Post WWII generations would have changed our world even if they hadn't been a boomlet of kids

True, some of my primary school classrooms may have held close to thirty kids in them when the same classrooms in the decades before and after me might have held only around 15 , but that alone did nothing to make me and my fellow pupils fierce rebels against the values of the 500 years of generations before us.

What is the evidence, or the even the old fashioned appeal to timeless common sense, to support the absurd claim that bigger clumps of kids are more liberal/left wing than smaller clumps ?

No, what makes the pre WWII generations and post WWII generations so fundamentally different is one word : WWII .

My book is not going to focus on the physical cataclysm that was WWII : one or two (million) writers have already done so.

I wish to prove up, instead, just how truly great an intellectual cataclysm it was.

So much so, that pre WWII reads as 500 unbroken years of modernity and the enlightenment project & hegemony while post WWII was reads as postmodernity, hetro hegemony, commensality, plentitude, diversity et al.

We're probably stuck with this misleading 'boomer' moniker forever - but I will still try to make a case for re-naming it and its children's children 'the post WWII generations'.

I suspect a very good place to start is to compare the social values of the post WWII kids and their parents in nations that had almost no post WWII baby boom.

Even more interesting, would be to look at nations with almost no baby boom and who also remained Neutral during WWII ....

Manhattan Projects cause (rather than end) global environmental disasters

The year of 1945 was an unalloyed triumph for modernity thanks to  Allied big science's A-bomb decisively defeating the pre-modernity Axis.

But 1945 was also the start of post-modernity (and hence the start of the decline of the hegemony of modernity).

Because millions of people worldwide were repulsed by what the Modernity Project had done during the war - at Auschwitz , Katyn Forest and Hiroshima - and so had begun looking for ways wherein humanity worked with Mother Nature, rather than sought total control over her....

Neo-Romantic ? So now you're calling COMMENSALITY 'neo-romantic' ?

Michael Marshall

When we compare it to the Modernist Science of 100 years ago ( the science of just before World War One ), Commensal Science does appear to be a near-perfect exact opposite.

Appearances can be deceiving, but in broad strokes, it does seem to oppose the basic tenets of Modernity root and branch.

But venture back two hundred years ago,  and Commensal Science at first blush seems to be an awful lot like the Romantic Science of the era ( from roughly the 1790s to the 1840s).

But appearances are deceiving, once again, and Commensal Science both agrees with and disagrees with Romantic Science enough to be more fairly called Neo-Romantic Science.

I don't really like using terms like neo- or post- , they seem so loose, so cliched.

But like everyone else, I use them when no other term appears to convey what I mean any better.

The very self-consciousness in the use of the term neo- is exactly what I want to convey --- because so many of today's Green or Commensal scientists do deliberately hearken back to Romantic Science (and Romanticsm generally) for inspiration with which to attack The Enlightenment Project and Modernity.

Like Plato and Aristotle, these things ebb in and out of fashion:

Classicalism/Romanticism/Positivism/Commensalism.

On and on and on - ever onward - like the eternally alternating ins and outs of election results in a democracy.....