A future of disarmament, coexistence, equality, more free time and a better quality of life. This is how young Spaniards envisioned the year 2000 in a demographic study carried out by the Institute of Public Opinion – the predecessor of the current Center for Sociological Research (CIS) – in the spring of 1967, after signing an agreement with the International Institute for Peace in Oslo.
A representation of 1,841 Spaniards between 15 and 40 years old of different sex and social status and unspecified residence aligned themselves with those desires for peace and progress that would lead just a year later other young people to proclaim from Paris the end of an era born with the Second World War and the birth of a new world as exciting as it is illusory.
The truth is that a clear majority thought little (33%) or not at all (33%) about what would happen in the year 2000, although the percentage varied considerably depending on the level of education and income, so that the elderly and the Respondents with fewer resources were the least concerned about a future that many (43%) already saw as close. In any case, the topic was a reason for conversation for the majority, since 61% claimed to talk about it at least once a month. Likewise, 64% claimed to hear talk about the dawn of the 21st century in the media with a similar frequency.
In the year 2000, greater technological development was fundamentally expected (34% of those interviewed) and, to a lesser extent (14%), a higher standard of living and more free time. That was predictable, in terms of wishes for the future, the majority (22%) of a series of induced responses were betting on world peace and disarmament. It was an option that far exceeded the expectations of achieving more equality between people and different countries (8%) and greater automation and more free time (6%).
When asked, however, about the most catastrophic future scenario, the vast majority were divided between “war, violence” (44%) and “extermination, nuclear war” (23%). That the worst scenario for the year 2000 would be “more unemployment, financial collapse, economic pressure” was subscribed to by barely 1%. That is to say, no matter how bad things were, it would be due to the action of human beings against themselves, in no case due to the crisis of the system.
Aside from optimistic and pessimistic forecasts, a high percentage of respondents agreed that people would be happier in the year 2000 than in 1967. Specifically, 52%. And only 14% considered that they would be unhappier. Also, the majority (43%) believed that millennials – and adjacent generations – would be more interested in their inner life, although for 41% they would be less religious. Likewise, 51% believed that future generations would feel more fulfilled in their work than they did themselves.
This inner life and well-being would not be at odds with a materialistic or even selfish feeling, since the study showed how a resounding 80% considered that their followers would be more interested in material things “like cars” and 61% that they would have more interest in your personal success than in your present. However, 47% believed that they would be more interested in having good friends, even though they would be less familiar for 60%. In short, these generations would be more materialistic and individualistic and their social relationships would develop mostly outside the family circle.
Regarding the recurring question in all the surveys of the time, sex, a devastating 80% of those surveyed were clear that in the year 2000 there would be greater sexual freedom for young people, although 43% said they preferred this not to be the case. . Likewise, 67% believed that there would be more marital separations, since the possibility of divorce was not mentioned.
Regarding the social factors of the new millennium, 41% considered that there would be less unemployment, and 63% believed that there would be fewer differences between the upper and lower classes. With alcohol and tobacco completely normalized among men, the threat of other drugs was already present and 65% expected their use to grow in the future. The increase in mental illnesses, turned into a stigma and assumed as a social problem, was also obvious to 55%. Finally, 45% considered that there would be an irremediable increase in crime.
The path towards equality between men and women seemed unstoppable and 83% of those interviewed were clear that the woman of 2000 would have relevant job responsibilities compared to the woman of 1967. In the same way, 84% believed that young people would also force themselves into these positions of responsibility in the world of work.
Regarding the trust and influence of science as a development factor, 50% believed that advances in research would allow, for example, deciding the sex of a child before fathering it. The most surprising thing is that 70% would like this option that science opened up to really become a reality.
Along these same lines, the belief that science could shape a child’s personality was disputed between the 36% who considered it impossible and the 27% who did see it possible. However, 57% would like it to be that way. The majority were also clear that cancer research would end the disease in the new millennium (78%) and only 3% did not see it as possible.
Advances in economic and financial sciences should also allow clear and infallible lines of development to be marked by the year 2000, as 41% of those interviewed considered. Meteorology was another of the sciences whose development was taken for granted and 71% were clear that the weather could be decided in advance. So out with droughts and extreme events. Science would also allow us to go not to the Moon, but to other planets for 67%.
Speaking of peace, in the middle of the Cold War no one seemed to doubt that nuclear deterrence between blocs was the best formula – if not the only one – to maintain peace, with overcoming the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1963 as an immediate example. . Hence, those interviewed debated whether there would be more and more lethal weapons in 2000 (19%) or they trusted partial (10%) or total disarmament (14%). Only 6% envisioned another world war. In any case, for 66% the human being himself was in a position to learn to avoid any new war conflict in view of its consequences.
Disarmament, for its part, would be, for 43%, the best formula to achieve “world peace, less probability of war and absence of international conflicts.” Scientific advance, however, was not considered the formula for this, and a majority 35% stated that it would not be related to the end of war conflicts. In fact, science had contributed decisively to the development of new weapons and the opening of the new nuclear age.
In the event of a new war involving various countries, a majority 49% indicated that Spain could not remain on the sidelines on this occasion. Once again, the majority considered that there was no “value, goal or ideal” that justified a war with or without nuclear weapons (62% and 48%, respectively).
The lack of religious sentiment, colonialism, hunger or poverty were, for an immense majority (between 78% and 93%), behind the wars and working on their eradication would, therefore, be the best start to avoid future conflicts. Immersed in their own dictatorial regime, 70% stressed that, to achieve peace, “it should be possible for all countries in the world to freely elect their governments.” Now, a few questions later, 54% agreed that “in a world as complicated as today’s, the only way to find out what is really happening is to stick to what bosses and experts we can trust tell us.” .
It is also striking that almost half of those surveyed were “undecided” about whether to achieve peace the ideal would be to introduce an economic model based on private property (45%) or public property (49%) throughout the world. ), showing that the balance of blocks emerged as an “adequate” model to maintain the status quo. A kind of “let’s get along” socially and politically consolidated. Along the same lines, 44% also expressed their misgivings about the dissolution of military alliances, NATO and the Warsaw Pact.
Looking to the future, those surveyed assumed that in the year 2000, the two blocs would either have definitively accepted their differences to maintain a practically unchanged balance (23%) or their disputes would never have reached an armed conflict (24% ). Paradoxically, the survey itself thus anticipated Castro’s proclamation that socialism was irreversible.
The improvement of the United Nations as an international organization with the capacity for real intervention and the creation of international troops were among other measures considered adequate to avoid wars by between 69% and 52%, respectively.
