But why are you surprised? The hippies pushed free love and drug use. The inevitable end result was more children without stable families and drug addiction. When you step over those bodies you are stepping over the fruits of the hippy ideal.

In the hippies case, as the movement became more mainstream the establishment funded efforts to emphasize those aspects over the other, more socialist and anti-war aspects that were the basis of the earlier counter-culture.

Just look at the evolution in the music of the movement: protest songs of the early to mid 60s (Dylan, Sam Cooke, Simon & Garfunkle...) gave way to the commercially produced, glitzy psychedelic music in the late 60s. From Surrealistic Pillows in 1967 to American Beauty in 1970 and beyond it was basically about sex, partying, navel gazing and spacing out.

The message clearly became much safer and, as it happens, more profitable.

I've even heard one conspiracy theorist say that the change in attitude for many bands was orchestrated by 3-letter agencies to influence the anti-war movement, though I don't know how much evidence there is of that.

There are similar conspiratorial views that the mainstreaming of Woke has been an elite push to distract/disrupt the class consciousness Occupy movement.

1. Hippies were ~1960s. Children of hippies would then be adults in the ~1980s, and would be grandparents now. Tenderloin's median age[1] is 38, or 20 years too young

2a. Hippies pushed marijuana and psychedelics. Weed has a 10% addiction rate. LSD and psilocybin have no addiction rate.

2b. Drugs that are addictive (heroin) had complex, controversial and conspiratorial factors [2] (and that's aside from the complexity of "addiction" itself)

2c. Alcohol and alcoholism had (and has) way more impact.

3a. Family instability (re: divorce rates) occurs in far, far more places than the hippy movement.

3b. Just because a family is stable doesn't mean it produces healthy adults

[1] https://www.point2homes.com/US/Neighborhood/CA/San-Francisco... [2] https://www.vera.org/reimagining-prison-webumentary/the-past...

2a. Recreational drug use cannot be so neatly compartmentalised as you might think. The only reason I tried marijuana and psychedelics but refused speed was because I was a nerd who researched things on erowid. I don't know if you've met young working class party-goers, but most are not so discerning.

2b. The quote you provided doesn't support what you said.

2c. It has a significant impact, but you're delusional if you think it has more of an impact than amphetamines and heroin. I'm certainly not here to defend alcoholism.

3a. Free Love is going to result in more accidental pregnancies and more children being born in unstable situations. I surely don't need to explain this.

3b. No, but it damn sure helps.

That you are 35 (hi, 36) and raised by people who came of age during the hippy time (also, hi, same!), I would presume, explicitly means you were not a result of hippy free love attitudes, and were a planned child, since those were ~60s and we're both 80s babies.

PS - Props to you for researching on Erowid!

Aside from any differences in observations about "working class party goers" (which, boy howdy do I have), if your theory is that "hippy attitudes towards their drugs cause addictive drug use today", that's going to run into a host of problems starting with the differences in which drugs.

I don't understand how direct testimony that significant power (political, governmental, social, etc etc) at the time was directed to destabilizing the community you're talking about doesn't support my assertion that any conversation around addiction in those communities is going to be complicated.

I'd bet $100 (probably more) that alcoholism has a larger overall impact than (illegal) drug addiction, if only because of there are far more people with an addiction to alcohol than there are people with addictions to illegal drugs; ie total case count. I can't speak to statistic regarding relative harm on a per-person basis; ie - yeah I wouldn't be surprised if the average heroin addict experiences more harm from their addiction than the average alcoholic.

Similarly, bet you $100 that abstinence-only education results in more accidental pregnancies and more children being born into unstable situations than "Free Love" ever did then or "sex-positivity" does today. If only because (IME) free love attitudes largely also come with pro-birth-control attitudes.

Re: Bets - I'm serious. We'd OFC have to formalize the question and answer-methodology ala prediction marketplaces, which might functionally prevent an actual bet, but regardless, I'm serious.

that’s the point that sticks out to me. optimize aggressively for revenue, everywhere, and we get what you describe. the counter culture can’t always be productive in a way that the mainstream can capture. the counter cultures that try for that today are things like darknet/drug markets or just cryptocurrency broadly. the latter, for the time being, seems pretty widely viewed as a dishonest, selfish, destructive thing. the former seems much more in-line with existing systems of commerce than with a social movement: full of distrust, no interactions other than buy & click.

i feel that the counter-culture at this point has to be fighting for some alternative to that optimization process. was Occupy counter-cultural? were WTO protests counter-cultural? communist/anarchist ideals — presented as an alternative to that optimization — do seem more popular with the newer generations than the older ones, but almost entirely in dialogue form than in actual, physical ways of living. perhaps the counter-cultural streak is still here but the barrier for it to progress from a flare up to a sustained thing has risen.

And yet the one protest that looks to have a chance of actually making any significant change is the once that starves the very systems itself. Doing less instead of more actively works. It is a fascinating thing to see in action.

The difference is that there is, and intentionally so, little legibility to how crypto "does" anything. Increasingly so as you go down the rabbit hole into less prominent projects that are untethered to traditional finance or venture capital. And if we're seeing like a state, that makes it a useless technology, ties it only to crime and the underground, because it can't be seen and controlled using men with guns or tattling gossips. And from a counter-cultural perspective, that should make one go, "hmm, that's interesting." Someone who is able to access state resources while being insulated fron state coercion could be seen as "useless parasite" or "bold counter-culturalist".

Right now it is highly inconvenient to adhere to a "crypto lifestyle", even more so than it was to be a hippie. As you say, buying drugs with it is a common entry point, and it's hard to use a crypto wallet for any kind of consumer activity. And everywhere you go, the discussion is unhinged speculation with an "exit strategy". The actual believers are quite a bit fewer in number, and are more likely to be along the lines of a Vitalik than an SBF - living relatively simply and focused primarily on intellectual concerns, vs a grand-scale dishonest charlatan.

And protest movements, while visually impactful, don't seem to terrify the mainstream like crypto. In many respects they have become co-opted, part of the show.

It may 'terrify' some ordinary folks and mainstream journalists, but that's more about the massive amounts of fraud and the enablement of crime than it is about it taking over in any significant way.

The playbook of "criminalize any counterculture that threatens the status quo" is arguably in continuous use now, preventing any countercultural movement from gaining that kind of scale through a combination of negative press and prosecution threats.

Sure, the hippie movement was branded countercultural. But to what purpose? Note that during the period, the US government was engaged in a large scale remaking of America both domestically and internationally. Domestically, we saw the remaking of immigration policies to no longer bias towards those of European descent, and instead towards what favored macro capitalism (the import of cheaper and low skilled labor). Internationally the US was scaling up engagement in hot and cold wars and no longer considering itself bound to the constitutional provisions for war. Lo and behold, during this period, a "counterculture" arises which glorifies drug use, the dissolution of the nuclear family and pushes forward the vapid strain of hyper individualism that we see today. Suddenly the anti-war movement is associated with drug use and degeneracy, whilst the nation's racial consciousness is broken in time to welcome a new wave of immigrants to help improve the margins of big business. Note that the current "woke" counterculture follows the same pattern. Increased individualism, sublimated racial awareness, dissolution of family, and rampant degeneracy. Meanwhile the state continues its hegemonic march of constant international agitation.

I don't know where you get the idea of "increased individualism" from "woke culture". Racial justice advocates and queer leaders often talk about community and the importance of banding together - so much so that opponents have taken to branding that as things like "communism" or "black supremacy".

As for "dissolution of family", that's an anti-queer talking point; the nuclear family is not the only form of family. "Rampant degeneracy" is just a values disagreement but framed in terms of good and evil.

We’ve replaced a once diverse and diffused economy with a “all or nothing” labor workplace. Either you are “in the system” working full time or multiple part-time gigs, on assistance, or on the streets. There’s no real room for transients, hippies, hobos and the like to sustain themselves as they had.

Just like ad-hoc work has been outlawed to "protect the workers", minimalist shelter has been outlawed to "protect the tenants".

Both of these endeavors provide some benefit to a certain vulnerable groups, but they absolutely cut the legs out from under other even more vulnerable groups.

I can build a decent shack for less $1,000, or a crappy one for $200. To be clear, I wouldnt want to live in it, but it would be a hell of a lot better than living on the sidewalk. Meanwhile, low income housing projects tag in at more than a million per unit, so few get built.

People say it is inhumane to let people live in a shack, small rooms, or flop houses so it should be illegal. However, they balk at the cost of the alternatives and people are simply left out in the street.

A free person can't voluntarily choose to build or rent an 8x8' shack, but the state can lock you in a 8x8' cell for breaking the law.

The gig economy is a set of relationships between the state of problems and pay. It pressures workers with the fewest skills to successively solve the same problem.

You show up to the owner, negotiate on the spot and start working.

the gig economy requires a credit card, bank account, background check , smartphone, app install etc – and all the tracking and hassle that goes with it.