Why are we so pessimistic?(brookings.edu)
brookings.edu
Why are we so pessimistic?
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/future-development/2019/06/13/why-are-we-so-pessimistic/
148 comments
The adversity is real. Most people have horrible lives. People who are sedated in this so-called "safe comfortable state" are the ones who are being taken advantage of the most.
It's like in The Matrix, it's not until you unplug yourself that you realize that the world is worse than it has ever been. Opportunities essentually don't exist at all.
Also the argument that "if they don't realize it, then it won't hurt them" doesn't apply because it will hurt them badly in the end. Once they reach a certain age and realize that they're wasted their entire lives on video games, star wars, star treck, lord of the rings, game of thrones, etc... It will hurt badly and they won't have any way to recover.
It's like in The Matrix, it's not until you unplug yourself that you realize that the world is worse than it has ever been. Opportunities essentually don't exist at all.
Also the argument that "if they don't realize it, then it won't hurt them" doesn't apply because it will hurt them badly in the end. Once they reach a certain age and realize that they're wasted their entire lives on video games, star wars, star treck, lord of the rings, game of thrones, etc... It will hurt badly and they won't have any way to recover.
In the Developed world, we don't have to hunt our food. We don't freeze outside. We have comfortable lives in that we have are physiological needs taken care of. Yet, happiness is at an all time low and our psychological needs are neglected. I believe that OP is onto something in that humans are programmed to struggle with something, and if we don't, we start having issues. In my mind this is similar to an autoimmune disease: when our bodies don't have to fight outside pathogens, out white cells start attacking ourselves; this is one theory out there among many of why we develop autoimmune diseases.
When I went through my depression, I did some reading on it, and this comes up in the literature. Essentially, people who struggle to feed themselves don't get depressed. Depression is a first-world problem because we have the time and luxury for introspection and contemplation.
A large part of what got me out of my depression was making meaning for my life. Discovering what really matters to me, and living my life by my discovered values.
I'm also, now, easily the most optimistic person in my peer-group (I definitely was not before). I believe the world is getting better every year, and that the human race will rise to overcome all the challenges presented to us.
A large part of what got me out of my depression was making meaning for my life. Discovering what really matters to me, and living my life by my discovered values.
I'm also, now, easily the most optimistic person in my peer-group (I definitely was not before). I believe the world is getting better every year, and that the human race will rise to overcome all the challenges presented to us.
> Depression is a first-world problem because we have the time and luxury for introspection and contemplation.
That's a myth unfortunately:
> Now, for the first time, researchers went beyond deaths to examine the global causes of illness and disability. They found that the single largest cause of disability worldwide was mental disorders – largely, the common illnesses of depression and anxiety. They caused a seventh of all the disability in the world. In the poorest countries as well as the richest, and at every socioeconomic level in between, mental disorders were the greatest thief of productive life.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/apr/30/busting-the-...
That's a myth unfortunately:
> Now, for the first time, researchers went beyond deaths to examine the global causes of illness and disability. They found that the single largest cause of disability worldwide was mental disorders – largely, the common illnesses of depression and anxiety. They caused a seventh of all the disability in the world. In the poorest countries as well as the richest, and at every socioeconomic level in between, mental disorders were the greatest thief of productive life.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/apr/30/busting-the-...
There's evidence implicating magnesium deficiency in depression and anxiety, so make sure your diet contains ample quantities of this element.
That's really interesting, thanks for sharing.
For most of human history - and in many places around the world today - living a "horrible life" means that it's about to end if you don't actively find food, evade guys with guns, and stay healthy. Being able to waste your entire lives on video games, star wars, star trek, etc. is a privilege of having your entire lifetime basically assured.
That we've evolved for the former situation and seem to be miserable in the latter seems to be the grandparent's point.
That we've evolved for the former situation and seem to be miserable in the latter seems to be the grandparent's point.
There is a difference between "Being able to waste your entire lives on video games" and "Being forced to waste your entire lives on video games"... And it's not a black and white thing, it's a spectrum. More and more people are being essentially forced into virtual worlds because the real world is not giving them a chance to feel basic satisfaction.
If the odds of achieving your goals and leading a satisfying life in the real world approach 0% (e.g. because of hyper-capitalism and monopolistic, anti-competitive, centralizing market forces), then it's completely understandable that you'd want to escape into virtual worlds which give you the dopamine rush which your real life continuously fails to deliver.
If the odds of achieving your goals and leading a satisfying life in the real world approach 0% (e.g. because of hyper-capitalism and monopolistic, anti-competitive, centralizing market forces), then it's completely understandable that you'd want to escape into virtual worlds which give you the dopamine rush which your real life continuously fails to deliver.
What would make a life not horrible? Having to struggle for food and shelter?
> But your average American doesn't face real adversity anymore.
As a formerly homeless person living in a neighborhood filled with poverty, I'm going to humbly disagree with you on this point.
As a formerly homeless person living in a neighborhood filled with poverty, I'm going to humbly disagree with you on this point.
He did say 'average' American.
The article is about why we're unreasonably pessimistic. You are illustrating the point.
The article is about why we're unreasonably pessimistic. You are illustrating the point.
Apparently most americans are one paycheck away from the that: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/most-americans-are-one-pay...
But the average Americans aren't all going to lose their job at the same time and end up homeless.
The average American will never experience homelessness so citing that as an example of adversity for the average American is wrong.
The average American will never experience homelessness so citing that as an example of adversity for the average American is wrong.
That's a clickbait headline.
According to the story itself, most Americans are on the verge of: "reducing spending elsewhere (26%), borrowing from family and/or friends (16%) or using credit cards (12%)."
According to the story itself, most Americans are on the verge of: "reducing spending elsewhere (26%), borrowing from family and/or friends (16%) or using credit cards (12%)."
The Unabomber Manifesto talks about very similar themes. He kinda made a bad name for himself with the whole "killing people" thing, but a lot of his complaints about alienation, the "power principle" and need for struggle, and the feeling that individual freedom is being subsumed under an over-arching technocratic system echo things you might read on HN today.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unab...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unab...
Pretty smart guy but enslaved by his own fatalism. I do think time will prove him right to a degree, but it won't be the end of civilization as often inferred.
Still worth a read if you are able to separate it from the murder he committed. I wonder if the press would still release manifestos like this today. My government would not and by doing that ironically works towards what he saw as a threat.
Still worth a read if you are able to separate it from the murder he committed. I wonder if the press would still release manifestos like this today. My government would not and by doing that ironically works towards what he saw as a threat.
I don't think movies are good argument. Movies are not like real life, real life does not have satisfying resolution nor happy ending.
Movies teach nothing about overcoming adversity, because they are not like adversity in life at all. They are about someone predestined to win to win.
Movies teach nothing about overcoming adversity, because they are not like adversity in life at all. They are about someone predestined to win to win.
IRL the ending is exactly the same for everyone.
Thank you for this comment. I'm currently going through a stressful time dealing with a legal situation that's, objectively, annoying at best. Yet I'm paralyzed every time I open up my mail client to type out the next email to my lawyer, fearing to make an error.
Your comment put it in a very different perspective. Thank you, I'm going to write that email now.
Your comment put it in a very different perspective. Thank you, I'm going to write that email now.
[deleted]
You should watch ‘one punch man’ which is a satirical anime on Netflix which covers this exactly.
[deleted]
I agree for many of us ... but I think 'life is not easy' for the bottom 50%.
Most people sling coffee, serve food, work in factories, panic around in delivery vehicles all day, and with one wrongs step or bad health outcome they could be in doom. Lack of job stability, longer retirement, lack of community ... these things take their tole. Kind of a permanent existential anxiety.
Just 'keeping on doing', facing the daily grind and all the little things, taking care of kids - without falling down (because the cost could be catastrophe) is actually 'facing adversity'.
Most people sling coffee, serve food, work in factories, panic around in delivery vehicles all day, and with one wrongs step or bad health outcome they could be in doom. Lack of job stability, longer retirement, lack of community ... these things take their tole. Kind of a permanent existential anxiety.
Just 'keeping on doing', facing the daily grind and all the little things, taking care of kids - without falling down (because the cost could be catastrophe) is actually 'facing adversity'.
This point also confirms my relativity of perception thoughts. Yes, compared to me, the bottom 50% certainly has more adversity. But why stop there? The bottom 50% in America is likely the top 20% somewhere else (I'm making all of this up, of course). Then the bottom 50% of that 20% is likely the top 1% somewhere else. And on and on it goes.
I don't believe that thinking about nameless, faceless people thousands and thousands of miles away is particularly effective at altering daily behavior and mindset here, but it's important to recognize nonetheless.
I don't believe that thinking about nameless, faceless people thousands and thousands of miles away is particularly effective at altering daily behavior and mindset here, but it's important to recognize nonetheless.
Nah, this is very dangerous thinking, that somehow we're so much better than every other country. Truth to be told, aside very limited exceptions, life in the USA is quite bad for a lot of people, and very risky. Most countries have a better safety net than here, either through government or familial ties.
I've spent a couple of years wandering around SE Asia, and that involves seeing a lot of real poverty close up.
The striking thing about what I noticed is is: Only the lonely people are unhappy. Give the average Cambodian a bucket of chicken feet and a carton of beer and they'll immediately share it with their friends/family and be unbelievably happy.
They have really strong community and family ties, and while that does have downsides (especially for women, whose behaviour is under control almost all the time), it also gives incredible support and comfort.
The contrast between Camobodia and Australia is noticeable: Cambodians are mostly poor and happy, and Australians are mostly rich and angry.
The striking thing about what I noticed is is: Only the lonely people are unhappy. Give the average Cambodian a bucket of chicken feet and a carton of beer and they'll immediately share it with their friends/family and be unbelievably happy.
They have really strong community and family ties, and while that does have downsides (especially for women, whose behaviour is under control almost all the time), it also gives incredible support and comfort.
The contrast between Camobodia and Australia is noticeable: Cambodians are mostly poor and happy, and Australians are mostly rich and angry.
>The bottom 50% in America is likely the top 20% somewhere else (I'm making all of this up, of course). Then the bottom 50% of that 20% is likely the top 1% somewhere else. And on and on it goes.
This is if you don't take into account purchasing power parity and the relative expense of things like education, medical care and housing.
Being homeless in San Francisco isn't going to be as fun than being, say, lower middle class in Uruguay even if your nominal income is higher.
This is if you don't take into account purchasing power parity and the relative expense of things like education, medical care and housing.
Being homeless in San Francisco isn't going to be as fun than being, say, lower middle class in Uruguay even if your nominal income is higher.
Not necessarily disagreeing with you but skid row in LA looks and feels like a third world country.
Skid row isn’t the bottom 50% though. It’s the bottom 0.01%
what's frightening is how many people are very very close to ending up on skid row. in la alone, there are a million people at least who if they missed pay for two months, would be right there.
I think you are on the right track.
I'm not sure the article is. Because the article keeps talking about objective realities.
But human beings experience life subjectively. Making more than your brother in law is a big ego boost. Having the highest degree in your family, even if that is only a BA.
Human beings judge ourselves subjectively.
Technology has broken down borders, increased our self awareness and provided us with education. Which is a good thing, but it also has it's negatives.
One of those negatives is the borders: we are now all part of a global economy. Everyone intertwined with everyone else. I used to be able to go to a town hall that had a lot more sway in how things worked. Now it's a global system that will grind on and grind up anyone who dares get in it's way.
The other point is our self awareness. It's now impossible to live without understanding that... I'm complicit in some child's slavery because I have a phone in my pocket. Likely some of that meat I eat was treated with horrendous cruelty. The pages I need to print and waste because of some bureaucratic rule will cost the lives of thousands of animals in a rain forest where the trees were cut down in a terrible way. My tax dollars will be used to kill and torture people for profit. My car is costing other people their live's from it's pollution, the same as my plane trip. The arguments we used to use to justify this, have been proven false.
Coming to terms with our own terrible behavior would be easier if not for our increase in education.
Since the time of the Gutenberg press, population has gone up 10~, but educated population has gone up something like 1000 or even 10,000 times.
This increase in education has had a huge increase in scientific knowledge. But it also makes any individual much less likely to be outstanding.
So again, our individuality is lessened. But worse, you are average. Mediocre. When there's 100 biologists in the world, you can always find some way to be slightly different. With 3,000,000 biologists in the world, how could you expect to shine?
I think these things add to something that's been brewing for a couple of hundred years: a loss of meaning.
The latest things that we used to feel special: capitalism, communism, our nationality, our race, our religion, have also been falling by the wayside, dying with other idols and invincible messiahs.
We use to think of ourselves as special for a lot of reasons. Science and tech have made it very clear, we aren't special. Just a random primate descendant on a lonely little rock in the middle of a totally uncaring universe.
Now we can't even take console in being the best at something in our own little area.
I think these real negatives are suppressed because they speak poorly of human nature (we are silly creatures) and it leads to irrational negativity in other areas; whether it is worrying over a 'growing crime rate' which doesn't exist, or complaining about vaccines.
Not sure how to handle these issues, I don't really have any suggestions. Just more pointless observations. :p
I'm not sure the article is. Because the article keeps talking about objective realities.
But human beings experience life subjectively. Making more than your brother in law is a big ego boost. Having the highest degree in your family, even if that is only a BA.
Human beings judge ourselves subjectively.
Technology has broken down borders, increased our self awareness and provided us with education. Which is a good thing, but it also has it's negatives.
One of those negatives is the borders: we are now all part of a global economy. Everyone intertwined with everyone else. I used to be able to go to a town hall that had a lot more sway in how things worked. Now it's a global system that will grind on and grind up anyone who dares get in it's way.
The other point is our self awareness. It's now impossible to live without understanding that... I'm complicit in some child's slavery because I have a phone in my pocket. Likely some of that meat I eat was treated with horrendous cruelty. The pages I need to print and waste because of some bureaucratic rule will cost the lives of thousands of animals in a rain forest where the trees were cut down in a terrible way. My tax dollars will be used to kill and torture people for profit. My car is costing other people their live's from it's pollution, the same as my plane trip. The arguments we used to use to justify this, have been proven false.
Coming to terms with our own terrible behavior would be easier if not for our increase in education.
Since the time of the Gutenberg press, population has gone up 10~, but educated population has gone up something like 1000 or even 10,000 times.
This increase in education has had a huge increase in scientific knowledge. But it also makes any individual much less likely to be outstanding.
So again, our individuality is lessened. But worse, you are average. Mediocre. When there's 100 biologists in the world, you can always find some way to be slightly different. With 3,000,000 biologists in the world, how could you expect to shine?
I think these things add to something that's been brewing for a couple of hundred years: a loss of meaning.
The latest things that we used to feel special: capitalism, communism, our nationality, our race, our religion, have also been falling by the wayside, dying with other idols and invincible messiahs.
We use to think of ourselves as special for a lot of reasons. Science and tech have made it very clear, we aren't special. Just a random primate descendant on a lonely little rock in the middle of a totally uncaring universe.
Now we can't even take console in being the best at something in our own little area.
I think these real negatives are suppressed because they speak poorly of human nature (we are silly creatures) and it leads to irrational negativity in other areas; whether it is worrying over a 'growing crime rate' which doesn't exist, or complaining about vaccines.
Not sure how to handle these issues, I don't really have any suggestions. Just more pointless observations. :p
> So again, our individuality is lessened. But worse, you are average. Mediocre. When there's 100 biologists in the world, you can always find some way to be slightly different. With 3,000,000 biologists in the world, how could you expect to shine?
When there's 100 biologists in the world, you probably aren't one of them. You would just be some mediocre uneducated nobody. How do you expect to shine?
Of course, be it 100 or 3,000,000, at least you'd have the opportunity to shine if your world were the small town you were born in, not the whole planet (or continent).
There's a problem but it is not education that lessens our individuality.
When there's 100 biologists in the world, you probably aren't one of them. You would just be some mediocre uneducated nobody. How do you expect to shine?
Of course, be it 100 or 3,000,000, at least you'd have the opportunity to shine if your world were the small town you were born in, not the whole planet (or continent).
There's a problem but it is not education that lessens our individuality.
I think most peasants from the 17th century were very religious. They were given a special place by God.
The town halls now don't have that much effect. Complain about education? Worry about federal funding and national wide programs. It's not something that happened over night. It's been happening literally since the technology/science era, which I think of starting with Gutenberg.
BTW, I'm not saying education is a problem. I'm saying it has problems, unexpected consequences with the obvious good side.
The town halls now don't have that much effect. Complain about education? Worry about federal funding and national wide programs. It's not something that happened over night. It's been happening literally since the technology/science era, which I think of starting with Gutenberg.
BTW, I'm not saying education is a problem. I'm saying it has problems, unexpected consequences with the obvious good side.
"I don't believe that thinking about nameless, faceless people thousands and thousands of miles away is particularly effective "
But this is what is implied by the opening statement 'The Average American' etc. etc. , no?
The 'The Average American' does face 'adversity', because most people are barely getting by.
Imagine middle aged parents without spectacular health care coverage, someone gets a cavity and needs a root canal. That's $1000 - and actually beyond the 'average Americans' ability to pay for out of hand. A cavity can be little economic emergency. It means no car trip to Myrtle Beach, or no piano lessons for the kids, or worse, having to put it on the Credit Card, pay terrible rates etc.. And 'cousin Joe' was pulled over for DUI. He'll lose his job if he doesn't make bail, he needs you to co-sign for him. Now you have to make sure he shows up for court. Parents are inching older, have some income but likely need to go into a home, which will be exceedingly expensive. There are umpteen such challenges is 'most people's lives'.
So I agree with the sentiment that normal, employed middle class families wherein there's stability and gainful employment, low crime etc. - yes, it's effete, and not much adversity there.
There is a class of Americans for whom life doesn't have a lot of adversity, fully agree. But it's not 'most'.
But this is what is implied by the opening statement 'The Average American' etc. etc. , no?
The 'The Average American' does face 'adversity', because most people are barely getting by.
Imagine middle aged parents without spectacular health care coverage, someone gets a cavity and needs a root canal. That's $1000 - and actually beyond the 'average Americans' ability to pay for out of hand. A cavity can be little economic emergency. It means no car trip to Myrtle Beach, or no piano lessons for the kids, or worse, having to put it on the Credit Card, pay terrible rates etc.. And 'cousin Joe' was pulled over for DUI. He'll lose his job if he doesn't make bail, he needs you to co-sign for him. Now you have to make sure he shows up for court. Parents are inching older, have some income but likely need to go into a home, which will be exceedingly expensive. There are umpteen such challenges is 'most people's lives'.
So I agree with the sentiment that normal, employed middle class families wherein there's stability and gainful employment, low crime etc. - yes, it's effete, and not much adversity there.
There is a class of Americans for whom life doesn't have a lot of adversity, fully agree. But it's not 'most'.
> The 'The Average American' does face 'adversity', because most people are barely getting by.
> ...
> It means no car trip to Myrtle Beach
were you trying to make the point that people concoct adversity where it doesn't exist? because i think you're doing good work on that front. keep it up.
> ...
> It means no car trip to Myrtle Beach
were you trying to make the point that people concoct adversity where it doesn't exist? because i think you're doing good work on that front. keep it up.
[deleted]
Yes - a 'car trip' to a crappy dive like Myrtle Beach and it's shady Motels as one's only, tiny respite from a life of slinging coffee at the Waffle House, in the balance of financial emergencies from something as trivial as some basic dental work - absolutely implies 'adversity'.
In case you're having trouble contextualizing: a family in that situation is an inch from ruin. They will never have anything, and odds are, they'll hit a bump now and again and it will get messy.
Those kinds of families are always coming in and out of financial difficulty.
In case you're having trouble contextualizing: a family in that situation is an inch from ruin. They will never have anything, and odds are, they'll hit a bump now and again and it will get messy.
Those kinds of families are always coming in and out of financial difficulty.
"It means no car trip to Myrtle Beach, or no piano lessons for the kids, or worse, having to put it on the Credit Card"
That's your example of facing adversity?
Did you read the article? If you're lying awake at night worrying whether you can afford little Timmy's piano lessons you aren't in the same boat as a cave man that's worried about getting eaten by a lion.
That's your example of facing adversity?
Did you read the article? If you're lying awake at night worrying whether you can afford little Timmy's piano lessons you aren't in the same boat as a cave man that's worried about getting eaten by a lion.
There's more. If Timmy does not make the competitive job market he might as well have been eaten by the lion. Which depends on access to right tutoring and right connections more than right skills.
Getting eaten by a lion is less misery. And a lion you can fight with a few guys. Job market? Might as well be hitting a tank with your bare fists.
If anything, it's the lack of control and not the level of adversity that is the problem.
Getting eaten by a lion is less misery. And a lion you can fight with a few guys. Job market? Might as well be hitting a tank with your bare fists.
If anything, it's the lack of control and not the level of adversity that is the problem.
Are you trolling?
Getting eaten by a lion is in no way similar to not getting a 'good' job, in fact I'll go further and say it's not similar to not getting a job at all.
Getting eaten by a lion is in no way similar to not getting a 'good' job, in fact I'll go further and say it's not similar to not getting a job at all.
It actually is way worse than being eaten by a lion. Like long torture of varying degrees. There are worse kinds of torture but it is one of the most common, the other being social exclusion, and finally chronic illnesses.
Except this one nobody can really fix. The drawback of invisible poorly understood market processes with many inputs. The only thing you can try to do is make your chances better, be adaptable and adapt.
Even bad illness can often be abated with a few (commonly known as terrible) exceptions.
Except this one nobody can really fix. The drawback of invisible poorly understood market processes with many inputs. The only thing you can try to do is make your chances better, be adaptable and adapt.
Even bad illness can often be abated with a few (commonly known as terrible) exceptions.
So if your threshold for 'adversity' is getting 'eaten by Lions' I would imagine you're trolling?
My point was to illustrate a family that might have next to nothing - and who's only aspirational escape from slinging coffee at the Waffle House is a low-budget weekender at a slimly dive like Myrtle Beach, will with one tiny blip of a minor medical issue, have that taken away, and possibly go into debt.
Could you imagine a life of serving at a restaurant, never able to afford even the most basic getaway, going ever deeper into debt for basic things like 'visits to the dentist'? When you tack on just a couple of 'issues', it all comes apart.
Those families have $500 'net worth' and are at any time inches away from ruin, no retirement savings, no way to send their kids to college. If they have a bad day at work, or if their boss doesn't like them they could lose their jobs. If they inure themselves playing softball - it's calamity. Getting one credit card to pay off the other. 'Pay day loans'. Unable to cobble together 'first and last months' rent. Bad credit. A minor offence and unable to make bail. A car that breaks down, no way to get to work, and a boss that doesn't care one bit. Coming down with something as minor as 'late onset Asthma' which is $50/month of meds they cannot afford.
That is the grinding adversity that about 1/2 of America faces with no way out.
My point was to illustrate a family that might have next to nothing - and who's only aspirational escape from slinging coffee at the Waffle House is a low-budget weekender at a slimly dive like Myrtle Beach, will with one tiny blip of a minor medical issue, have that taken away, and possibly go into debt.
Could you imagine a life of serving at a restaurant, never able to afford even the most basic getaway, going ever deeper into debt for basic things like 'visits to the dentist'? When you tack on just a couple of 'issues', it all comes apart.
Those families have $500 'net worth' and are at any time inches away from ruin, no retirement savings, no way to send their kids to college. If they have a bad day at work, or if their boss doesn't like them they could lose their jobs. If they inure themselves playing softball - it's calamity. Getting one credit card to pay off the other. 'Pay day loans'. Unable to cobble together 'first and last months' rent. Bad credit. A minor offence and unable to make bail. A car that breaks down, no way to get to work, and a boss that doesn't care one bit. Coming down with something as minor as 'late onset Asthma' which is $50/month of meds they cannot afford.
That is the grinding adversity that about 1/2 of America faces with no way out.
I used lions as an example because the article uses the same example.
I've never heard of myrtle beach prior to your comment so that nuance passed me by.
Still if myrtle beach is that bad why go there? And piano lessons are firmly in the realms of the middle class, not 1 pay cheque from disaster poor.
Which circles back to my prior comment, so no I'm not trolling.
I've never heard of myrtle beach prior to your comment so that nuance passed me by.
Still if myrtle beach is that bad why go there? And piano lessons are firmly in the realms of the middle class, not 1 pay cheque from disaster poor.
Which circles back to my prior comment, so no I'm not trolling.
Okay, tweak it to say overcoming meaningful adversity, that satisfies our need for narrative/place/existential order.
Wow, no, this is almost insulting.
Having to raise a family, maintain one's well-being, and being a good community member all while having to live in dour conditions that are never likely to improve, I would argue is actual adversity.
Having to raise a family, maintain one's well-being, and being a good community member all while having to live in dour conditions that are never likely to improve, I would argue is actual adversity.
If one is convinced that their lot in life is dour, there is often no specific change or improvement that would change that outlook. Objectively, almost all of us in the Western world have it very good compared with the vast majority of human beings who have lived on this planet. This is true even if we work in menial jobs or have less than glamorous lifestyles.
No one is arguing about the definition of adversity. Of course that's actual adversity. The point that you were ostensibly replying to, though, had to do with meaning and being the heroes of meaningful stories about our lives.
You zeroed in on the single claim that "the average American doesn't face adversity" and ignored the broader context. Yes, that claim is literally false. But your response isn't one that addresses the substance of the comment you replied to.
You zeroed in on the single claim that "the average American doesn't face adversity" and ignored the broader context. Yes, that claim is literally false. But your response isn't one that addresses the substance of the comment you replied to.
>> that are never likely to improve
In the United States, your effort towards this goal have an insanely high correlation with actually making it happen. Perhaps the best in any country in the world, in fact.
In the United States, your effort towards this goal have an insanely high correlation with actually making it happen. Perhaps the best in any country in the world, in fact.
Have any data to actually back it up? Such as real number of people who made an effort and failed? And how they failed, and to where? And how well they were initially off?
People regularly risk their lives and risk imprisonment for the chance to be a poor person in a wealthy country. If the daily grind is "adversity", there seem to be millions who want it desperately.
And even those people are often better off than a typical human for most of history.
And even those people are often better off than a typical human for most of history.
Absolutely agree. I think everyone understands the relativity of perception when discussing "how hard things are" but that doesn't mean they put it into daily practice. It's very easy to get caught in your bubble.
I think another aspect of this is when life is generally good you start to pay more attention to the little things, and generally there are going to be small annoyances in life. When someone is fighting to feed their family getting a good meal is a hugely uplifting thing, but when hunger isn’t an issue having food come later than you like at a restaurant becomes annoying.
I’ve certainly experienced this in myself growing up. We grew up poor but most things didn’t get us down, they were just normal aspects of life. We had to hunt for bargains, not take vacations, always cook at home. It was the baseline. When we did eat out everyone was looking forward to it and really enjoyed it. Now life in economic sense is measurably better for me, but eating out at whatever place I feel like is the new baseline. I no longer look forward to it, it’s just feeding myself. Now when I can’t decide what I want to have for dinner it becomes a minor annoyance. Something objectively better has become in some ways a worse experience.
I try to put things in perspective and be grateful for what I have now, but I admit I don’t always succeed.
I’ve certainly experienced this in myself growing up. We grew up poor but most things didn’t get us down, they were just normal aspects of life. We had to hunt for bargains, not take vacations, always cook at home. It was the baseline. When we did eat out everyone was looking forward to it and really enjoyed it. Now life in economic sense is measurably better for me, but eating out at whatever place I feel like is the new baseline. I no longer look forward to it, it’s just feeding myself. Now when I can’t decide what I want to have for dinner it becomes a minor annoyance. Something objectively better has become in some ways a worse experience.
I try to put things in perspective and be grateful for what I have now, but I admit I don’t always succeed.
You're referring to the hedonic treadmill[1].
I find it useful to A) be aware of it so you can B) reset it every so often.
Objectively we both know it shouldn't be an annoyance choosing food from a menu, so go back to cooking at home for a while, at best you rediscover your love of cooking and don't go back to eating out. At worst you learn to reappreciate just how nice it is having someone else cook.
Same principle applies to every expensive thing that you don't now judge to be a luxury.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill
Objectively we both know it shouldn't be an annoyance choosing food from a menu, so go back to cooking at home for a while, at best you rediscover your love of cooking and don't go back to eating out. At worst you learn to reappreciate just how nice it is having someone else cook.
Same principle applies to every expensive thing that you don't now judge to be a luxury.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill
Same poverty background, also weekly church goers with kids. I didn’t realize that church manifesting a periodic physical act of thanksgiving would act as a reset. I feel my baseline is the same even with wealth beyond what I could have imagined as a kid.
You know, all those in this thread revealing their membership of Those-Who-Walk-Uphill-Both-Ways are going to get a serious reprimanding.
But yeah I would have to agree with you. Family history of the same kind of poverty shopping. Making a contest of the lowest gas and grocery prices with the membership, food bank and all that. I shat myself when I got an NES from the pawn shop for my birthday once. It certainly instills something in the brain.
I mean I'm still the guy that subsists on plain fruits & veggies, noodles, rice, beans, plain oats and the occasional indulgence of pizza and steak. But I'm also not worried or hurting for anything currently and am happier than I've ever been previously. Which I imagine is optimism, and other concerns tend to make other events kind of feel like noise.
The cumulative inability to relate to pop culture or current events really wrecks my networking efficiency I feel like. I'm not sure I should be so unaware about the news and encroaching issues. But oh well. The ultimately important things have a way of finding themselves to oneself I guess.
But yeah I would have to agree with you. Family history of the same kind of poverty shopping. Making a contest of the lowest gas and grocery prices with the membership, food bank and all that. I shat myself when I got an NES from the pawn shop for my birthday once. It certainly instills something in the brain.
I mean I'm still the guy that subsists on plain fruits & veggies, noodles, rice, beans, plain oats and the occasional indulgence of pizza and steak. But I'm also not worried or hurting for anything currently and am happier than I've ever been previously. Which I imagine is optimism, and other concerns tend to make other events kind of feel like noise.
The cumulative inability to relate to pop culture or current events really wrecks my networking efficiency I feel like. I'm not sure I should be so unaware about the news and encroaching issues. But oh well. The ultimately important things have a way of finding themselves to oneself I guess.
If you've always lived in a society where things are generally bad then it's likely that at present times things are getting better even if only slightly.
On the other hand if you're living in places that have generally always been good, it's likely that things are starting to regress.
Given that most of the people who comment about such things on social media and otherwise or likely from the latter camp, it's not surprising that the general tenor is pessimism.
In America for instance many indicators are going south. Life expectancy, suicides, debt, freedoms, etc.
While America has always had problems, it seems we are close to a tipping point where we may lose what semblance we had of a democracy.
On the other hand if you're living in places that have generally always been good, it's likely that things are starting to regress.
Given that most of the people who comment about such things on social media and otherwise or likely from the latter camp, it's not surprising that the general tenor is pessimism.
In America for instance many indicators are going south. Life expectancy, suicides, debt, freedoms, etc.
While America has always had problems, it seems we are close to a tipping point where we may lose what semblance we had of a democracy.
For many, the small disappointments have added up. Your school music program was cut, your college raised its costs, you just missed getting a good job, the recession cost you a promotion, wages haven't gone up. It's been a death by a thousand cuts for many people. We've stopped being optimistic.
I don’t buy the death by a thousand cuts — by itself.
I think the disappearance of a transcendent purpose, especially in the public sphere, combined with those little things that has brought on the pessimism.
When everyone’s getting richer, being a hedonic consumption machine is a rewarding existence. But if ones highest purpose is a pleasant and pleasurable life, you’ll be ill prepared when adversity strikes.
I think the disappearance of a transcendent purpose, especially in the public sphere, combined with those little things that has brought on the pessimism.
When everyone’s getting richer, being a hedonic consumption machine is a rewarding existence. But if ones highest purpose is a pleasant and pleasurable life, you’ll be ill prepared when adversity strikes.
I can agree that the rhetoric and division is heated right now to levels near what it was in the mid `60s - early `70s but I don't think we're as close to that tipping point as some might feel. By the mid 70s things calmed down a lot.
It feels to me like we peaked in the year after Trump was elected and things have been easing since. I'm basing this mostly on my FB feed but I think it's a fairly good barometer to gauge it because I live in an area where 76% voted for Trump. They were riled up when they did that.
My right leaning neighbors are posting near as many anti-liberal memes, almost no flat out lies about "liberals", and not much at all about Trump. This past year I started asking them to "make a list of things Trump has done that is good for us." and none, not one, has taken me up on that. Not even the "Wall" has been offered as an example.
This doesn't mean most won't vote for him again, but it probably does mean not as many will vote. They're not as motivated as they were in `16. Not as feisty. And they don't have near the disdain for Bernie, or even Biden, as they still have for Hillary. They really do not like her.
I have not heard a single one of them support Trump saying that he should get more than two terms or be appointed "President for Life". Right now almost none of them are posting anything at all about Trump. In fact, they haven't worked up a good outrage since the Kavanaugh hearings.
Very few of my FB friends trust the big Corporate Network News anymore on either side. They're all producing to much "Opinion" which is blatantly one sided and they all focus on the same "News of the hour" stories.
The result is the level of awareness of bias in those "News" reports has increased a lot the past couple of years and overall people are beginning to ignore it more now than they are to react with passion.
It was getting scary for awhile there though.
It feels to me like we peaked in the year after Trump was elected and things have been easing since. I'm basing this mostly on my FB feed but I think it's a fairly good barometer to gauge it because I live in an area where 76% voted for Trump. They were riled up when they did that.
My right leaning neighbors are posting near as many anti-liberal memes, almost no flat out lies about "liberals", and not much at all about Trump. This past year I started asking them to "make a list of things Trump has done that is good for us." and none, not one, has taken me up on that. Not even the "Wall" has been offered as an example.
This doesn't mean most won't vote for him again, but it probably does mean not as many will vote. They're not as motivated as they were in `16. Not as feisty. And they don't have near the disdain for Bernie, or even Biden, as they still have for Hillary. They really do not like her.
I have not heard a single one of them support Trump saying that he should get more than two terms or be appointed "President for Life". Right now almost none of them are posting anything at all about Trump. In fact, they haven't worked up a good outrage since the Kavanaugh hearings.
Very few of my FB friends trust the big Corporate Network News anymore on either side. They're all producing to much "Opinion" which is blatantly one sided and they all focus on the same "News of the hour" stories.
The result is the level of awareness of bias in those "News" reports has increased a lot the past couple of years and overall people are beginning to ignore it more now than they are to react with passion.
It was getting scary for awhile there though.
This is an encouraging anecdote but "not advocating for the overthrow of our constitutional system of government" seems like a pretty low bar to ask for in our fellow citizens...
At this point, it might not matter what the trumpists think, or how many there are. I seriously wonder if trump and the party in general just wont leave, whether its thru gross electoral cheating or otherwise.
I expect most will claim I'm hyperbolic, and I understand why they would say that, but it doesnt dissuade me. Every society ends. Almost always abruptly, and with high levels of surprise.
If I had told you in 2010, about today, would you think I was nuts? I'm sure you would have.
I expect most will claim I'm hyperbolic, and I understand why they would say that, but it doesnt dissuade me. Every society ends. Almost always abruptly, and with high levels of surprise.
If I had told you in 2010, about today, would you think I was nuts? I'm sure you would have.
> it seems we are close to a tipping point where we may lose what semblance we had of a democracy.
Oh please. I grew up in a post-communist European country. You guys are doing great! Keep it up.
Oh please. I grew up in a post-communist European country. You guys are doing great! Keep it up.
That’s exactly the problem though. Post-Soviet states money-bombing our politics out from underneath us. We know where that leads and don’t want it at all. Unfortunately they’re good at it so it’s taking time to vote our way out of the mess.
As opposed to American corporate interests lining up to money bomb politics out from underneath you?
Nobody seems to have contested that the emails released were real emails written by the Democrats. It is a pretty disgraceful violation of privacy, but ultimately if honestly talking about what your political opponents are doing is an election winning strategy the future is bright.
Most of the evidence is telling the truth about politicians doesn't move the needle all that much. I doubt it is a trend that will catch on, the Republicans are probably going to stick to calling people names.
Nobody seems to have contested that the emails released were real emails written by the Democrats. It is a pretty disgraceful violation of privacy, but ultimately if honestly talking about what your political opponents are doing is an election winning strategy the future is bright.
Most of the evidence is telling the truth about politicians doesn't move the needle all that much. I doubt it is a trend that will catch on, the Republicans are probably going to stick to calling people names.
The Russian propaganda canard is worrying, because it is this thought-terminator that prevents considering that there are actual people with real reasons for voting the way that they do.
Are the Russian spy agencies conducting propaganda? Of course they are. Are they the reason Trump was elected, or people voted for Brexit, or the Yellow Vests are marching in Paris? Hell no.
Are the Russian spy agencies conducting propaganda? Of course they are. Are they the reason Trump was elected, or people voted for Brexit, or the Yellow Vests are marching in Paris? Hell no.
With how close the election was, it's a very short jump to conclude that hacking the emails of both the party and campaign of one side successfully directed the narrative enough to flip the election. You can easily see here that Russian cyberattacks were effective in washing out any message by the target candidate: https://news.gallup.com/poll/195596/email-dominates-american...
To me, the point of any close election is to warn society that a massive proportion of the population is very unhappy with the status quo. In some ways, it's irrelevant if there is meddling to influence single digit percentages -- the real problem is that those unhappy people need to be understood and policies built to support them.
koube says>"You can easily see here that Russian cyberattacks were effective in washing out any message by the target candidate..."
There is nothing about "Russian cyberattacks" in the link you provide. And while there is evidence that the Russian tried to influence the election there is no evidence that they succeeded.
Clinton's egregious conduct in handling her e-mail servers speaks for itself. People tend to classify such activity as either stupid or an attempt to hide information from the government or public. She was her own worst enemy in that regard - no Russians required.
There is nothing about "Russian cyberattacks" in the link you provide. And while there is evidence that the Russian tried to influence the election there is no evidence that they succeeded.
Clinton's egregious conduct in handling her e-mail servers speaks for itself. People tend to classify such activity as either stupid or an attempt to hide information from the government or public. She was her own worst enemy in that regard - no Russians required.
The key to the Clinton email server is that the purpose of it was to avoid FOIA requests. Any hacking in regards to it is closer to the law than the alternative.
The truth is that we don't really know what the "purpose" of the Clinton email server was. Being human we cannot help but seek explanations.
I know of no explanation for what Clinton did that would not taint her permanently.
I know of no explanation for what Clinton did that would not taint her permanently.
The hacking thing wasn't related to Clinton's emails, it was the DNC's emails, which are not subject to FOIA. That these things are conflated in many peoples' minds is ... kinda the point.
How was it unrelated to the Russian hacking narrative? From Wikipedia:
"According to security researchers at Secureworks the email leak was caused by Threat Group-4127, later attributed to Fancy Bear, a unit that targets governments, military, and international non-governmental organizations. The researchers report moderate confidence that the unit gathers intelligence on behalf of the Russian government."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_contro...
"According to security researchers at Secureworks the email leak was caused by Threat Group-4127, later attributed to Fancy Bear, a unit that targets governments, military, and international non-governmental organizations. The researchers report moderate confidence that the unit gathers intelligence on behalf of the Russian government."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_contro...
I agree with your statement. France has the same problems. People do not necessarily vote for somebody so that this person can actually implement their program.
For years, in France it was always the centre-right, then the centre-left, then the centre-right and then the centre-left. Yet the problems remain.
So what do people do? They decide to kick the hornet's nest. They vote for the far right or the far left. It is a desperate attempt to challenge the status quo.
The Yellow vests, Trump, Brexit, they are all symptoms of deeper issues that mainstream politicians have failed to address within the last 30 years.
I would even argue that if the politicians had done their jobs correctly there would be no Trump, no Brexit and no yellow vests.
Yet instead of treating the underlying causes, we blame the people. The Trump voter is as smart as a bag of rocks, the yellow vest protester is a fascist and the Brexiters are idiots.
This thing, whatever it is is not going away. People are pissed.
For years, in France it was always the centre-right, then the centre-left, then the centre-right and then the centre-left. Yet the problems remain.
So what do people do? They decide to kick the hornet's nest. They vote for the far right or the far left. It is a desperate attempt to challenge the status quo.
The Yellow vests, Trump, Brexit, they are all symptoms of deeper issues that mainstream politicians have failed to address within the last 30 years.
I would even argue that if the politicians had done their jobs correctly there would be no Trump, no Brexit and no yellow vests.
Yet instead of treating the underlying causes, we blame the people. The Trump voter is as smart as a bag of rocks, the yellow vest protester is a fascist and the Brexiters are idiots.
This thing, whatever it is is not going away. People are pissed.
I personally think propaganda works on people so I disagree with your statement that propaganda wasn't the reason Trump was elected. One example...Ads.. are non-political propaganda for companies and are billion dollar industry....for example Nike shoes are made in China and sold at insane markups...simply because of advertising/propaganda/branding.
People are easily influenced in my opinion.
>> for example Nike shoes are made in China and sold at insane markups...simply because of advertising/propaganda/branding
This is part of it. It couldn't also be because that Nike shoes (Blue Ribbon before them) made a superior product that matched the needs of the market for years on end, could it? Are all sales and mega corporations only due to advertising and propaganda? Or could quality maybe have some part of it?
This is part of it. It couldn't also be because that Nike shoes (Blue Ribbon before them) made a superior product that matched the needs of the market for years on end, could it? Are all sales and mega corporations only due to advertising and propaganda? Or could quality maybe have some part of it?
Clinton raised and spent roughly 1.5X as much money as Trump. She also had near universal support from actors, sports figures, the media (aka the people Nike pays that money to). It didn’t win her the election. Some crappy banner ads on Facebook don’t even register against that.
Personally, I always feel unsure that the evidence that foreign propaganda affected the election is very strong. But I also feel that people making the case that the evidence isn't strong universally dismissively downplay the problem, which makes me distrust their argument. Your "some crappy banner ads" thing is exactly this. Your dismissal of the problem as only "some crappy banner ads" makes it seem like you haven't grappled with worse things like social sharing of propaganda. Maybe that problem is also overplayed, but it isn't clear to me whether that's the case, and your dismissiveness doesn't convince me.
Not the OP, but to me, if Russian propaganda is somehow stronger than US propaganda, maybe it means that the American public is sick of the status quo and have lost faith in the image that the US sells to them?
The US attempts to influence Russian elections all the time, but Slavs aren't easily influenced, due to their innate cynicism about, well, everything.
The US attempts to influence Russian elections all the time, but Slavs aren't easily influenced, due to their innate cynicism about, well, everything.
People dismiss the problem because there is no evidence that Russia had a meaningful impact on the election. You say that the evidence is "very strong" but I've not seen that at all.
Humans have to assess all incoming information (gossip
round the campfire, stirring in the long grass or twitter feeds)
and aa strong bias to pay more attention to potential negatives in the environment will in general allow us to avoid disasters (like getting eaten)
In our evolutionary environments that would be balanced out by "good fortune" - a old tree has just produced fruit perhaps, so we would get our optimism reinforced as much as our pessimism.
But good fortune today is basically baked into life for most of the western world - starvation is rare.
In short what used to be good news (hey I got to eat today) is just normality and so that leaves just downsides (perhaps an analogy of a roller coaster with half of it underwater - being above water is taken for granted and so there is only dips down and long slow climbs back to normal.)
In short, we need to get a sense of perspective back. Social media is not making people worse - we just happen to have sight of every moron and pub conversation that has always been there but not aggregated and delivered in front of us.
Democracy is under no more threat than before - we have always had to fight for it - from Tammany Hall to Jarrow Marches and we shall have to fight again.
This time however we have human instinct on our side - this is our democracy and you can't take it.
In our evolutionary environments that would be balanced out by "good fortune" - a old tree has just produced fruit perhaps, so we would get our optimism reinforced as much as our pessimism.
But good fortune today is basically baked into life for most of the western world - starvation is rare.
In short what used to be good news (hey I got to eat today) is just normality and so that leaves just downsides (perhaps an analogy of a roller coaster with half of it underwater - being above water is taken for granted and so there is only dips down and long slow climbs back to normal.)
In short, we need to get a sense of perspective back. Social media is not making people worse - we just happen to have sight of every moron and pub conversation that has always been there but not aggregated and delivered in front of us.
Democracy is under no more threat than before - we have always had to fight for it - from Tammany Hall to Jarrow Marches and we shall have to fight again.
This time however we have human instinct on our side - this is our democracy and you can't take it.
"In short what used to be good news (hey I got to eat today) is just normality and so that leaves just downsides (perhaps an analogy of a roller coaster with half of it underwater - being above water is taken for granted and so there is only dips down and long slow climbs back to normal.)."
I think it comes down to income inequality. A lot of people don't share in benefits of a rising economy so they become cynical and detached. The promise is that a rising tide lifts all boats but that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. And I don't like the argument that people should be happy with having something to eat and water while the top few percent increase their income every year. This slowly rips society apart.
I think it comes down to income inequality. A lot of people don't share in benefits of a rising economy so they become cynical and detached. The promise is that a rising tide lifts all boats but that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. And I don't like the argument that people should be happy with having something to eat and water while the top few percent increase their income every year. This slowly rips society apart.
The phrase "hey I got something to eat today" was meant to be our paeleolithic ancestors on whom all our modern human reactions are based - we evolved in a world that had (say) equal amounts of good (berries !) and bad (snake!) - so our optimism and pessimism had equal workouts in the environment
now I would suggest our pessimism gets much more work out
However an interesting podcast (frwkonnomics) has someone last week saying their research showed that we are more pessimistic when stressed and more optimistic when less stressed (indicating that perhaps it is just the stress of the information overload leading to pessimism rather than the information content)
now I would suggest our pessimism gets much more work out
However an interesting podcast (frwkonnomics) has someone last week saying their research showed that we are more pessimistic when stressed and more optimistic when less stressed (indicating that perhaps it is just the stress of the information overload leading to pessimism rather than the information content)
Years ago, I was part of a a guided tour at the San Francisco modern art museum. And they had this wooden sculpture of Popeye (old cartoon character, you can look him up - kind of a tough/strong but lovable sailor guy). It looked old, bedraggled and beat-up looking; I think it was assembled from found driftwood or something.
But when I looked at the sculpture, I saw strength. Good-natured defiance and tenacity. That even though it looked like bits of wood were about to fall off, the figure stood with fists up, straight posture, ready to fight. Appearing calm in the face of whatever challenge lay ahead.
As I thought all this to myself, the tour guide asked each of us (about a dozen in the tour group) what emotions we felt looking at it...
And I was shocked. One by one, everyone said how it reflected the worsening state of the world, the fall of the USA, the hopelessness of life...
Which was the exact opposite of what I saw. I saw a spirit of overcoming. That regardless of circumstances, even though one's body (or whatever the body is a metaphor for) is beat up and falling apart, you don't let it drag you into darkness. You stand up straight, you fight with all you've got, and never give up.
Inner strength, resilience, and an unquenchable spirit. Only giving attention to that which leads in the most positive direction availble in that moment.
I told everyone this when it was my turn, and nobody (including the tour guide) seemed to know how to respond. We just kept going on the tour.
I'm not sure what the lesson is here...
But that was about a decade ago. And in the time that's passed, I've created a immense amount of freedom, success and happiness for myself and my family.
And I think a huge factor in me creating that has been my ability to see the good in people and situations, even when no one else seems to... to hold my focus of attention on that, regardless of what others are talking about... and persistently act on the opportunities it lets me perceive. Doggedly keeping this mindset, even when it seems no one else around me does.
But when I looked at the sculpture, I saw strength. Good-natured defiance and tenacity. That even though it looked like bits of wood were about to fall off, the figure stood with fists up, straight posture, ready to fight. Appearing calm in the face of whatever challenge lay ahead.
As I thought all this to myself, the tour guide asked each of us (about a dozen in the tour group) what emotions we felt looking at it...
And I was shocked. One by one, everyone said how it reflected the worsening state of the world, the fall of the USA, the hopelessness of life...
Which was the exact opposite of what I saw. I saw a spirit of overcoming. That regardless of circumstances, even though one's body (or whatever the body is a metaphor for) is beat up and falling apart, you don't let it drag you into darkness. You stand up straight, you fight with all you've got, and never give up.
Inner strength, resilience, and an unquenchable spirit. Only giving attention to that which leads in the most positive direction availble in that moment.
I told everyone this when it was my turn, and nobody (including the tour guide) seemed to know how to respond. We just kept going on the tour.
I'm not sure what the lesson is here...
But that was about a decade ago. And in the time that's passed, I've created a immense amount of freedom, success and happiness for myself and my family.
And I think a huge factor in me creating that has been my ability to see the good in people and situations, even when no one else seems to... to hold my focus of attention on that, regardless of what others are talking about... and persistently act on the opportunities it lets me perceive. Doggedly keeping this mindset, even when it seems no one else around me does.
I am naturally pessimistic, and love this perspective. I have to continually exert effort to re-frame my thoughts from something negative to something neutral/positive. Otherwise I end up spiraling out of control mentally and stuck in a deep depression. The nice thing is I'm getting better at it, and it has become much easier.
Yes, people seem to greatly underestimate how much their own outlook affects others.
This is actually an important quality I try to look for when hiring. I've seen some very technically competent leads cause team productivity and morale to plummet due to their negativity and pessimistic outlook.
This is actually an important quality I try to look for when hiring. I've seen some very technically competent leads cause team productivity and morale to plummet due to their negativity and pessimistic outlook.
I've seen that as well. I've also seen optimism doom teams in the forms of failing to anticipate obstacles, making unreasonable promises in binding documents, and underestimating project effort.
Seems like being objective and calibrating your expectations appropriately based on the risks you can or can't accept, or the trade-offs you do or don't get to make and avoiding bias or emotional attachments is pretty awfully difficult for humans (even very bright, talented ones) to do.
Seems like being objective and calibrating your expectations appropriately based on the risks you can or can't accept, or the trade-offs you do or don't get to make and avoiding bias or emotional attachments is pretty awfully difficult for humans (even very bright, talented ones) to do.
People are pessimistic precisely because they are aware that if we don't do something about the climate crisis, everything will come crashing down. Being optimistic about it, you might say "don't worry, they'll work out a plan" (whoever they are), and then carry on as before, but being pessimistic, you're more likely to think "we'd better do something, and NOW!".
When you realise that Live Aid was one of the earliest reactions to the climate disaster, and that it was OVER 30 YEARS AGO and no real progress has been made: CO2 emissions have continued to rise exponentially, almost unabated.
When you realise that, you realise there is no cause for optimism.
When you realise that Live Aid was one of the earliest reactions to the climate disaster, and that it was OVER 30 YEARS AGO and no real progress has been made: CO2 emissions have continued to rise exponentially, almost unabated.
When you realise that, you realise there is no cause for optimism.
> When you realise that Live Aid was one of the earliest reactions to the climate disaster, and that it was OVER 30 YEARS AGO and no real progress has been made: CO2 emissions have continued to rise exponentially, almost unabated.
The Ethiopian famine, like most modern famines, was largely a failure of government, not a climate problem. People starved because food couldn't move due to strife, and much of that was intentional. Yes, there was a drought, but droughts happen all the time and all over the place, and in a functioning, non-warring country, it's not nearly as calamitous. Live Aid very probably made the situation worse by funding more conflict.
The Ethiopian famine, like most modern famines, was largely a failure of government, not a climate problem. People starved because food couldn't move due to strife, and much of that was intentional. Yes, there was a drought, but droughts happen all the time and all over the place, and in a functioning, non-warring country, it's not nearly as calamitous. Live Aid very probably made the situation worse by funding more conflict.
If most people are pessimistic for that reason, why havent they done anything about it?
If you're worried about the zombie apocalypse, you start prepping, you don't start complaining about how rubbish the world is because the apocalypse is coming and no ones prepared for it.
If you're worried about the zombie apocalypse, you start prepping, you don't start complaining about how rubbish the world is because the apocalypse is coming and no ones prepared for it.
We haven't because we are much more social than we realize. We don't want to break social conventions, if possible. We don't want to tell people who are talking with joy about having kids or exotic vacations or luxury cars that they should hold back. Even though we all know that these things are the cause of the problem.
We are facing a collective procrastination of sorts. Just like when you procrastinate, you know very well that you should be doing something else, and you can even be pessimistic about it. Yet you don't.
That's why the governments, people in charge, need to take action, at the very least, start talking about it openly. Then the rest will follow.
We are facing a collective procrastination of sorts. Just like when you procrastinate, you know very well that you should be doing something else, and you can even be pessimistic about it. Yet you don't.
That's why the governments, people in charge, need to take action, at the very least, start talking about it openly. Then the rest will follow.
"We don't want to tell people who are talking with joy about having kids or exotic vacations or luxury cars that they should hold back"
But those people, according to you have been worrying about climate change for over 30 years, so they should have made the decision not to fly to their holidays, to buy an electric luxury car.
If everyone is aware of this and spends time worrying about it then you shouldn't have to pressure other people, they would already be doing it.
The fact is, a large number of people don't believe / don't care (enough). That's why you need peer pressure.
But those people, according to you have been worrying about climate change for over 30 years, so they should have made the decision not to fly to their holidays, to buy an electric luxury car.
If everyone is aware of this and spends time worrying about it then you shouldn't have to pressure other people, they would already be doing it.
The fact is, a large number of people don't believe / don't care (enough). That's why you need peer pressure.
> they should have made the decision
Yes, at least in the interest of their own kids. But we are just humans and we fail for human reasons.
> The fact is, a large number of people don't believe / don't care (enough). That's why you need peer pressure.
The peer pressure works both ways. There is also peer pressure to have these fancy things.
Peer pressure is, in a way, a neutral thing. It can work against action or for action. However, without effort it will just pick a high-entropy state of inaction.
Yes, at least in the interest of their own kids. But we are just humans and we fail for human reasons.
> The fact is, a large number of people don't believe / don't care (enough). That's why you need peer pressure.
The peer pressure works both ways. There is also peer pressure to have these fancy things.
Peer pressure is, in a way, a neutral thing. It can work against action or for action. However, without effort it will just pick a high-entropy state of inaction.
We're pessimistic because we have marinated in an ideology that claims to bestow progress; scientific and cultural. All we got was mass hysteria and nerd dildos used to organize witch hunts and a dystopian surveillance state. And we still have the same disgusting weasels running things and telling us we should be happy with the state of affairs; scum from Brookings being great examples.
Hoped for a scientific study, got philosophical bla bla.
Yes, there are people, probably the author as well, who are resilient to actually seeing facts. Just as the joke about fat people and zombie apocalypses go: Be nice to them, they will save your life one day (by being crushed before you, thereby giving you a little more time to react).
Still I'm a little sad about the lost opportunity. It's also true that people who interact with reality usually are more pessimistic, but there should be ways to improve one's own outlook if one is smart enough to see reality and strong enough to not go crazy from it. This would be a worthy topic to study.
Yes, there are people, probably the author as well, who are resilient to actually seeing facts. Just as the joke about fat people and zombie apocalypses go: Be nice to them, they will save your life one day (by being crushed before you, thereby giving you a little more time to react).
Still I'm a little sad about the lost opportunity. It's also true that people who interact with reality usually are more pessimistic, but there should be ways to improve one's own outlook if one is smart enough to see reality and strong enough to not go crazy from it. This would be a worthy topic to study.
Ultimately even the people who supposedly "see reality" are just seeing a subjective mental model of it.
You probably have experienced two people fighting with each other, both only living in their own information bubble, both claiming to see the truth. I agree with you that your understanding goes deeper realizing that both are just as much true and untrue, and just as much good or bad.
But now comes the strange part. From this higher understanding you can't gain any more happiness. In fact either of them might be more happy than you, because living in a bubble doesn't just contain fake truths, it also contains fake meaning, and the times in which they can believe in these fake meanings are the times where these people will be more happy than you.
Thus you have more ability but less happiness. That's quite strange, right? Shouldn't more ability lead to more happiness? And if not, then why bother about having more ability?
But now comes the strange part. From this higher understanding you can't gain any more happiness. In fact either of them might be more happy than you, because living in a bubble doesn't just contain fake truths, it also contains fake meaning, and the times in which they can believe in these fake meanings are the times where these people will be more happy than you.
Thus you have more ability but less happiness. That's quite strange, right? Shouldn't more ability lead to more happiness? And if not, then why bother about having more ability?
The point I wanted to make was in fact that there is no such increase in ability. I was not claiming that I was able to see reality myself. On the contrary, it is most likely an impossible task.
In absolute terms we are all on the same level of understanding as a homeless man ranting at the bus stop.
The idea that we are tragically bereft of meaning because we are somehow too perceptive unlike those other people is an absurd fantasy.
In absolute terms we are all on the same level of understanding as a homeless man ranting at the bus stop.
The idea that we are tragically bereft of meaning because we are somehow too perceptive unlike those other people is an absurd fantasy.
Because people who are less able are the ones who die in the crisis. (presuming they survive the onset)
The resourceful ones live through. Do mind that being social is also an ability. As is being ruthless...
The resourceful ones live through. Do mind that being social is also an ability. As is being ruthless...
... Why not take the obvious answer: It's easy to be pessimistic when you interact with people. Just read HN and see how everyone disagrees. You start to think things won't ever get resolved, even among people with "good intentions".
Notably, of course, the KIND of pessimism or the TARGET of pessimism varies per individual based on their natural concerns, life situation, and lots of other variables. For example, individuals who like to think ahead / intuitive mentalities tend to plan out possibilities, and if you try to plan for all cases of Murphy's Law, it's going to make you feel like there's no end to the madness.
Notably, of course, the KIND of pessimism or the TARGET of pessimism varies per individual based on their natural concerns, life situation, and lots of other variables. For example, individuals who like to think ahead / intuitive mentalities tend to plan out possibilities, and if you try to plan for all cases of Murphy's Law, it's going to make you feel like there's no end to the madness.
If you live somewhere that has always been pretty bad, then chances are, things are getting better, even if slightly. If you live somewhere, where things have always been generally good, it's likely that things are curtailing. Its brownian motion of societies.
Given that on average the people who most often discuss the state of being on social media and otherwise, are more likely to be in the second camp, it doesnt seem that surprising that the overarching sentiment is pessimism
Given that on average the people who most often discuss the state of being on social media and otherwise, are more likely to be in the second camp, it doesnt seem that surprising that the overarching sentiment is pessimism
>Rosling’s “Factfulness” starts with a quiz of 12 questions—ranging from “How many children will there be in 2100?” to “In the last 20 years, the proportion of the world population living in extreme poverty has almost doubled, stabilized or reduced by half?”—to which he then applies his “chimpanzee test”—the likelihood that a random choice is superior to that of humans. Humans always seem to fail the test: even CEOs at the World Economic Forum.
That question about the number of children in 2100 really bothers me for some reason. Sure we can make some pretty reasonable projections, but they will be just that: projections. Even assuming no black swan events, the error bars 80 years from now have got to be enormous. The numbers could be wildly different depending on how bad climate change turns out, and what kinds of technologies we develop. If you're trying to prove that other people are overly pessimistic, it makes more sense to show that they are wrong about currently available data. Otherwise they can just say that your answer to the question is overly optimistic.
That question about the number of children in 2100 really bothers me for some reason. Sure we can make some pretty reasonable projections, but they will be just that: projections. Even assuming no black swan events, the error bars 80 years from now have got to be enormous. The numbers could be wildly different depending on how bad climate change turns out, and what kinds of technologies we develop. If you're trying to prove that other people are overly pessimistic, it makes more sense to show that they are wrong about currently available data. Otherwise they can just say that your answer to the question is overly optimistic.
The article gives a bad summary of the actual question here https://www.gapminder.org/test-questions/how-many-children-w...
>In 1950 there were fewer than one billion children (aged 0-14) in the world. By 2000 there were almost two billion. How many do UN experts think there will be in 2100? 2bn 3bn or 4bn?
so it is asking about a present number.
>In 1950 there were fewer than one billion children (aged 0-14) in the world. By 2000 there were almost two billion. How many do UN experts think there will be in 2100? 2bn 3bn or 4bn?
so it is asking about a present number.
Current predictions are at the number being close to constant as births slow down everywhere. Global birth rate is around 1%, halved in 20 years. There's even predicted quarter of a chance that population will stabilize completely in a century.
Part of the reason for pessimism is that the enormous progress of recent centuries is due to a set of liberal political philosophical ideas that are being rejected by an increasing number of nations.
That implies that if the present political trends continue, then as some point in the coming decades progress for the world as a whole will reverse.
That implies that if the present political trends continue, then as some point in the coming decades progress for the world as a whole will reverse.
"It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea." - Robert Anton Wilson
The idea of there being an right and wrong direction to history is flawed at best.
The current rejection of liberal values didn't come out of nowhere either. Some people are unhappy and feel the system has failed them. This was the same reason that pushed liberal ideas to the forefront in the first place.
The idea of there being an right and wrong direction to history is flawed at best.
The current rejection of liberal values didn't come out of nowhere either. Some people are unhappy and feel the system has failed them. This was the same reason that pushed liberal ideas to the forefront in the first place.
What do you mean liberal?
Even drugs are not legalized, up until recently homosexual marriage was not recognized. People toil about the same hours, though more often mentally than physically now.
You have no direct choice in how to pick candidates for Senate or presidency - you can only pick from choices presented to you, and even there tribalism of the masses beats any individual choice. (The best you can hope for is picking a governor.)
Where is liberal in that? Where is the liberal, when all rulers are ivy league educated?
Even drugs are not legalized, up until recently homosexual marriage was not recognized. People toil about the same hours, though more often mentally than physically now.
You have no direct choice in how to pick candidates for Senate or presidency - you can only pick from choices presented to you, and even there tribalism of the masses beats any individual choice. (The best you can hope for is picking a governor.)
Where is liberal in that? Where is the liberal, when all rulers are ivy league educated?
In this sense, (and what I believe to be the sense of the original quote) I mean a person who wants to see societal change.
The examples you've provided actually give a pretty good picture of it. A person who was liberal 20 years ago would look at what you've described and wonder what the heck happened. They might also look at the current topics of social reform and probably not recognize themselves in them.
Essentially, anyone who has a teleological view of history tends to get burned within their own lifetime as the world inevitably moves past them. You get "assigned" a set of topics and social struggles from the environment and historical you grow up in. Since the next generations grow up in a different soup, they don't follow the same lines of thought. The person who scoffs at their grandpa for being lukewarm about same-sex marriage becomes the grandpa lukewarm at their grandson's simulated AI life-partner.
>you can only pick from choices presented to you, and even there tribalism of the masses beats any individual choice.
Going off on a tangent here. You are part of the masses. You are not in traffic, you ARE the traffic.
The examples you've provided actually give a pretty good picture of it. A person who was liberal 20 years ago would look at what you've described and wonder what the heck happened. They might also look at the current topics of social reform and probably not recognize themselves in them.
Essentially, anyone who has a teleological view of history tends to get burned within their own lifetime as the world inevitably moves past them. You get "assigned" a set of topics and social struggles from the environment and historical you grow up in. Since the next generations grow up in a different soup, they don't follow the same lines of thought. The person who scoffs at their grandpa for being lukewarm about same-sex marriage becomes the grandpa lukewarm at their grandson's simulated AI life-partner.
>you can only pick from choices presented to you, and even there tribalism of the masses beats any individual choice.
Going off on a tangent here. You are part of the masses. You are not in traffic, you ARE the traffic.
What is the role of the loss of spirituality and ritual practices? We are so proud of throwing off superstition -- as we should be -- nevertheless, a sense of spirituality is a known factor in scientific models of wellbeing.
Our pessimism is protected by our cynicism.
Our pessimism is protected by our cynicism.
> Third, this “negativity bias” is further amplified in the era of social media. In the past, traditional authorities and intermediate bodies—churches, political parties, trade unions, sports clubs—neutralized extreme positions.
Blaming social media is trendy these days, but this is a poor argument when one reflects on history. "Traditional authorities" often encouraged extreme positions for its citizens, such as the governments of Germany, Italy, and Japan during World War II. (Hitler Youth was a very popular "club!") And doomsday cults have been around forever. (Many are still waiting for The Rapture!)
I'm actually rather optimistic about social media. Proper use of social media makes it easier to understand viewpoints of the opposing side and find and share new information. It seems there is a pessimistic "negativity bias" around social media itself because it's easy to point out extreme examples and users.
Blaming social media is trendy these days, but this is a poor argument when one reflects on history. "Traditional authorities" often encouraged extreme positions for its citizens, such as the governments of Germany, Italy, and Japan during World War II. (Hitler Youth was a very popular "club!") And doomsday cults have been around forever. (Many are still waiting for The Rapture!)
I'm actually rather optimistic about social media. Proper use of social media makes it easier to understand viewpoints of the opposing side and find and share new information. It seems there is a pessimistic "negativity bias" around social media itself because it's easy to point out extreme examples and users.
Well, inevitably you die ?
Exactly. From our perspective, entropy is inevitable.
And this is true on many levels. Like, it's easier to wreck a car than build a car. Generally easier for bad things to happen than good. For good things, (and to avoid bad things) takes work, and there is limited capacity for that.
Of course we seldom stop to consider the amazing luck and circumstances that put us here in the first place.
But why should we? It's only temporary and in the rear view mirror anyway. Going forward we have the future to worry about. And the future is full of pitfalls. At least some of which are bound to get us.
From our perspective I do believe reality has a pessimistic bias. But sometimes maybe we should remember this is only our perspective.
And this is true on many levels. Like, it's easier to wreck a car than build a car. Generally easier for bad things to happen than good. For good things, (and to avoid bad things) takes work, and there is limited capacity for that.
Of course we seldom stop to consider the amazing luck and circumstances that put us here in the first place.
But why should we? It's only temporary and in the rear view mirror anyway. Going forward we have the future to worry about. And the future is full of pitfalls. At least some of which are bound to get us.
From our perspective I do believe reality has a pessimistic bias. But sometimes maybe we should remember this is only our perspective.
Optimism is about how you perceive how you will live in the meantime.
It's funny as "not better" is considered pessimistic.
It's funny as "not better" is considered pessimistic.
[deleted]
If we look at history on the large scale, it seems things have generally gone upwards: health, wealth, and liberty. That being said, the upward trend means even greater dips occur than were possible in the past. So, the general optimistic trend of history is countered by the previously unimaginable horrors of the 20th century made possible by our great progress.
There's some truth here.
When I think about the life I had in my early 20s-- looking forward to a middle class with cars, houses, food, etc. of the 80s-- things are so much better than they were then.
Time goes on. Everybody gets better stuff. Cell phones, health care, cheap and good food. The list goes on. There's never been a better time to be alive.
When I think about the life I had in my early 20s-- looking forward to a middle class with cars, houses, food, etc. of the 80s-- things are so much better than they were then.
Time goes on. Everybody gets better stuff. Cell phones, health care, cheap and good food. The list goes on. There's never been a better time to be alive.
I can only share my experiences from playing open world MMOs with perma-death PVP. You can have 10 positive interactions with other players, but it only takes one bad interaction for your character to end up dead and gone. Immediately identifying those potentially bad situations as they unfold is of critical importance.
> A more constructive approach is one that acknowledges that things are getting better but that this progress is neither automatic nor optimal.
Totally agree!
Totally agree!
There's really no such thing as pessimism. People can only be:
- realistic
- optimistic (a.k.a. delusional)
- realistic
- optimistic (a.k.a. delusional)
Um, no. Very much no. Some optimism is delusion; but not all is. And your pessimism isn't realism, no matter how much you want to define it to be.
If I read that comment optimistically, I think it was a joke.
Cool.
I think the same reason why people lie
Compared to what
It's more than news; it's everything else as well.
Even the music.
Go ahead and listen to pop music from any previous area - there is a lot of happy music, and a lot of slower tempo, beautiful music.
'Beautiful' stopped being cool in the 1990's, since then everything has to be trounced in some kind of faux-noir or whatever.
Even sad songs by Simon and Garfunkel are beautiful, honest.
Even the slightly cheezy soft rock like Air Supply, Chicago ... it was relaxing in a way.
Even the music was upbeat was still positive: 'Jump' by Van Halen' - a ridiculously rubbish but positive song, almost child-like.
Even the unconentious pop music of today lacks a kind of naivte.
It's in lyrics, timbre, instrumentation, production, presentation - everything.
My all time favourite band - Radiohead - is kind of guilty of this. They just can't be happy, now matter what. They must be dour. Have you ever seen an interview or video with Thom Yorke just clowning around the the lads, laughing, enjoying himself, not really caring about much at all? It's 'not their brand'.
Spend a day listening to music any time before the 1990's, especially the slower tempo stuff (of any genre, big band classical), and it changes your demeanour.
Even the music.
Go ahead and listen to pop music from any previous area - there is a lot of happy music, and a lot of slower tempo, beautiful music.
'Beautiful' stopped being cool in the 1990's, since then everything has to be trounced in some kind of faux-noir or whatever.
Even sad songs by Simon and Garfunkel are beautiful, honest.
Even the slightly cheezy soft rock like Air Supply, Chicago ... it was relaxing in a way.
Even the music was upbeat was still positive: 'Jump' by Van Halen' - a ridiculously rubbish but positive song, almost child-like.
Even the unconentious pop music of today lacks a kind of naivte.
It's in lyrics, timbre, instrumentation, production, presentation - everything.
My all time favourite band - Radiohead - is kind of guilty of this. They just can't be happy, now matter what. They must be dour. Have you ever seen an interview or video with Thom Yorke just clowning around the the lads, laughing, enjoying himself, not really caring about much at all? It's 'not their brand'.
Spend a day listening to music any time before the 1990's, especially the slower tempo stuff (of any genre, big band classical), and it changes your demeanour.
> 'Beautiful' stopped being cool in the 1990'
Was this coincidentally around the time when your adventure through puberty came to an end?
There has been plenty of 'happy music' in the past two and a half decades. It's likely you just view as cheesy saccharine garbage because you didn't listen to it during a formative time of your life.
Was this coincidentally around the time when your adventure through puberty came to an end?
There has been plenty of 'happy music' in the past two and a half decades. It's likely you just view as cheesy saccharine garbage because you didn't listen to it during a formative time of your life.
Hot 100 today:
https://www.billboard.com/charts/hot-100
Hot 100 1980:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Year-End_Hot_100_sin...
They still make good music, it doesn't go on the radio and can't compete on billboard, which is beyond rigged.
There are also technical issues such as audio levels, creeping volume etc. - Simon & Garfunkel doesn't use enough of the spectrum to be played, it's too quiet, it would be 'filled up' were a producer to touch it today, whereby the nuance is lost.
Related, compare the amount of 'energy' in the sounds - the hot 100 today is almost all verging on aggressive, it's like a caffeine jolt.
Even the slower tempo songs are 'in your face' musically, and usually lyrically as well.
There is the very subjective issue of overall quality. I don't think there is a single track on the Hot100 today that will be played in any number of years wherein people will really 'remember that jam', in any way other than to a very few select few fans.
While it's not a fair comparison because the 1980 list I linked to was a 'year end list' and not a 'current list' - many people would instantly recognize a whole host of songs on that list. If not by name, by sound.
'Radio' and distribution channels were a rough collusion between artists and industry, now it's almost entirely industry.
I really don't think there is anything relaxing about any of the Hot 100 songs: they are heavily produced, 'loud', assertive, repetitive, low-risk products.
Maybe if we take it back further than 1980 for example, before rock and roll, almost all (non colloquial) music was fairly authentic and beautiful, being orchestral in nature. The soundtrack of every film was 'pretty'.
https://www.billboard.com/charts/hot-100
Hot 100 1980:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Year-End_Hot_100_sin...
They still make good music, it doesn't go on the radio and can't compete on billboard, which is beyond rigged.
There are also technical issues such as audio levels, creeping volume etc. - Simon & Garfunkel doesn't use enough of the spectrum to be played, it's too quiet, it would be 'filled up' were a producer to touch it today, whereby the nuance is lost.
Related, compare the amount of 'energy' in the sounds - the hot 100 today is almost all verging on aggressive, it's like a caffeine jolt.
Even the slower tempo songs are 'in your face' musically, and usually lyrically as well.
There is the very subjective issue of overall quality. I don't think there is a single track on the Hot100 today that will be played in any number of years wherein people will really 'remember that jam', in any way other than to a very few select few fans.
While it's not a fair comparison because the 1980 list I linked to was a 'year end list' and not a 'current list' - many people would instantly recognize a whole host of songs on that list. If not by name, by sound.
'Radio' and distribution channels were a rough collusion between artists and industry, now it's almost entirely industry.
I really don't think there is anything relaxing about any of the Hot 100 songs: they are heavily produced, 'loud', assertive, repetitive, low-risk products.
Maybe if we take it back further than 1980 for example, before rock and roll, almost all (non colloquial) music was fairly authentic and beautiful, being orchestral in nature. The soundtrack of every film was 'pretty'.
viburnum(2)
I believe that pessimism is the greatest crisis facing humanity today. Yes, that includes climate change.
It's just not possible for a civilization to make progress if everyone believes that the future will be worse and it's not possible to avoid it.
It's just not possible for a civilization to make progress if everyone believes that the future will be worse and it's not possible to avoid it.
To me, it's our inability to solve climate change that makes me so pessimistic. Not because of the climate itself, but because of the ability of a smallish set of people completely insulated from reality to thoroughly prevent our ability to do anything about it.
Climate change is a relatively straightforward problem with a somewhat-less-straightforward set of solutions. Whatever solution we choose, it will involve a group effort. Few people want to take on the costs of it while everyone else benefits. And it just so happens that one set of people, among the very largest polluters, deny that it's even happening -- in a variety of mutually contradictory ways. Their failure is obvious and overwhelming, and they are a minority of the world, but it's sufficient to derail progress worldwide.
That's why I'm pessimistic. I used to believe that anybody that far out of touch with reality must surely be booted out of power sooner or later. I've been proven wrong: they gain more power by the day. And that one belief comes with a constellation of similar false beliefs, mutually reinforced, and each participant goading the other to proclaim the falsehoods more loudly.
I'm sorry that means I'm contributing to the problem you're citing, but I've only seen it get worse in my lifetime. The upward progress of the world had so much momentum that it took a long time to turn around, but the exponential increase in insanity means I just can't see any way that it doesn't do so.
I try, nonetheless, to behave as if I were optimistic. I do make my own small contributions to progress. But I expect to see them all wiped away or made irrelevant.
Climate change is a relatively straightforward problem with a somewhat-less-straightforward set of solutions. Whatever solution we choose, it will involve a group effort. Few people want to take on the costs of it while everyone else benefits. And it just so happens that one set of people, among the very largest polluters, deny that it's even happening -- in a variety of mutually contradictory ways. Their failure is obvious and overwhelming, and they are a minority of the world, but it's sufficient to derail progress worldwide.
That's why I'm pessimistic. I used to believe that anybody that far out of touch with reality must surely be booted out of power sooner or later. I've been proven wrong: they gain more power by the day. And that one belief comes with a constellation of similar false beliefs, mutually reinforced, and each participant goading the other to proclaim the falsehoods more loudly.
I'm sorry that means I'm contributing to the problem you're citing, but I've only seen it get worse in my lifetime. The upward progress of the world had so much momentum that it took a long time to turn around, but the exponential increase in insanity means I just can't see any way that it doesn't do so.
I try, nonetheless, to behave as if I were optimistic. I do make my own small contributions to progress. But I expect to see them all wiped away or made irrelevant.
I think we're doing really well at moving toward a solution to CO2 buildup. The cost of renewables has fallen remarkably, and will almost certainly continue to fall. Once fossil fuels become uneconomical the air will go out of their balloon, and they will not be able to bribe politicians to keep the burning going.
I think you're going to be amazed at the changes that are coming, and how relatively painless they will be.
I think you're going to be amazed at the changes that are coming, and how relatively painless they will be.
I actually think society as a whole is rather optimistic on climate change: currently we aren’t even trying to solve it policy wise.
If we were more pessimistic, we would take preventative measures seriously.
“Everyone believes the future will be worse and it’s not possible to avoid it” is a strawman, I think.
If we were more pessimistic, we would take preventative measures seriously.
“Everyone believes the future will be worse and it’s not possible to avoid it” is a strawman, I think.
Global warming is a thread the needle problem: people need to be worried enough to act, but not to give up. Collective action is the ONLY way through this.
Last year ABC news gave more air time to the new royal baby in a single week than they gave to climate collapse in a year. You may feel inundated with pessimism, but that is far from universal. (Source: https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2019/05/21/ABC-News-spent-...)
I think optimism/pessimism is the wrong axis for this. It should be complacency/activism. I think MLK’s Letter from Birmingham Jail is more apt than ever.
Last year ABC news gave more air time to the new royal baby in a single week than they gave to climate collapse in a year. You may feel inundated with pessimism, but that is far from universal. (Source: https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2019/05/21/ABC-News-spent-...)
I think optimism/pessimism is the wrong axis for this. It should be complacency/activism. I think MLK’s Letter from Birmingham Jail is more apt than ever.
Did you mean to reply to me? I said people weren't pessimistic enough.
But I think you're right that complacency/activism is a good lense to view things through. The people that accept climate change is happening remain fairly complacent. Whether this is due to insufficient pessimism or complacency, the result is the same.
But I think you're right that complacency/activism is a good lense to view things through. The people that accept climate change is happening remain fairly complacent. Whether this is due to insufficient pessimism or complacency, the result is the same.
Sorry, I didn't mean to come off as contrary! I certainly agree, I just wanted to tweak the framing.
This is closer to reality. Even the UN, which has been criticized in the media as too alarmist, has likely been too optimistic: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/43e8yp/the-uns-devastatin...
We've been lured into being overly cautious about the science, in order not to feed any snippet of false information to the idiot hordes that would seize on it and use it to discredit/distort what's actually happening.
Net result - the hordes are still being idiots, and the rest of the world is blundering on thinking things ain't that bad/action isn't that urgent.
Net result - the hordes are still being idiots, and the rest of the world is blundering on thinking things ain't that bad/action isn't that urgent.
"I actually think society as a whole is rather optimistic on climate change: currently we aren’t even trying to solve it policy wise.
"
I think a lot of people have given up.
I think a lot of people have given up.
I know Canadian opinion polls best. Here, less than 20% of people identify climate change/environment as a top priority, and support for a carbon tax is about 45%, with a bit less than that opposed.
Granted, the polls don’t measure apathy, but this doesn’t strike me as a society that is convinced climate change is a pressing problem. We’re more mildly concerned, and mildly supportive of policies aimed addressing it, even in a very limited way.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4811385/ottawas-unpublished-inter...
Granted, the polls don’t measure apathy, but this doesn’t strike me as a society that is convinced climate change is a pressing problem. We’re more mildly concerned, and mildly supportive of policies aimed addressing it, even in a very limited way.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4811385/ottawas-unpublished-inter...
That's not optimism. That's willful ignorance.
That's a bit reductionist and dramatic, but when you cut through the bullshit, this is happening every single day around us. Nobody wants to admit how easy their life is, how very rare actual, significant adversities are. It's part of human nature. For the time being, at least.