Tuesday, January 09, 2007

Good News about "Generation Next"

Andrew Sullivan links to the new Pew Research Survey, A Portrait of "Generation Next:" How Young People View Their Lives, Futures and Politics. Most of it's good news for secular liberals like myself. Some highlights:

  1. One-in-five members of Generation Next say they have no religious affiliation or are atheist or agnostic, nearly double the proportion of young people who said that in the late 1980s. And just 4% of Gen Nexters say people in their generation view becoming more spiritual as their most important goal in life.

  2. About half of Gen Nexters say the growing number of immigrants to the U.S. strengthens the country ­ more than any generation. And they also lead the way in their support for gay marriage and acceptance of interracial dating.

  3. In Pew surveys in 2006, nearly half of young people (48%) identified more with the Democratic Party, while just 35% affiliated more with the GOP. This makes Generation Next the least Republican generation.

  4. Voter turnout among young people increased significantly between 2000 and 2004, interrupting a decades-long decline in turnout among the young. Nonetheless, most members of Generation Next feel removed from the political process. Only about four-in-ten agree with the statement: "It's my duty as a citizen to always vote."

17 comments:

Random said...

Not sure this is terribly significant to be honest, but glad it cheers you up:-) Seriously, what surveys of this sort tend to ignore is that people tend to get more conservative and traditional as they mature (or grow older if you want to be less judgemental...) - it's the whole "if you're not a socialist in your 20's you have no soul, if you're still a socialist in your 30's you have no mind" thing. I would pull you up on one point though:

"compared with 20 years ago young adults today...

Have more casual sex 75%
Resort to violence more 70%
Binge drink more 69%
Use more illegal drugs 49%"

Is this really a "good thing for secular liberals" like yourself?

beepbeepitsme said...

RE random

I am the prime example of someone becoming less conservative as they grow older.

RE: "compared with 20 years ago young adults today...

Have more casual sex 75%
Resort to violence more 70%
Binge drink more 69%
Use more illegal drugs 49%"

Nah, they just speak about it more. I was an adult 20 years ago (not about to state my age) and people were less conservative about their sexual habits, their drinking habits and their drug habits.

My nieces and nephews are (guessing a %) - 200% more conservative that the people I knew 20 years ago. I consider my nieces and nephews to be about as conservative as my grandparents. Actually, speaking to them is quite like speaking to my grandparents - minus the wisdom.

littlefoxling said...

One-in-five members of Generation Next say they have no religious affiliation or are atheist or agnostic, nearly double the proportion of young people who said that in the late 1980s.

Is that a good thing or just not as bad? 4/5 still do have religious affiliation. And, besides, you do have religious affiliation. You may be an atheist, but you are still Jewish. I call that religious affiliation, your post about Judaism not being a religion not withstanding.

Jewish Atheist said...

Random:

Seriously, what surveys of this sort tend to ignore is that people tend to get more conservative and traditional as they mature

They're comparing this generation's young to previous generations' young, so that is irrelevant.


Have more casual sex 75%
Resort to violence more 70%
Binge drink more 69%
Use more illegal drugs 49%"


I'd agree most of that is bad, especially the violence and binge-drinking.

Ezzie said...

# In Pew surveys in 2006, nearly half of young people (48%) identified more with the Democratic Party, while just 35% affiliated more with the GOP. This makes Generation Next the least Republican generation.

That's actually LOW, though I would like to know the age that cuts off at. This is a good sign for the GOP.

Half Sigma said...

I thought this was "Generation Y" not "Generation X."

A lot of this survey just shows us that young people are better at absorbing the attitudes that Hollywood tells them to.

Krystalline Apostate said...

BBIM:
Nah, they just speak about it more. I was an adult 20 years ago (not about to state my age) and people were less conservative about their sexual habits, their drinking habits and their drug habits.
Same here. We just didn't feel impelled to gush about it, the way people do today.

jack said...

This little frige element of Judasim call orthodoxy has deluded itself & its masses inot the belief that the whole world rests on their adherence to its mores & folkways. This is really absurd. Reciting Psalms and shaking genufelcting means nothing in the greater scheme of things..You ask what matters? A good wife, good sex, and good buddies with whom you can share memories. The rest is BS

asher said...

The real deal is that with religion you believe in people.God created people and gave them laws to obey to create a better society.

With liberal secularism you don't have God to rely on so you have to put all your faith in government. Yes, those folks we elect will create a real utopia by controlling and funding every aspect of our lives. Big Brother is now God.

Taking a lesson from Western Europe you can see the outcome of relying on secularism. You have a womb to tomb government responsibility for everything and a workforce only interested in how early they can retire. Of course, the children in europe outdo our kids in math and science...and yet Western Europe hasn't come up with a single medicine or medical procedure since 1960. And all the while they are listening to their ipods and using Windows from the backward religious USA.

Juggling Mother said...

And once again Asher shows how one can write something with absolutely no truth or evidence and then claim it proves her opinion is right!

"and yet Western Europe hasn't come up with a single medicine or medical procedure since 1960."

We-ell, lets see, out of the Nobel Prize winners for Physiology and Medicine since 2000 (I couldn't be bothered to go back to 1960 - The USA hardly featured at all!), There have been UK winners in three years (2001, 2002, 2003) and an Austrian & Swedish winner (2000). 2005 went to two Australians. The Americans do get to claim credit for 2004.

Obviously I can't list all the medical advances, breakthroughs and initiatives that have happened since 1960 (where did that come from Asher?), but here's a few fairly major ones, that I have found personally useful to my family!:

1964 Bretschneider introduces cold cardioplegia

1975 British scientists George Kohler and Cesar Milstein of Cambridge's Medical research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology develop the monoclonal antibody.

1975 first test-tube baby born, UK

1977 Dr. Andreas Gruntiz, Switzerland experiment with transluminal coronary angioplasty.

1981 Cyclosporin discovered by Swiss reasearchers.

of course, France has done quite well with their recent hand transplant and face transplant

But I think the best example of Europe vs American medical science I found was summed up here: A British doctor says, "Medicine in my country is so advanced that we can take a brain out of one man, put it in another and have him looking for work in 6 weeks."

A German doctor says, "That's nothing. We can take a brain out of one person, put it in another and have him preparing for war in 4 weeks."

The American doctor, not to be outdone, says, "You guys are way behind. We took a man with no brain from Texas, put him in the White House, and now half the country is looking for work and the other half is fighting a war."


:-)

Random said...

Mrs A, it would be more helpful to your case if, in rebutting Asher's exagerrated misrepresentations you refrained from making some of your own. For example -

"We-ell, lets see, out of the Nobel Prize winners for Physiology and Medicine since 2000 (I couldn't be bothered to go back to 1960 - The USA hardly featured at all!), There have been UK winners in three years (2001, 2002, 2003) and an Austrian & Swedish winner (2000). 2005 went to two Australians. The Americans do get to claim credit for 2004."

The clear implication here being that the USA only had a winner in 2004. In fact they had a winner *every single year* in the time period you studied apart from 2005 (those two Australians) placing them ahead of any other nationality. Given that you must have gone through the records with some care to compile the figures you cite I'm surprised you failed to notice this.

As for "(I couldn't be bothered to go back to 1960 - The USA hardly featured at all!)," I hate to be rude here, but I have to ask - what on earth are you smoking? Of 173 Nobel laureates for medicine in the 1901-2000 period 85 are American, of whome the majority (over 70) fall in the 1960-2000 period you are so deriding. Furthermore, this figure is a frankly astonishing three-quarters of the total number of laureates in this period. In other words far from hardly featuring at all, the USA outnumbered every other country put together by three to one in that period. (Figures from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.)

Yes, Asher's point was exagerrated and foolish, but the general thrust of it - that the US is doing far more than Europe to advance medical knowledge - is backed up, not refuted, by the Nobel Prize data you are relying on.

As for a rather silly Bush joke being the best example you can find of European medical science, I tremble for the future if that is really the case.

jewish philosopher said...

Aren't the numbers of extremely relgious also expanding? I know Chassidim are doing pretty well.

I think it's the middle of road which may be in decline.

beepbeepitsme said...

Fundie is on the increase. Oh joy...

Juggling Mother said...

random - ashers point was that the Europeans hadn't contributed anything to medical science since 1960. Therefore I pointed out that out of the last 6 years, the Nobel prize had been awarded to Europeans in four.

In fact you are quite right - when I said I couldn't be bothered, I really couldn't & only looked back 10 years. In the late 60's and 70's the US were prominent in the Medicine Nobel lists.

Of course, as, apparently the most secular country in the world is the UK, they have certainly provided more than their fair share of scientist, Doctors & Laurettes proportionate to their population.

The joke was intended to lighten the tone a bit. It obviously failed - although it made me smile!

asher said...

Yes, why let facts get in the way when you're trying to make a point.

Next person who needs bypass surgery should try France. In fact, socialized medicine is doing so well in Canada that if you want an abortion, you can get one for free. The waiting time is about 9 months.

Juggling Mother said...

You can get one for free in the UK too. The waiting time is between 48 hours and two weeks in the vast majority of cases. Not sure what that's got to do with Generation Next becomming more secularised/polarised.

Anonymous said...

I am a High school teahcer. I work with young people all day. If my experience counts for anything our country is in a lot of trouble. The overwhelming tendency is for young people today is to focus all their efforts into persuing their appetites for sex drugs and rock and roll. The interest in pursuing a useful constructive life is minimal.