Talk:Baby boomers

Generational Conflict, and Legacy with regards to climate-change
With climate change at hand, it's more and more important to highlight the somewhat permanent and disproportionate greenhouse gas impact this generation has had. Perhaps under legacy or with discussions of it in several places — for example, with regards to the political views, especially as they've aged. Nandofan (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Too soon. And besides, even if you actually lived in an environmentally conscious world, whether or not people actually care is a different story. For example, some pollsters tell us Generation Z care a great deal about the environment, yet sales numbers show they love "fast fashion" delivered to their doors. Similarly, back in the 2000s and 2010s, Millennials apparently abandoned car-culture, only to catch up with their elders as time went by. It was not because of concerns about climate change, but cost. Nerd271 (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If you can find sources about it, I think this is a good thing to include. The economic behaviors of generations are largely irrelevant to legacy. BappleBusiness[talk] 19:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You might want to reconsider this one. If environment impacts are deemed significant, then economic behaviors actually matter. How else would a demographic cohort affect the environment? Nerd271 (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm not saying that individual economic behaviors aren't significant to environmental impacts - they absolutely are. Although it is important to keep in mind that individual choices are not the only factor; governments have enabled the economic behaviors causing climate change, and baby boomers have dominated positions of power for the past few decades. What I was saying is that if there is a significant conception of baby boomers as causing climate change, it may be worthy to include, regardless of their actual impact (but of course we wouldn't reproduce falsehoods, we would provide supplementary information if their actual impact does not align with the popular conception). BappleBusiness[talk] 19:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I think it would add a lot of important and relevant contemporary context. Collecting some resources.
 * https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/baby-boomers-greenhouse-gas-emissions-b2043755.html
 * https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/feb/07/the-pinch-david-willetts
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIxvX_8Gr3U
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuXzvjBYW8A
 * https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/62008/ssoar-igjr-2010-1-rez-schwarzberg.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y&lnkname=ssoar-igjr-2010-1-rez-schwarzberg.pdf
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/25749231
 * I'm hoping Willet's criticisms could perhaps form the bases for wider discussion within the article with regards to whether such a generational conflict exists, and to what extent, while linking to other relevant topics within wikipedia.
 * - Nandofan (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This seems a weirdly specific tangent to me. What is the special link that boomers in particular have to the climate change issue?  Why is that issue any more relevant to their generation than it is to other groups?  The article can't cover every possible attitude toward every existent subject, so why pick so random a topic to comment on?  It gives a false impression of correlation where there is none. JBrownIII (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Because they've had an enormous impact on total emissions and have set many of the policy directions leading to further climate deterioration and the institutionalized momentum keeping us from changing course. I've referenced some materials that shows what the link is and it is definitely noteworthy. That's not to mention that the article discusses all sorts of things with regards to boomers. There shouldn't be such surprise at the suggestion that a crucial, all encompassing, enormously important issue like climate change be discussed as well. After all, the article very much is discussing the emergence, importance, and various impacts of this particular generation. What else is the article if not that? It's very much the type of thing that gets included in a comprehensive encyclopedia entry. Nandofan (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

1965?
can the year 1965 be very last demographic cohort of baby boomer? 2404:8000:1027:B639:DDA6:3ACB:E0D9:33AE (talk) 05:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Not at all, the last year of Generation Jones for sure but not the last Baby Boomer year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B026:BDAA:5D54:D2C5:3808:F8C5 (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't there be sources cited for the graphs? Not having any implies that there is some kind of consensus for the numbers involved, which of course there isn't.  So I think the graphs should be labeled with whatever group or individual created them. JBrownIII (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * See the Wikimedia pages for the graphs. Nerd271 (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * That in no way addresses my question. JBrownIII (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Which graphs? Dan Bloch (talk) 06:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Like said, which graphs? Again, you can always check the Wikimedia pages for any image. Just click on them. Nerd271 (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)