no one is using them. When you start showing up to stuff, you quickly find that there’s a leadership vacuum and people will put you in charge of things by your second or third meeting. They’re desperate for people to do stuff, and this is the case all over the US—big cities, small towns, and so on. 
While that’s a bummer, and maybe a sad commentary on the state of polity, there’s honestly nothing stopping people from simply showing and picking up the tools available to them and starting to use them again. All you need is a will to do it, and a little bit of free time, and you can make enormous change in your community. 
Which brings me to my second point. Everyone alive today (in the developed world) happens to have been born into pretty sweet circumstances where human flourishing has done nothing but improve for multiple generations. Lucky us! But this improvement hasn’t just happened by accident or due to enormous structural forces no one can control. The generations of improvement occurred because generations of people lived through moments where things could have gone either way, and chose to do what it took to move things to a better place. Whether you’re talking about science, or politics, poverty or war, each improvement that occurred happened because somebody lived in a challenging and difficult time and decided to push things forward. 
History is full of moments like the one we’re living through now. I can imagine someone looking at the world in 1939 and thinking exactly as you do now. Fascists on the march, Franco just winning in Spain, world war coming. Who could have guessed that a mere decade later we’d be sitting on the precipice of a 70+ year period of relative peace and prosperity? >

You definitely see local politics differently than I do, because I have not found any such inroad. On the contrary, in my experience, trying to change anything through politics is pretty much a losing battle. This is why I don't believe there's a political solution to the current problems. In my experience, there are few traces of democracy left in the US at any level, and politics is a club that only a select few are invited to, and which resists outside influence. There are going to be some exceptions certainly, but they would seem to be just that — exceptions. In addition to fighting your way into that club, you also have to deal with the people in that community who support the current status quo and are going to make things nearly impossible for you at every step. And even if you have some success of that kind of incrementalism — all the while you're doing it, people are suffering and dying while they're waiting for that progress. It's like if a patient goes into cardiac arrest and the doctor's office, so, instead of emergency resuscitation, the doctor schedules them to see a cardiologist a month from now.
Secondly, while plenty of problems occur at the local level, the biggest issues and shenanigans seem to take place at the state and federal level, at least here in the US. The problem is, with the hierarchy of government the way it works, whatever kind of progress you make at the local level can be swept away at the state or federal level. I do believe that things need to start at the local level, but with how compartmentalized politics are, I don't see that as a viable strategy through political channels. Mutual aid and community organization, which then branches out into surrounding areas and spreads — that can certainly start local, but it also doesn't have to operate within the limitations of politics.
Thirdly, no, not everyone has been born into sweet circumstances. There are people born today, even in developed countries, who have the odds stacked against them far more than some people born centuries ago. There are people today who are never given a real chance. We like to think that we are so much better off because of our technology, and how much that improves quality of life — but that only applies to the degree people have access to it, and even then it's not the only variable. People today have far less free time than in most points throughout history, and social cohesion is pretty much gone. We have luxuries, but we have little peace, little rest, little connection. We can afford a smartphone with internet access, but when we get sick we're left to our own devices, without anyone to take the burden off of us, and instead usually have to go to work and bear somebody else's burdens through it. It's a miserable existence. Give me a mud hut and bland food with community, rest, and peace any day. Give me a shorter, fuller life over a long, miserable, lonely life any day.
For all the improvements we've made, we've regressed in so many critical ways, which is the core point I'm making. It is extremely privileged to be able to point to the technology we have today and call that improvement when so many people don't have access to many of its benefits, or when they experience hardships that outweigh them. >

I agree almost wholeheartedly except for the assertions that bigotry will be a thing of the past. Since the dawn of man there has been some type of othering of groups and treating them worse. The target group changes, the intensity ebbs and flows, but it is a line of thinking that will always require upkeep, and egalitarianism will require upkeep. For a lot of really racist people today, racism totally ended in the 60s. Most people say we have gotten worse since a certain high-level politician made bigotry accepted again. There will always be a need for anti-bigotry. Think of how many times the Jewish population got persecuted for roughly the same damn conspiracy throughout history.
I think pessimists see everything as one step forward, two steps back, when really it isn't the case. There's a lot of things that really fucking suck right now, but luckily they aren't incapable of changing, and we show the right trajectory. Some of the really bad things like right-wing power plays are the death throws of a dying ideology and place in time, desperately clinging onto whatever it has left. The only major concern for me is maybe we just can't rectify climate change, but even then our efforts seem to have been finding some payoff I hear >

Racism is an extension of tribalism. So yes it has always been with us. But it doesn't necessarily have to be part of us.
America is actually one of the least racist countries on planet earth. You know why? Cause black and white kids grow up going to the same schools. They are friends with each other. They don't see each other as members of the opposite tribe.
As wealth grows. So does integration. >

My premise is that there are some bad things that keep coming up throughout history. I believe that humans are innately more good than bad, but there are circumstances destined to come and go that make a population trend towards certain lines of thinking. As long as there is some type of hardship, and there will never be a true utopia, there will be a blaming type of negative reaction that takes hold. Always has, always will, even if the world is generally getting better. Some people will always be inclined to dry lines and divide, there will always need to be people protecting this from taking over. We will never be able to stop worrying about the problem, because it will come back up like a virus. Ignoring bigotry helps it take root, we will never be able to fully get rid of it. We will continue to get better over time, I agree >

Humans have gone through "regressive" periods before only to come through them, so there is reason to believe that this could happen again, despite our current trajectory.
People have been saying 'now is the end-times' since ancient Greece, probably earlier. >

I mean, you're right. In the far future, trends might reverse. Absolutely nothing lasts forever — but neither do we. It seems like we are heading into a dark age, which we might emerge from eventually, but does no good for anyone living today or those in successive generations.
That said, technology would be a factor that might throw a wrench and even this. That is, it allows for a more total and complete subjugation of people by those who hold the power — between omnipresent surveillance technology, automation rendering human labor obsolete, and even now automated enforcement systems that, if you recall, there was a recent debate about whether or not they should be allowed to use lethal force. That debate likely isn't over. There's a lot of talk in the futurist community about a singularity — a point of technological no return where the acceleration of advancement compounds on itself to a critical degree. Often, this is seen from an optimistic standpoint — but it's very easily go the other way as well, and that does seem to be the direction we're going. We may soon enter a point where the power and wealth difference between those on top and those on the bottom is so great, that we can't do anything to reverse it. And while I could be wrong on these predictions, they seem to be the most reasonable given the current evidence and trajectory. >


I mean, you're right. In the far future, trends might reverse. Absolutely nothing lasts forever — but neither do we. It seems like we are heading into a dark age, which we might emerge from eventually, but does no good for anyone living today or those in successive generations.

The way you describe it, it does sound like it does benefit 'successive generations'?
It's true that it could go one way, but, then again, it could go the other. >

Successive in the far future, not likely anytime soon. I'm not making claims meant to cover the span of all time. I'm not claiming that it is completely impossible for conditions to change in the far future. I'm pointing out the trajectory we are currently on, and that we are likely to stay on it for quite a long time unless something drastic happens. >


Successive in the far future, not likely anytime soon

Your CMV is about the future?

I'm pointing out the trajectory we are currently on, and that we are likely to stay on it for quite a long time unless something drastic happens.

Though perhaps we will learn from the mistakes we're making now and being forced to reckon with them that leads to the improvement, so even a bad trajectory can be part of a larger up-tick, potentially, no? >

My CMV is about trajectory. It is about the future, and I state that the future is bleak — and I hold to that. I stated in my original post about things getting much, much worse before they are likely to get better — I did not say that there was never a chance of that trajectory changing eventually in the far future. I did make the distinction in my original post, though perhaps not clearly enough. Things getting much, much worse before they get better would be a bleak future, even if some far off bright future was further out still. Again, that does no good for anyone now, or in the generation soon to follow.
Why would we learn from these mistakes? People don't seem to have learned from them so far. We are pretty much repeating the same mistakes we have always made, just with a new coat of paint so that people don't immediately recognize it. The only difference is that, with increased centralization and advancement in technology, the stakes are higher than ever. But if those in power succeed, who is there going to be to learn from these mistakes? From their standpoint, they won't even be mistakes — they'll have succeeded.
Yes, there are such things as down ticks that can be part of a potential uptick — but I'm not saying any evidence to suggest that this is a temporary slump. I know that it's still early on in the trajectory change — but I don't see a lot of evidence suggesting that it's likely only a hiccup. >


so the rich and powerful can provide for themselves with that automation, and maybe a minimal workforce, while they leave the rest of us to rot

There's way to much in there to address it all.  I'll speak to the above.  If the rich and powerful don't need you thats fine.  You don't need them.  If you rot it is due to you, not them.
You list many downward current trends as you perceive them.  But they are temporary, if real at all.  Wait a few... >

Not if the rich and powerful prevent you from accessing the resources you need to survive and thrive. Which we are currently already experiencing with total enclosure, less access to the ability to own your own home and business, and fewer public spaces where you can simply exist without having to spend money or get someone's permission. There is pretty much nothing akin to a commons anymore. You can't even go live in the woods like a primitive without the permission of an owner anymore.
What you're describing simply isn't a thing, and that noose is being squeezed tighter everyday. I know, because I'm living it right now. >

By definition the rich are few.  So how are these few consuming so much?
The rich derive their wealth from a robust middle class.  If they kill the middle class they deny themselves what makes them wealthy.
Its wrong headed to think those that prosper most from the system will lead to destruction of the system.. >


So how are these few consuming so much?

You know, if more people sincerely stopped to consider that question, and genuinely looked for the answer, we might actually stand a chance of turning this bad trajectory around. But that's not really happening. But it's not really a point of what they're consuming, so much as what they're controlling.

The rich derive their wealth from a robust middle class. If they kill the middle class they deny themselves what makes them wealthy.

Currently, yes. But it doesn't have to remain that way. If automation renders most labor and the consumer market obsolete, they won't have to derive their wealth from The Middle class. They can defend dig it directly out of the Earth and manufacture it for themselves, and they can enforce their claims themselves, cutting out the middle class and enforcer class along with the lower classes. Now, that's admittedly not going to happen really soon. At best, that's a few decades down the line. But remember, I'm talking trajectory here, not just how things are now. The lower class is currently being subject to eugenics, and among the lowest genocide. If the lower class is crushed, then the middle class will be the lower class. They will be next. >

I'm not going go into much here. But I'll just say this:
If you're African American, in the past few centuries you would've been a slave, segregated and abused, or worse. 
If you're a women, you would have have almost no power. if your husband raped you, no own would have given 2 shits. 
If you were Asian, no one would have even given you a decent job, because of xenophobia. 
LGBTQ? Better hide it if you want to live. 
If you were a white, straight man, with a perfect family, you lived til 60. And you better hope there are no wars, you don't get cholera or dynsentary. Oh, and meat was rare, food was scarce, no cell phones, little books. If you were born poor, you were lucky to have SOMETHING, anything to eat. >

I addressed pretty much all of this above. Again, this is not about the current snapshot of the world and its state, it's about trajectory. It's not a claim that, at a given time in the past, things were better — it's a claim that, at the very best, this is likely to be as good as things ever get, because our current trajectory is regressive. This doesn't deny anything about the improvements for the condition of people in the past including certain groups of people who have been oppressed. As I said, I'm a member of several of those groups. Great strides have been made in these areas — but these are now being outpaced by the negative, and will likely continue to be going forward unless something dramatic and out of left field happens. >

“There seems to be an accelerating decrease in individual political and economic self-determination…”
Do you see the problem with your argument? 
it’s the phrase “seems to be”.
If you were to say “extensive studies and data prove..”
And actually had that to back your argument up, you would still have a difficult time validating your entire point. 
Without that you have what equates to an old man on a porch complaining. >

This is a Reddit post, not a college thesis. It wasn't my intent to construct a rigorous argument that could stand up to academic security — it was my intent to present my sincere view based on the best evidence and observations I have. And I have not come to these conclusions lightly. I have looked at studies and data of all kinds — I did not save them, because I did not anticipate making this post when I read them. And besides, my purpose here is not to convince others of my view, but to invite them to convince me of theirs. That's the title of the subreddit — change my view. Not everything requires a rigorous peer-reviewed study before it can be believed. For instance, I don't need such a study to tell me that it's cold outside, that my foot hurts when I stub my toe, or that a car will stop when it runs out of gas or power. I can observe those things and draw conclusions from experience. While rigorous scientific study could potentially trump that — after being thoroughly scrutinized and verified — it's not a prerequisite for knowledge, let alone sincerely held belief. >

I feel as though the earth is flat. It seems to be much less round than it does in pictures. On the whole, I have a feeling that we live on a disc shaped platform in outer space. It’s only logical that this disc will become flatter as time passes until it is no longer habitable, and I feel like we are past the point of no return.
Your entire post is a house of cards built on a foundation of assumption.  I’m not saying you need to conduct scientific surveys yourself, but when your beliefs are based entirely on your own subjective general-sense of things, it’s not a view to be challenged, it’s just an unfounded opinion. >

It's really not. And dismissing it as such, instead of addressing what I've said, is not very convincing. >

Wow
You need to take a break from CNN and whatever internet social media sites and news sites you’re spending all day on 
The leftists scare monger sites spout this stuff all day every day to get more people to tune in and click their “ news “stories 
It’s all bullshit 
99.9% of Americans don’t give two shits about gays getting married .
They are fucking tired of guys using the girls bathroom though .
Read some stories about life 80 years ago 
Before all the govt welfare food stamps unemployment etc etc 
Before antibiotics and x rays 
Before cheap electricity and clean drinking water and municipal sewage treatment 
Before automobiles ,
Before affordable food and clothes
The poorest person in any western country lives better than the king of England did 100 years ago. >


They are fucking tired of guys using the girls bathroom though

You were doing ok until that. I don’t believe the majority of people give a shit about that either.  You want to talk about leftist media stirring up shit, this is a narrative by right-wing media to stir up shit.  And why does everyone think leftists watch cnn?  Who but old boomers get their news from these major 24hr outlets any more?  But I digress.  The world is a scary place because of people that spout lines like this.  It’s out of touch and borderline dangerous.  Whether you realize it or not it’s a dig at trans people and it needs to stop.  It’s the rising popularity of far-right propaganda and ideology like this that’s scary.   Not just here but all over the world. >

And this kind of transphobia is also a pretty good example of exactly what I'm talking about. >

Do you really think people in the past were less transphobic? >

Did I say they were? I'm pretty sure that from the beginning, my post has been about trajectory, not a snapshot of any given point in history or the present. >

No need to get defensive.  It's a simple yes or no question. Do you really think people in the past were less transphobic? >

No. But I also never claimed that, or even implied it. >

You definitely implied it, look:

CMV: The world is progressively getting worse and the future is bleak.
And this kind of transphobia is also a pretty good example of exactly what I'm talking about.

You listed transphobia as an example of one of things that's progressively getting worse.  But now you're saying that transphobia is not as bad as it used to be, which would mean it's progressively getting better. That indicates a Change in Your View.
Can you clarify? >

I did not imply it, you interpreted it that way. However, I can understand your confusion, and I will clarify. Let's use an analogy — a hill.
Say you're climbing up a big hill. You reach the top of the hill, so you start to climb down the opposite way. You've only made it a few steps from the top. What direction are you traveling, up or down? You're clearly traveling down. However, as you are still only a few steps from the top, you are also much higher than you were when you started out.
This is why I have emphasized, from the very beginning of this post, the difference between a fixed state or snapshot, and a trajectory. My point, from the start, has been about trajectory. Clearly, it is possible to be better off than you were at a particular point, and still be on a trajectory toward the bad — just as you can be higher up than you were at an earlier point in your climb of the hill, and still be on your way down.
Make sense? >

Almost.  Just fill in the blank to clarify what you're referring to as "the top of the hill":
"Transphobia was very bad, but it got better, and better, and better, and on ___ it was the best it had ever been, but then it got worse, and now it will continue to get worse and worse." >

I'd say a lot of your concern, and I feel them too, are more a result of short-term political trends, and can, perhaps will, be fixed. What happens when an animal that is being killed? Does it yield peacefully, or does it scratch claw and fight for whatever it has left. That's what is happening to the current state of right wing ideology. It's frustrating how some of its death cries will resonate in shitty laws that will take a while to undo, but the thing is, Republicans (which I can't help but feel is your primary gripe) have been getting steadily more unpopular, and more desperate. It hasn't won the popular vote in a long time, millennials aren't trending right like their prior generations, Gen Z is maybe the most vocal young activists we had, and there are plenty of smart and driven individuals setting the groundwork for what the solutions to our current woes. Historically, there's been many times where people thought the world was going to hell. Then the right leader comes along, or the right events that facilitate change come. 
Think about how the slaves were freed. Political sentiment was trending towards abolishment, and the south didn't like that. They got more vocal about protecting themselves, and pushed back. Hard. They seceded, a lot of people thought America would never recover. The still scared south then started a war with Fort Sumter. The most riled up the right has ever been in America facilitated Lincoln pulling the trigger to go for abolishment, and the country did come back into various levels of unity up until today. 
If things are going bad, there's almost always a rock bottom. You pray it doesn't have to get there, but sometimes that's what it takes. There will always be a time where the people have no alternatives than to get better. Say for automation and if it truly takes every job. Right now, people who would lose their job are mad, people who aren't at risk don't care so much. If everyone loses their job, everyone has to care, right? At some point things get unignorable, for everybody. 
In the grand scheme of things, there's bad era's and good era's, but on the whole it keeps going up over time. Provided we don't just lose to climate change, our kids will be doing better than us  and I'm speaking from an American perspective, most the rest of the world is on an uptick, especially places like Africa that we're down really bad for a long time. >


I'd say a lot of your concern, and I feel them too, are more a result of short-term political trends, and can, perhaps will, be fixed. What happens when an animal that is being killed? Does it yield peacefully, or does it scratch claw and fight for whatever it has left. That's what is happening to the current state of right wing ideology.

That's not what I'm seeing at all. Sure, when we're talking about the far right, there's probably some truth to that. The radical Trump wing of the right is likely in its death throes, and the equally radical but smarter DeSantis wing isn't exactly popular either. However, I believe your line of reasoning here overlooks two crucial points.
Firstly, because American democracy is already dead, a political faction doesn't have to be popular to take power. Let's not forget that Trump attempted a coup just a few years ago. He failed because he's an idiot — but DeSantis is not an idiot, and the same insurrectionist sentiments seem to be alive and well in his camp. Measures to undermine voting rights are already in full swing in several States. What happens if he games the system and wins? What happens if he succeeds where Trump fails? Let's not forget how Hitler fell from power and popularity too — only to rise from the ashes and take control of Germany once more.
But the second and perhaps more concerning issue is that you're wrong, the Republicans are not my primary gripe. The Democrats are also a right-wing party, and although they are not as far to the right as the Republicans, they are still quite authoritarian. It's the Democrats overseeing the genocide of homeless people here in Denver, for instance. Mainstream Democrats are a little more than sanitized Republicans, like the image of the anti-homeless architecture painted with pride colors that was circulating a few years back. And while a republican takeover would be an absolute disaster, a future under the Democrats looks a little better. I may not be legally persecuted for being transgender under them, but I will still be subject to arrest if I try to sleep or keep myself from freezing to death as a homeless person. We can argue all day that the latter is not as bad as the former, but for the countless people affected by it, the end result is the same.

What happens when an animal that is being killed? Does it yield peacefully, or does it scratch claw and fight for whatever it has left.

I'm really glad you said this, because it illustrates one of the biggest reasons why I feel like things are so hopeless. Because the proverbial animal isn't scratching, clawing, and fighting. It's rolling over and showing its belly. We had a good thing going in mid 2020, with the nationwide protests that shook the status quo to its core. But as soon as the elections approached, and people got it in their heads that they could stuff a paper in a ballot box and the problem with magically go away, so they could go back to ignoring it, all of that fizzled. All of that momentum disappeared and it hasn't come back. The solidarity we had going at that time is now nowhere to be found. People are being squeezed more and more every day, and almost none of the problems raised during those protests have been solved — and hardly anyone is doing more than whining about it. Sure, you see plenty of outrage to social media posts, but that's all the far it ever goes. They still continue to comply with the status quo, cast their vote blue out of fear of the Republicans, and nothing significantly changes.
In order to effectively create change, people have to have the means to do so. Why don't the workers in the blood diamond mines in Africa rebel against their overlords? Why don't oppress peoples everywhere overthrow their oppressors? Usually, because they are too busy scraping by trying to survive. Because they are outnumbered and outgunned. Most successful revolts take place because somebody in a position of power breaks away from their higher-ups and uses the lower classes as pawns to facilitate revolution. As I've heard one person put it, peasants are able to storm the palace because the army lets them in — because the army feels it's time to replace the current regime. But the more impoverished and disempowered people are, and the more centralized and solidified power becomes, the harder it's going to be to create change.
And in the meantime, those in power can get around stirring up an uprising by targeting one group at a time, while stirring up the populace against that group. I go back to homeless people as an example, since they are universally hated by both mainstream Democrats and Republicans, and since that's my personal status so I have direct experience. If you look at the anti-homeless rhetoric, it's designed to stir up hatred against homeless people by the populace so they not only don't stand beside them with solidarity, but they actually support and facilitate their oppression. And if you pay attention, this propaganda has been very effective. Like a pride of lions attacking a herd of animals, they don't try to take on the whole herd at the same time, but instead isolate the most vulnerable of the herd away from the rest and kill it. The rest of the herd, unaffected, doesn't really care as long as they're not the ones being eaten. And that's exactly what we're seeing right now. Lions picking us off, class by class, so that they don't rouse enough people to anger that momentum builds up against them. First they come for the homeless, the transgender, and the immigrant — and people don't speak up, because they aren't homeless, transgender, or immigrants. Then they come for women wanting reproductive rights, people of color, and other LGBTQ+ people — but people don't speak up, because they aren't any of those things. Then they come for the rest of the lower class. Then they come for the middle class — and at that point, there's no one left to speak up.
If there is any chance of me being wrong about this, any chance of reversing it. I believe it takes a realizing just how dire the situation is. I believe it's going to require that people realize that a good outcome is not at all guaranteed, or even likely. I believe it's going to take people becoming alarmed. And that's not happening. Just like your comment, and the comments of everyone else in this thread shows, people seem to be a very asleep about the possibility that everything might not turn out all right in the end. Which is why not enough is happening to reverse it. And if it comes the inverse of a self-fulfilling prophecy. >

The Dark Ages Part 2 won’t last forever. 
Isn’t it safe to say other generations thought the same thing as you only for things to get better hundreds of years later? >

Nothing lasts forever. The human race won't last forever. Everything comes to an end eventually. And yes, it's possible that, in the far future, long after it will do any good for anyone living today, or even the generations that will come soon after us, the trend might reverse. I'm not making a claim that's meant to span all the eons that are to come.
That said, as I have stated elsewhere here, the past is not necessarily an indicator of the future, and technology is a major difference between how things were on the past. I've explained, both in the original post, and in successive comments and replies, how automation, the omnipresence of surveillance technology, and other such advances stand a significant chance of causing things to play out differently this time — especially if people remain naive to the possibility because it's not how things played out in the past. I would say that naivety makes the danger greater. Could I be wrong? Of course. I want to be wrong. But I can't currently find a reason to believe that I'm likely to be wrong, unless something significant changes to alter our trajectory first. >

I would encourage you do to some world traveling. Sometimes our perspectives are limited by our surroundings. I appreciate your quality post and agree with a lot of it. Late stage capitalism is a thing. We are facing new challenges as a society. Generationally I think our parents had different problems than we do. I’m not here to change your view but my question is what was the tipping point where things changed? Was it 9/11? I find myself trying to pin down when this happened. Also your writing reminded me of Ted Kazinsky. >

I wish I could do some world traveling, but I don't have that luxury. That costs money I don't have. I have done some traveling recently, and it has only solidified my views as detailed above. I went from a deep red area to a deep blue area, hoping that a completely different kind of people, a completely different culture, and completely different values might open up a different and better world to me. Instead, I merely stepped from one sort of hellscape to another. I was feeling optimistic about the move, and that optimism is now entirely gone.
As for the tipping point — I don't know. I think it would be very hard to narrow it down to just one thing. I think it's a gradual accumulation of many things. The Nixon shock, Reaganomics, 9/11, the housing bubble burst of 2008, Obama overplaying his hand, Trump's shenanigans and hate — I couldn't point to a single event or point in time and say “that's where it all changed”. But I can look in the past and see that there has been a generally positive trend, and I can look at the present and see that the signs are showing that trend has come to an end. >

Poverty is not the only measure of progress. You've got to consider social progress, education, and political and economic self-determination as well. And yes, there are many developing countries, and even a small number of developed countries, still riding the wave upward in all of those categories.
However, if the most developed countries in the world start to go in reverse, how long do you think those countries will be able to continue to ride the wave upward? Let's not forget that those but developed countries, for all their faults and crimes, kind of paved the way. There are plenty of regressive forces in most of these countries that would be more than happy to see his power if given the chance. If the most powerful and wealthy countries in the world start regressing rapidly, how long do you think these countries will be able to hold out before they're swept along? These countries don't exist in isolation — they have plenty of economic and cultural contact with the rest of the world. Without global pressure pushing for that progress, I don't see it likely to continue. >

Dark times only last so long until you get an enlightened period. It will get darker before we enter an enlightened period. We'll have to get used to deglobalization in the coming years. China will not have the population to continue to be a manufacturing Powerhouse and Russia is on the same boat. They're going to lose they're able bodied men in this war with Ukraine, they won't have enough babies to keep the Russian federation going.
If you're in north America or an ally of America, you'll face a smaller darker period then the rest of the world.
Mexico will become a manufacturing Powerhouse. Canada is the largest producer of potash. Well have enough oil to get us into the green era.
No new enlightened stage has come without a dark period. You're thinking about it as being dark from now on. It will get dark, only for a certain time. Dark times pass. So do good times. It's a cycle. It's like forests, sometimes they need to burn for new trees to grow. This makes forests much stronger in the end.