Do you still care about the state of the world or just focus on your own life?

[Car-Guy]

There's got to be something about seeing forests and trees here .

Or lot's of "blowing smoke" to see through.

 

[GenXguy]

The USA is in decline. And I don't care.

The whole planet, really, including the ocean.

 

[isisdave]

Just my perspective but I don't think the world is any more or less screwed up than it was 2000 years ago. Just better news coverage.

I don't know about better news coverage, but certainly faster.

Forty years ago, three networks had 30-60 minutes to fill daily. Now a bazillion sources have 24 hours to fill. We're awash in it, but only some is true, and only a little of that matters.

I am alarmed by the quickness of the development of AI. I fully expect that in maybe five years, it will be impossible to tell truth from fiction, and whether a source is human or not.

 

[Mr. Tightwad]

It's not just the US. I think most Western democracies are in decline.

I've got enough on my plate. I stopped reading the news, I never watch tv and pretty much given up on politics and economics.

Take care of yourself, your loved ones and friends.

Correct on all points.

 

[MC Rider]

I should quit reading the news, except the local stuff.

TV? No Grazi.

 

[mystang52]

I follow the news and like to be informed on what's happening. But I learned to only worry about the things that are within my control. Never was into much on the activism front, so no changes there.

I only watch the news occasionally and get depressed when I do.

If I could explain to my parents and grandparents what is going on today, they would be more shocked and appalled than I am.

I check the news almost every morning, but I think I care too much. I get genuinely worked up over a number of current events, that frankly I can't delve too deeply lest I get really saddened. I consciously avoid the news in the evening; I'm a lifelong insomniac that the last thing I need is some up to date news event to keep me up all night.

 

[Dash man]

We care and do little things to ease the burden of others. We provide a childcare scholarship for a single parent who needs to work. We give to food banks, Catholic Charities, support a homeless shelter, support an organization for young mothers, sponsor two children in other countries to provide for their health care and education, give to an organization that brings eyesight to people, and an overseas medical mission.
We also have prepared what will hopefully be generational wealth for our kids, grandkids and beyond.
We’ve also prepared for our passing and the life our faith believes in.

 

[gamboolman]

Don't watch News hardly at all as unfortunately in my opinion, most of the MSM is very biased in their reporting.

 

[Tetto]

I do follow the news pretty closely, but have taught myself not to get worked up. It is so distressing to see our country falter, but I have great hopes for Gen Z to straighten things out.

 

[Chuckanut]

I have children and grandchildren. Of course I care about the future past my life on this planet.

I also realize that we reach a point in our lives where become less involved and start to take on the roll of observer. And yes, also that of an advisor. It’s mainly up to our younger folk to shape the future since they will be there and I won’t . But I refuse to be indifferent.

I listen to enough news each morning to ascertain if the world ended while I slept. If not I get on with my days activities. I avoid most social media except for sources and people I have pinpointed as being useful in my life. IMO, an hour a month writing a well thought out email to one of my elected representatives is far more useful than hours spent on 99% of social media.

 

[dixonge]

After an existential crisis a few years ago I stumbled on some books that saved me and brought me back from the edge. Several of you have expressed a worldview similar to the one I used to share, so I feel compelled to share two books and one website/newsletter/podcast in the hopes of bringing you some hope and peace of mind.

Apocalypse Never - Michael Shellenberger
https://www.amazon.com/Apocalypse-Never-Environmental-Alarmism-Hurts/dp/0063001691

The End of Doom - Ronald Bailey
https://www.amazon.com/End-Doom-Env...x=end+of+doom,stripbooks-intl-ship,214&sr=1-1

Future Crunch - We Report Good News
https://futurecrunch.com/

 

[Fermion]

I don't care a lot about the state of the world but I am interested in seeing other worlds. I really would like to see a lunar base and a human on Mars before I shuffle off this mortal coil.

 

[donheff]

We have kids and grandkids, friends, neighbors. We care. We follow the news. We vote.

 

[jim584672]

Follow, yes, but only because events may make me buy a one way plane ticket out of here.

 

[Exchme]

I scan headlines, but news is just clickbait these days intended to outrage, frighten or titillate you to keep you consuming more.

 

[DrRoy]

I follow the news and subscribe to The Economist for more international perspective and breadth.

 

[Car-Guy]

I scan headlines, but news is just clickbait these days intended to outrage, frighten or titillate you to keep you consuming more.

Agree, but I'd add "mislead' you. I really think there's elements of truth in most news stories... Your job, figure out which parts are true.

 

[FindingForward]

Agree, but I'd add "mislead' you. I really think there's elements of truth in most news stories... Your job, figure out which parts are true.

Ah, but that requires critical thinking skills vs blind belief in whatever is said by <insert your favorite candidate or media outlet here>.

Too few people respect the skills of objective evaluation - and too many schools don't recognize or teach them.

 

[folivier]

I watch the weather forecast. It's not always accurate and often sensationalized but that does directly affect my day. News? I'd better not go there.

 

[Midpack]

FWIW I found this article fascinating, it says 200 years ago partisan news was the norm if not worse much like today - TBH I had no idea. Objective news was a relatively short lived artifact of the days beginning in the 1900s when newspapers deemphasized partisan politics to increase circulation and ad revenue, TV followed - it worked so well "news" went down the objective path for decades. What has obviously changed is how fast and broad "news" (and confusion) travels now, nothing like Ben Franklin's days...

https://www.wired.com/story/journalism-isnt-dying-its-returning-its-roots/

That’s a curious sentiment, because if you were to magically teleport the architects of our democracy—men like Ben Franklin or Samuel Adams (newspapermen, both of them)—to today, they’d find our journalistic ecosystem, with its fact-checked both-sides-ism and claims to “objectivity,” completely unrecognizable. Franklin wrote under at least a dozen pseudonyms, including such gems as Silence Dogood and Alice Addertongue, and pioneered the placement of advertising next to content. Adams (aka Vindex the Avenger, Philo Patriae, et al.) was editor of the rabidly anti-British Boston Gazette and also helped organize the Boston Tea Party, when activists dumped tea into Boston Harbor rather than pay tax on it. Adams duly covered the big event the next day with absolute aplomb. They’d have no notion of journalistic “objectivity,” and would find the entire undertaking futile (and likely unprofitable, but more on that soon).

If, however, you explained Twitter, the blogosphere, and newsy partisan outlets like Daily Kos or National Review to the Founding Fathers, they’d recognize them instantly. A resurrected Franklin wouldn’t have a news job inside The Washington Post; he’d have an anonymous Twitter account with a huge following that he’d use to routinely troll political opponents, or a partisan vehicle built around himself like Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire, or an occasional columnist gig at a less partisan outlet like Politico, or a popular podcast where he’d shoot the political breeze with other Sons of Liberty, à la Chapo Trap House or Pod Save America. “Journalism dying, you say?” Ben Franklin v 2.0 might say. “It’s absolutely blooming, as it was in my day.”

What is dying, perhaps, is that flavor of “objective” journalism that purports to record an unbiased account of world events. We take journalistic objectivity to be as natural and immutable as the stars, but it’s a relatively short-lived artifact of 20th-century America.

By now the savvy media consumer knows to wait 24 hours before making any conclusion about a scoop, to cross-check at least a handful of sources and two dozen Twitter accounts for takes across the political spectrum. “Objectivity” is an atavism from the days of studiously inoffensive and circulation-expanding reportage lavishly supported by unquestioning advertiser budgets. That’s all gone now. And it’s not clear that this studious “objectivity” more closely approximates the truth. Iraq and the WMDs? Madame President? Those were headlines produced under rigorously “objective” (and wrong) coverage, while those who got it right—and there were some—spoke from less regimented perches.

 

[MarieIG]

I do care, and although I follow the news - and science - from different sources, I have to limit my news intake, so that I am able to get some sleep.

I would like to fix the world - but don't have the power to do so. Yes, I vote and try to make a small difference.

 

[Rianne]

I have a basic understanding of international, U.S., and local news but have learned not to get emotional or judgy. I'm staying out of the weeds. I am grateful for all the alternative entertainment, documentaries, etc. stations, and streaming. Humans do not live by instinct like nature. Maybe intelligence trumps sustainability. Few of us think that way or have the guts to act on it. At my age, I am grateful we do not have children. I would worry every day.

 

[EastWest Gal]

Early in my adult life I subscribed to a newspaper, but then was too busy to read it, so it was a waste of trees. I follow the news much more closely in the last 25 years, because before I was just too busy. I subscribe to two online newspapers, one of them local. We record the 11PM local news and watch in the morning, skipping through useless stuff. I protect myself emotionally by listening through my Sirius XM app, which allows me to start an hour or two later then skip through much of the analysis and all the commercials. And most of the endless war stuff.

There is a lot in the news that does not affect us individually. I think the news folks don't realize how ridiculous the endless "conversations" are or that most items don't affect most people. Go to a crowded place and step back and listen to the noise of all the conversations. Then find a recording of a barn full of turkeys. It kind of sounds the same.

Perspective.

 

[rk911]

I do read the news, like everyone else of course, but having 20–25 years left I really don’t care about anything except for what affects me directly. Global warming, Middle East, upcoming elections… my activism days are way behind me.

How about you?

We follow what's going on but having "survived" global cooling, "The Bomb", acid rain, the gas 'crisis', certain presidents, numerous riots, inflation, WIN buttons, stagflation! Watergate and any number of other "life altering events" we've remained devoted to each other (54-years in March!) and optimistic. That's not to say all is well with the world. Lots of bad guys out there, both foreign and domestic, who are envious of America and would like to see us fall. I do think we're living in dangerous...and interesting...times but we remain happy and grateful.

 

[FlaMariner]

We follow the news and we vote.....We care about our country and the world.....And as history buffs, we see how "history repeats itself" and it is sad/frustrating to watch.

As far as diet preferences, we are not vegetarians and we prefer red meat.