Is THIS the Problem ?

Disagreement is fine. That's the foundation of good debate.

Which solutions do you think would work well ?

One thing about Boomers. We had a fantastic youth.

When you have that many young people coming of age at the same time ..... the sheer numbers dictate that some special things are going to happen.

The 60's & 70's were a trip. Summer of Love, Woodstock. The Beatles and all manner of great music. Vietnam War protests. An explosion in all kinds of mind altering substances.

But then bullets came for the leading idealists. Malcolm X, MLK Jr, RFK, John Lennon.

I think the reason people like that get killed is because they offered an alternative world which was viable. There is no reason to kill those who offer insane alternatives. Feudal lords want insane ideas to get as much attention as possible.

I think the killing of the those with powerful voices caused the Boomer generation to steer away from their youthful idealism. Who wants to die for a cause when out survival is usually our top motivator ?

I consider myself both an idealist and a realist. I don't predict that I would be successful at bringing people together for the common good. I'm trying not to be too attached to the result here. But I acknowledge a preference to be successful and an awareness that I can't possibly succeed without trying. So .... if my odds go from zero to one in a billion, it's a step in the right direction.

Except for the Vietnam War Protests, all the other things you listed were the early stages of the social and moral rot that we see in our culture right now. (In my humble opinion ofc.)

Survival is the outcome, but control over others is the mechanism.

Every political or social conflict eventually reduces to competing attempts to control the actions of others in the name of survival. It gives people a moral permission slip to control someone else's behavior for the greater good of the species.

Murdering the outstanding moral idealists is an effective way to steer like minded people away from high moral aspiration.

MLK Jr was given the latitude to complain about the difference across races. The powers that be were fine conceding the Civil Rights Act.

But they drew the line when he attempted to wade into economic philosophy with the Poor People's Campaign and an effort to fight for a poor people's bill of rights. The people who win the struggle for power are generally the most ruthless and they weren't going to tolerate some advocate for the common folk that interfered with their greed and power.