The Case for Optimism(warpnews.org)
warpnews.org
The Case for Optimism
https://www.warpnews.org/premium-content/kevin-kelly-the-case-for-optimism/
95 comments
Solar and Wind beat fossil fuels now.
There's no need to compromise on standards of living, that's a toxic and false narrative that we need to suffer in order to fix things.
There's no need to compromise on standards of living, that's a toxic and false narrative that we need to suffer in order to fix things.
I agree completely, but convincing the broader population to get on board to switch to renewables and a renewably powered electric lifestyle is challenging, especially in places like the US where use of fossil fuels is a cultural identity issue for many.
Redefining a high standard of living doesn't mean having a low standard of living, but it often means living differently than we have in recent decades.
For example, you can live a luxurious lifestyle in an energy efficient way by living in a smaller and efficient house. If it's an all electric house your standard of living can even increase due to better indoor air quality.
Multifamily and village style walkable neighborhoods, whether in rural or urban areas, and where people make fewer long drives for work and groceries, can also improve quality of life.
But unfortunately those kinds of lifestyles are not very attainable, and rarely affordable in places in the US.
Redefining a high standard of living doesn't mean having a low standard of living, but it often means living differently than we have in recent decades.
For example, you can live a luxurious lifestyle in an energy efficient way by living in a smaller and efficient house. If it's an all electric house your standard of living can even increase due to better indoor air quality.
Multifamily and village style walkable neighborhoods, whether in rural or urban areas, and where people make fewer long drives for work and groceries, can also improve quality of life.
But unfortunately those kinds of lifestyles are not very attainable, and rarely affordable in places in the US.
It becomes an easy decision to get an electric f150 when gas costs $8 a gallon because of carbon taxes and a full charge is only a couple bucks
In the state of MI today, off-peak electricity is 11c/kWh and gas today costs $3/gal.
The Mustang Mach E uses 190wH per mile, so each mile costs ~2c.
The Mustang Mach 1 ICE car gets 20mpg, so each mile costs 15c.
So today in MI, the energy cost of the electric is already 1/7 of the ICE. Nonetheless, you will find far more EVs per capita in California, where the EV energy cost advantage is far lower due to high electricity prices.
The difference is cultural.
Maybe it will change and MI will be an EV buying state, lets see. Alas, Biden has thrown the auto industry a bit of a softball with vehicle efficiency (far less aggressive than what he campaigned on), out of a practical need to bolster his support in the industrial and largely gas powered Midwest.
As a result, I don't suspect you will see a national carbon tax in the US anytime soon. That's the unfortunate reality that we have to work with.
The Mustang Mach E uses 190wH per mile, so each mile costs ~2c.
The Mustang Mach 1 ICE car gets 20mpg, so each mile costs 15c.
So today in MI, the energy cost of the electric is already 1/7 of the ICE. Nonetheless, you will find far more EVs per capita in California, where the EV energy cost advantage is far lower due to high electricity prices.
The difference is cultural.
Maybe it will change and MI will be an EV buying state, lets see. Alas, Biden has thrown the auto industry a bit of a softball with vehicle efficiency (far less aggressive than what he campaigned on), out of a practical need to bolster his support in the industrial and largely gas powered Midwest.
As a result, I don't suspect you will see a national carbon tax in the US anytime soon. That's the unfortunate reality that we have to work with.
Oh indeed. We just need to send a large majority of the human race back to the stone age.
The entirety of South America, Africa, the Indian sub continent, most of South East Asia and the Middle East.
Then you can have your SUV.
The entirety of South America, Africa, the Indian sub continent, most of South East Asia and the Middle East.
Then you can have your SUV.
It will not be cost free.
It's like working for your salary or just living off your inheritance and leaving nothing to your kids.
It's like working for your salary or just living off your inheritance and leaving nothing to your kids.
> trying to figure out how to improve and that standard
I don't understand what you're saying.
I don't understand what you're saying.
He also forgot to mention the looming threat of violent revolution exterminating the ruling class, which drove countless concessions to the average person.
We do need optimists if we are going to dream and build a great future. Techno-optimism has become almost a taboo, sometimes even within the groups that actually work on cutting edge tech (at least on the computing side of things). We shouldn’t be naive and ignore potential negatives of course, but more optimism and dreaming of a great future we can build towards should be encouraged.
I'm optimistic... That a complete reorganization of our economy and society that leads to happiness and ecological stability is possible.
I am not optimistic that humans can develop the emotional fortitude needed for this reorganization in the time required.
I am not optimistic that humans can develop the emotional fortitude needed for this reorganization in the time required.
Optimism or lack thereof isn't the issue in my opinion, it's empathy and other-mindedness, for lack of a better word. It's the wrong axis to be focusing on.
I think most of the people I know would think I'm a seriously pessimistic individual, but in this twisted way I think I'm actually sort of the opposite (I imagine they'd agree with this too).
But I don't think that's the problem the world faces.
I think most of the people I know would think I'm a seriously pessimistic individual, but in this twisted way I think I'm actually sort of the opposite (I imagine they'd agree with this too).
But I don't think that's the problem the world faces.
“And yet,” demanded Councillor Barlow …”what great cause is he identified with?”
“He is identified,” said the speaker, “with the great cause of cheering us all up.”
—Arnold Bennett, English (1867-1931)
“He is identified,” said the speaker, “with the great cause of cheering us all up.”
—Arnold Bennett, English (1867-1931)
I don't see optimism towards technology being a "taboo" at all. I see a lot of people wanting questions answered before world-changing stuff is put into place.
"Ready, aim, fire" is in that order for a reason, yeah?
"Ready, aim, fire" is in that order for a reason, yeah?
There are too many people who think their questions are the important ones to be addressed before we are allowed to make progress. The more gates/approvers you add before changes can be made or new ideas tried out, the less likely you are to build great things and build fast. Instead you get slow, bureaucratic, design by committee solutions and the more unique technological directions get shelved. One of my favorite Bezos quotes is about this “even well-meaning gatekeepers slow innovation”.
This reads as "ready, fire, aim, fire again" being a virtue.
It's not, at mega-human scales.
It's not, at mega-human scales.
So who makes the choices then? Who is the group that validates we are ready to try out a new idea?
I dunno, elected ones? That seems like a good start, rather than "one guy with a lot of money".
The career politicians are some of the very last people who should be making choices on what technological directions we should go as a society. You can watch any of the congressional hearings to see the complete lack of understanding of today’s technical landscape, let alone expecting them to determine where we go next. One day I hope to see actual technical people taking on high level elected positions and trying to change this, but for now it’s mostly lawyers who have spent their career trying to poll well and raise money.
If the world wanted Jeff Bezos to lead it, we would have elected him. Would we not?
Who exactly is he to make megascale decisions for the rest of us?
Who exactly is he to make megascale decisions for the rest of us?
Someone competent who has actually done something, unlike elected officials. Until there is a party that represents and has engineers and technical people as an every day part of their system, not a unique member among a sea of lawyers, we cannot allow politicians to stifle innovation and humanity’s ability to build for the future.
"He made a logistics company, so he should be able to enact megascale experiments on people because why not?"
Respectfully: this reads like the kind of post that would be written by a software developer who thinks being an expert in one thing makes them an expert in many.
I was that person when I was young. I grew wiser. I hope you do, too.
Respectfully: this reads like the kind of post that would be written by a software developer who thinks being an expert in one thing makes them an expert in many.
I was that person when I was young. I grew wiser. I hope you do, too.
That depends, how many resources are needed to try a new idea?
> To be a good ancestor one must assume that good things can be forwarded.
Many of the old ways are being forgotten, and `Grandma's brain` is not so readily picked anymore since people value their Internet & the hive mind of social media more than the wisdom of their elders.
Also the old way of passing down teachings orally, like in the case of Buddhism and some other religions, is declining. Now it has to be perfectly preserved on the Internet so that people can refer back to it.
Many of the old ways are being forgotten, and `Grandma's brain` is not so readily picked anymore since people value their Internet & the hive mind of social media more than the wisdom of their elders.
Also the old way of passing down teachings orally, like in the case of Buddhism and some other religions, is declining. Now it has to be perfectly preserved on the Internet so that people can refer back to it.
Isn't it relatively likely that there are more people learning Buddhism orally now than there ever have been before?
> Isn't it relatively likely that there are more people learning Buddhism orally now than there ever have been before?
Well I suppose if you mean listening to an audio-book or even reading a book constitutes learning something orally, then you might have a point.
When I say orally I mean passed down from generation to generation via spoken word. Buddhism originally had no scriptures and was passed down by word of mouth until everything was transcribed to texts.
Well I suppose if you mean listening to an audio-book or even reading a book constitutes learning something orally, then you might have a point.
When I say orally I mean passed down from generation to generation via spoken word. Buddhism originally had no scriptures and was passed down by word of mouth until everything was transcribed to texts.
Yeah, I meant orally as in spoken, not recorded.
There's an awful lot more people around now than there generally has been.
There's an awful lot more people around now than there generally has been.
Dudeman112(1)
I categorically approve of optimism.
Believing that we'll have a future worth fighting for is like Pascal's Wager. If we're wrong, we won't be around to care. And pessimism isn't very constructive. Or fun.
Missing from his list is improvements is governance. It's so weird that "technologists" rarely even think about collaborative decision making. When in fact it's one of our most important technologies.
To cite one recent exciting example. Project Warp Speed betting on a portfolio of potential vaccines. Applying the smarts of NPV towards policy goals. Whereas other nations pre-picked winners, like most procurement is traditionally done.
Such a high visibility success will lead to wider adoption of better risk management strategies.
Adjacent is Musk's $100m X-Prize bet for carbon capture. So great. For future, some sizeable fraction of all R&D should be done like this.
> Optimism is not utopian. It’s protopian -- a slow march toward incremental betterment.
So much cringe. The jargon spewing technophilia of Mondo 2000, Wired, Kevin Kelly, Jaron Lanier, so many others was tired in the 1990s. (Remember "Tired vs Wired"? Gag.)
Believing that we'll have a future worth fighting for is like Pascal's Wager. If we're wrong, we won't be around to care. And pessimism isn't very constructive. Or fun.
Missing from his list is improvements is governance. It's so weird that "technologists" rarely even think about collaborative decision making. When in fact it's one of our most important technologies.
To cite one recent exciting example. Project Warp Speed betting on a portfolio of potential vaccines. Applying the smarts of NPV towards policy goals. Whereas other nations pre-picked winners, like most procurement is traditionally done.
Such a high visibility success will lead to wider adoption of better risk management strategies.
Adjacent is Musk's $100m X-Prize bet for carbon capture. So great. For future, some sizeable fraction of all R&D should be done like this.
> Optimism is not utopian. It’s protopian -- a slow march toward incremental betterment.
So much cringe. The jargon spewing technophilia of Mondo 2000, Wired, Kevin Kelly, Jaron Lanier, so many others was tired in the 1990s. (Remember "Tired vs Wired"? Gag.)
Everything he says is equally applicable to belief in religion or an afterlife. The case for believing that the future will be good is that it makes you feel better. So pick whatever explanation you can swallow for this wonderful future - God, the singularity, the essential goodness of human nature, etc - and believe in it as strongly as you can.
Better to err on the side of optimism in each thing. Optimism in all things (the future of humanity) is different. There, we should strive to understand the dynamics of the progress that Kelly rightly admires. It's our golden gooose. It's prudent to understand and monitor its health; less so to blindly worship it.
The best case for optimism is, survivorship bias seems to have an evolutionary advantage.
As long as enough make it to their grandchildren...
As long as enough make it to their grandchildren...
Given our response to Covid, I'm can't say that I'm optimistic.
It is notable that HN, supposedly a meeting place for the scientifically and technically enlightend, has kept very quiet on the issue of Covid - apart from the occasional Ivermectin nonsense and similar of course.
No, I'm not optimistic, not at all.
It is notable that HN, supposedly a meeting place for the scientifically and technically enlightend, has kept very quiet on the issue of Covid - apart from the occasional Ivermectin nonsense and similar of course.
No, I'm not optimistic, not at all.
Before I clicked, I thought this was going to be an article about Optimism, the new technology for opimistic rollups for Ethereum.
I guess I should’t have been so optimistic :)
I guess I should’t have been so optimistic :)
I love optimism, and have often been accused of adhering to it myself. To some extent, it is a requirement for civilization and even life, the basis of hope.
But I've observed from decades ago that when we look at progress in science and technology, the future looks unimaginably bright, but when we look at politics and governance, it is incredibly dark. This contrast became massively magnified since 2015.
Yet, even with the ascent of anti-democratic (small-'d') forces coordinating with transnational criminal gangs masquerading as government, I have some optimism that resistance to those forces are organizing. My main question is time -- will it happen in time, or will democracy fail? If so, it'll be some very dark centuries before it rises again. But I'm still hopeful, perhaps best to refer to it as "white-knuckled optimism".
But I've observed from decades ago that when we look at progress in science and technology, the future looks unimaginably bright, but when we look at politics and governance, it is incredibly dark. This contrast became massively magnified since 2015.
Yet, even with the ascent of anti-democratic (small-'d') forces coordinating with transnational criminal gangs masquerading as government, I have some optimism that resistance to those forces are organizing. My main question is time -- will it happen in time, or will democracy fail? If so, it'll be some very dark centuries before it rises again. But I'm still hopeful, perhaps best to refer to it as "white-knuckled optimism".
>But I've observed from decades ago that when we look at progress in science and technology, the future looks unimaginably bright, but when we look at politics and governance, it is incredibly dark.
I don't really see these as particularly different things. Our era has seen value financialized at almost every level of society by the deployment of transnational technology and institutions, resulting in the inability of national governments to hamper the global flow of anti-social or otherwise criminal resources and money. Some social ills and some policy adjustments simply aren't possible for governments to deal with, either as a result of the ambit of their power, the need for transnational alignment, or the time-sensitive nature for precise solutions to complex problems.
Governments are in an arms race against increasing complexity in social problems. The development of additional command and control technologies, the deployment of extensive surveillance, and the weaponization of that surveillance against populations is directly tied to the intersection between power and technology.
Technology enables power. We can design some technology to specifically disrupt current power structures, but overall technological development creates larger and larger capabilities on the part of those with power; better weapons, better intelligence, more resources, etc.
So we have technology working at both ends, pulling at both sides. It isn't enough that technology allows us to do more; it's the balance between whether or not research tips the scale between the haves and have nots.
I don't really see these as particularly different things. Our era has seen value financialized at almost every level of society by the deployment of transnational technology and institutions, resulting in the inability of national governments to hamper the global flow of anti-social or otherwise criminal resources and money. Some social ills and some policy adjustments simply aren't possible for governments to deal with, either as a result of the ambit of their power, the need for transnational alignment, or the time-sensitive nature for precise solutions to complex problems.
Governments are in an arms race against increasing complexity in social problems. The development of additional command and control technologies, the deployment of extensive surveillance, and the weaponization of that surveillance against populations is directly tied to the intersection between power and technology.
Technology enables power. We can design some technology to specifically disrupt current power structures, but overall technological development creates larger and larger capabilities on the part of those with power; better weapons, better intelligence, more resources, etc.
So we have technology working at both ends, pulling at both sides. It isn't enough that technology allows us to do more; it's the balance between whether or not research tips the scale between the haves and have nots.
yup. There was optimism aplenty when the internet was first growing, with the idea that it would democratize information, and pretty much everything.
Yet here we are with a few mega-corps basically eating the whole pie, working as fast as they can to destroy the open internet in favor of their walled gardens, and curating every shred of content and amplifying it based on 'engagement', which is roughly inversely correlated with truth value, moral compass, or societal value (what ordinary publishers generally curate for). The net effect is highly corrosive to governance and society without even accounting for their amplification of intentional dezinformatsiya as part of active measures warfare.
As you said, we need to create things that tip the balance towards democracy and the have-nots.
Yet here we are with a few mega-corps basically eating the whole pie, working as fast as they can to destroy the open internet in favor of their walled gardens, and curating every shred of content and amplifying it based on 'engagement', which is roughly inversely correlated with truth value, moral compass, or societal value (what ordinary publishers generally curate for). The net effect is highly corrosive to governance and society without even accounting for their amplification of intentional dezinformatsiya as part of active measures warfare.
As you said, we need to create things that tip the balance towards democracy and the have-nots.
According to this article, I think I rank as an optimist - I tend to trust people, feel that we can solve the problems before us, etc.
But I'm listening to a book right now called The Ascent of Humanity, and it makes some interesting points about the philosophical axioms of the arguments presented in this article. Namely, the argument is that the technological approach - inventing our way out of problems - is doomed to failure over the long term because it creates an accelerating treadmill of required progress in order to solve the problems it creates. This is reflected in economics by the requirement that our output will continue to increase (otherwise debt doesn't work).
I now look at articles like this a bit more skeptically because they assume that technological progress is necessarily good. For example, what argument could be made that painted longevity into one's 90s as a bad thing? Well, we spend an enormous amount of human effort keeping people alive for the last few months of life. At what point is it not worth it to keep people alive any more? Perhaps culturally, we need to become better at coping with and accepting death.
I haven't made up my mind on this, because the case against technology leads to some pretty bizarre conclusions. But I find it worthwhile to consider.
But I'm listening to a book right now called The Ascent of Humanity, and it makes some interesting points about the philosophical axioms of the arguments presented in this article. Namely, the argument is that the technological approach - inventing our way out of problems - is doomed to failure over the long term because it creates an accelerating treadmill of required progress in order to solve the problems it creates. This is reflected in economics by the requirement that our output will continue to increase (otherwise debt doesn't work).
I now look at articles like this a bit more skeptically because they assume that technological progress is necessarily good. For example, what argument could be made that painted longevity into one's 90s as a bad thing? Well, we spend an enormous amount of human effort keeping people alive for the last few months of life. At what point is it not worth it to keep people alive any more? Perhaps culturally, we need to become better at coping with and accepting death.
I haven't made up my mind on this, because the case against technology leads to some pretty bizarre conclusions. But I find it worthwhile to consider.
To be fair a lot of those expenses in the last few months of life are hail-mary attempts at recovery, and in a minority of cases they work. Those options simply weren't available in the past.
The notion that tech creates more and increasing problems is not necessarily true either. Viable Solar and Wind power wasn't a thing until recently, and it creates far fewer problems relative to Coal and Oil. Increasing efficiency is part of technological progress.
Ultimately the case against technology leads to humanity stagnating in some state on this planet until we run out of resources or the sun finally explodes. I'd like to think we can do better over the long term.
The notion that tech creates more and increasing problems is not necessarily true either. Viable Solar and Wind power wasn't a thing until recently, and it creates far fewer problems relative to Coal and Oil. Increasing efficiency is part of technological progress.
Ultimately the case against technology leads to humanity stagnating in some state on this planet until we run out of resources or the sun finally explodes. I'd like to think we can do better over the long term.
> longevity into one's 90s as a bad thing
Absolutely agree. The only way it's worth it to increase lifespan is to increase healthspan at the same time. Currently, most medicine seems to focus on the former.
Absolutely agree. The only way it's worth it to increase lifespan is to increase healthspan at the same time. Currently, most medicine seems to focus on the former.
Pessimists are usually right, and optimists usually make things happen.
Optimists downplay problems and are annoying to work with, especially if in charge. I rather work with pessimists any day. (As long as we are not talking about like, grumpy vs happy, but more in a technical sense).
There's a mentality I've adopted that I find helpful that I call "hopeful pessimism". It's the descriptive form of "Hope for the best; prepare for the worst". You expect the worst outcome, but hope you're wrong.
I think most of the devs I've enjoyed working with have similar perspectives, and often include a dark sense of humor with it. As when the hope runs out, all you're left with is something dark, and being able to laugh at the absurdity of it, to make light of it and minimize it that way, is a helpful coping mechanism, as well as one that can help bind a team together. And also helps avoid falling into despair along the way as the hits come; you can stay hopeful and focused on the desired outcome.
I think most of the devs I've enjoyed working with have similar perspectives, and often include a dark sense of humor with it. As when the hope runs out, all you're left with is something dark, and being able to laugh at the absurdity of it, to make light of it and minimize it that way, is a helpful coping mechanism, as well as one that can help bind a team together. And also helps avoid falling into despair along the way as the hits come; you can stay hopeful and focused on the desired outcome.
At Warp News, where the article is published, we talk about fact-based optimism. I’m explaining what it is here: https://www.warpnews.org/essays/the-case-for-fact-based-opti...
Maybe it depends on where in the company they are, but it seems to me that most successful founders are pretty optimistic. I know I wouldn’t want to work for a pessimist, but I agree that I wouldn’t want to be led by a completely unrealistic optimist. There needs to be some awareness of reality, but at the same time the vision and ‘reality distortion’ can help drive big successes and rally teams imho
Perhaps the reason successful founders are optimists is that most founders are optimists. Unsuccessful founders are generally optimists too.
(Over)optimistim in founders is adapted to the current environment where the competition is over who can raise the biggest mountain of cash. I predict other qualities will become more desirable as the 20 years bull market starts to fade.
I’d say Bezos, Larry & Sergey, Jobs, even Zuck seemed pretty highly optimistic in their early days and leadership styles, and that has nothing to do with the current funding climate.
I'm a long term optimist. Humanity always gets better, eventually.
The problem is we have short lifespans so small setbacks in humanity's history are significant to those of us alive at that point in time.
I don't think things will be too bad though. Governments are becoming authoritarian but there's already enough resistance and protest, at least in some places.
The future is looking bright. We'll figure out the global warming thing (probably with technology), there's no appetite for large scale war, in many ways the world is becoming closer (thanks to technology). The main obstacle now is inequality, the tyranny of oligarchs and government corruption.
The problem is we have short lifespans so small setbacks in humanity's history are significant to those of us alive at that point in time.
I don't think things will be too bad though. Governments are becoming authoritarian but there's already enough resistance and protest, at least in some places.
The future is looking bright. We'll figure out the global warming thing (probably with technology), there's no appetite for large scale war, in many ways the world is becoming closer (thanks to technology). The main obstacle now is inequality, the tyranny of oligarchs and government corruption.
> The problem is we have short lifespans so small setbacks in humanity's history are significant to those of us alive at that point in time.
It is still a reason to be optimistic. Limited individual lifespan is like a regularization term; one particular human can get only so much wise and world-improving; while our optimization goal is multi-generational. Those setbacks might as well be necessary backtracking.
It is still a reason to be optimistic. Limited individual lifespan is like a regularization term; one particular human can get only so much wise and world-improving; while our optimization goal is multi-generational. Those setbacks might as well be necessary backtracking.
I feel this way too.
> Humanity always gets better, eventually.
I feel that it is inevitable that we, us, and the state of the world will get better.
We as humans are rational and that is our power. We can choose our thoughts and our feelings. When we choose thoughts of love, compassion and altruism these lead us to actions of love, compassion and altruism.
The Dalai Lama talks about secular mind training. When metacognition and how to choose thoughts and feelings is taught in schools then there is an opportunity to move more people towards a more helpful world. More helpful for our own personal lives and also helpful to others.
Until this happens, I do what I can, which is talk with my friends and family about this. We remind each other that we always have a choice about how we can respond to anything in the external world and we do what we can.
> Humanity always gets better, eventually.
I feel that it is inevitable that we, us, and the state of the world will get better.
We as humans are rational and that is our power. We can choose our thoughts and our feelings. When we choose thoughts of love, compassion and altruism these lead us to actions of love, compassion and altruism.
The Dalai Lama talks about secular mind training. When metacognition and how to choose thoughts and feelings is taught in schools then there is an opportunity to move more people towards a more helpful world. More helpful for our own personal lives and also helpful to others.
Until this happens, I do what I can, which is talk with my friends and family about this. We remind each other that we always have a choice about how we can respond to anything in the external world and we do what we can.
"you must maintain unwavering faith that you can and will prevail in the end, regardless of the difficulties, and at the same time, have the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be."
-Jim Stockdale, describing the Stockdale paradox.
For me to be remotely optimistic, I would need to see more people confronting those brutal facts. They are truly and properly brutal. Too brutal for the Kevin Kelly types.
-Jim Stockdale, describing the Stockdale paradox.
For me to be remotely optimistic, I would need to see more people confronting those brutal facts. They are truly and properly brutal. Too brutal for the Kevin Kelly types.
This is how I feel as well. I am a pessimist in the sense that without more progress on certain issues, I think life will get worse for future generations. This isn't ignoring the historical arc of progress, and I would argue that pessimists get an undeserved bad rap for pointing out problems when that is exactly how progress happens. Find problems and try to fix them.
Pessimists aren't just people who assume everything will collapse no matter what is done. I believe humanity is capable of overcoming the challenges set before us, but optimism often seems to be naive, or merely a way of ignoring problems in the short term so that we don't experience unpleasant emotions. If we work on solving problems rather than ignoring them, then I don't care if you are a pessimist or an optimist because we are on the same team regardless of disposition.
Pessimists aren't just people who assume everything will collapse no matter what is done. I believe humanity is capable of overcoming the challenges set before us, but optimism often seems to be naive, or merely a way of ignoring problems in the short term so that we don't experience unpleasant emotions. If we work on solving problems rather than ignoring them, then I don't care if you are a pessimist or an optimist because we are on the same team regardless of disposition.
I read that article and some other things on sites as defining optimism as NOT avoiding problems. That one site in particular says the goal is to get more people thinking about the possibilities while specifically acknowledging there are problems. My way of thinking is optimism is about getting a deep understanding of the issues, why they exist, and how humanity has shown time and again we can innovate and come together to solve them. Human progress can accelerate if we come together to do so. It’s good debate, and i like that warp and others like them appears to be presenting that side of things. It’s an interesting paring with Kevin Kelly, hope to support it more.
I have no idea why you were downvoted, but I have upvoted.
"If way to the better there be, it exacts a full look at the worst." -- Thomas Hardy.
Unthinking optimism is magical thinking. I blame a steady diet of Disney productions in people's childhoods for this mindset.
"If way to the better there be, it exacts a full look at the worst." -- Thomas Hardy.
Unthinking optimism is magical thinking. I blame a steady diet of Disney productions in people's childhoods for this mindset.
With respect to climate change, there is a complete disconnect between the predictions of doom and the proposed solutions. Electric cars ain’t gonna do it. Massive disruption and reordering if the economic order and a real reduction in global well-being are the price to be paid if we’re really serious.
I just don’t see intellectual honesty among people who claim that climate change is an existential threat.
I just don’t see intellectual honesty among people who claim that climate change is an existential threat.
I think they are honest - they really believe that their proposals are solutions - but also that they are hopelessly innumerate, and ignorant of the time and effort involved in scaling anything up to global scale.
For myself, existential is going way too far. It will transform civilization, yes. One way or another, that's coming. Extinguish every human? No. Not unless we get weeks-long global thermonuclear war - 3700 weeks on the top 10 existential threats chart, and still number 1.
For myself, existential is going way too far. It will transform civilization, yes. One way or another, that's coming. Extinguish every human? No. Not unless we get weeks-long global thermonuclear war - 3700 weeks on the top 10 existential threats chart, and still number 1.
It would take an absolutely apocalyptic event (or more likely, series of events) to make the human race go extinct but it wouldn't take much more than a prolonged, widespread power failure to push civil society to collapse.
Dies the Fire is a first of a series of novels about a global power failure due to an alteration in physics by an unknown cause. Most humans starve to death, but some in the right locations resort to farming by hand, hunting and fishing. Others set up feudal kingdoms.
There will be a reduction in global well being no matter what.
The lesser of 2 evils is something we can choose. The greater is what we'll get if we don't make a choice.
The lesser of 2 evils is something we can choose. The greater is what we'll get if we don't make a choice.
Maybe the question is: an existential threat to what? Not to humans in general, but probably to human society as we know it.
Optimism is essentially the religion of Capitalism. This is because Capitalism is perpetually in debt to tomorrow. Every start up being discussed on HN, every fund people pump their 401k into, every new oil well being dug up, all of these require believing in the future.
The problem is that everything we have today depends on everything being better tomorrow. Optimism isn't just a nice feeling it's a core ideology that is necessary to keep the whole machine moving forward. If people en masse started to believe tomorrow might not be better than today, and that in the day after tomorrow might be even worse... the faith in our entire system starts to collapse.
People here talk about pessimism as if it's some rampant belief in society and the few optimists there are fighting against the hordes of the non-believer. But true pessimism remains a radical belief, outside of internet forums I have only occasionally met anyone who exhibits even the most mild form of pessimism. Even in academia the core works of most German philosophical pessimists remain untranslated!
Optimists also believe that someone questioning optimism it itself dangerous (which should be the first clue that something is not quite right with the dominant optimist world view). Whereas in practice it is optimism that allows us to perpetuate horrors on every scale without question because "tomorrow it will be better!". Ecological disaster is permitted because we will solve this tomorrow and everything will be okay. Sweatshops, child labor and modern slavery are all permitted because this is just a step in peoples inevitable rises to a better life. The murder of countless civilians around the globe are all justifiable because tomorrow we will have a better world economy, and democracy will spread through the region, making everything better.
Under optimism the shock from any horror is neutered and any atrocity can be trivially excused because the future is bright and we are heading in the right direction. We continue to burn every more fossil fuels because we are going to be fine, we'll figure it out, no reason for despair.
As the final insult to injury, questioning that future becomes heresy and so you cannot even voice your anguish as the world around you starts to collapse.
The problem is that everything we have today depends on everything being better tomorrow. Optimism isn't just a nice feeling it's a core ideology that is necessary to keep the whole machine moving forward. If people en masse started to believe tomorrow might not be better than today, and that in the day after tomorrow might be even worse... the faith in our entire system starts to collapse.
People here talk about pessimism as if it's some rampant belief in society and the few optimists there are fighting against the hordes of the non-believer. But true pessimism remains a radical belief, outside of internet forums I have only occasionally met anyone who exhibits even the most mild form of pessimism. Even in academia the core works of most German philosophical pessimists remain untranslated!
Optimists also believe that someone questioning optimism it itself dangerous (which should be the first clue that something is not quite right with the dominant optimist world view). Whereas in practice it is optimism that allows us to perpetuate horrors on every scale without question because "tomorrow it will be better!". Ecological disaster is permitted because we will solve this tomorrow and everything will be okay. Sweatshops, child labor and modern slavery are all permitted because this is just a step in peoples inevitable rises to a better life. The murder of countless civilians around the globe are all justifiable because tomorrow we will have a better world economy, and democracy will spread through the region, making everything better.
Under optimism the shock from any horror is neutered and any atrocity can be trivially excused because the future is bright and we are heading in the right direction. We continue to burn every more fossil fuels because we are going to be fine, we'll figure it out, no reason for despair.
As the final insult to injury, questioning that future becomes heresy and so you cannot even voice your anguish as the world around you starts to collapse.
I know that we're not supposed to talk about the voting on comments [1] but I request that we make an exception here and pay attention to something interesting that is happening in this discussion. baron_harkonnen (fitting name for this comment, BTW) explicitly says "People here talk about pessimism as if it's some rampant belief in society and the few optimists there are fighting against the hordes of the non-believer" and "Optimists also believe that someone questioning optimism it itself dangerous". It's therefore interesting to me that baron_harkonnen's comment is getting downvoted literally out of the optimist majority's sight. That seems to go against HN's culture of welcoming and respecting debate so long as the viewpoint seems to be genuine, non-inflammatory, etc. baron_harkonnen is expressing some bleak ideas (as is fitting for a pessimist) but it appears to be a genuine, non-inflammatory perspective.
[1] From HN guidelines: "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."
[1] From HN guidelines: "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."
> C’est l’histoire d’un homme qui tombe d’un immeuble de 50 étages. Le mec, au fur et à mesure de sa chute, il se répète sans cesse pour se rassurer : « Jusqu’ici tout va bien... Jusqu’ici tout va bien... Jusqu’ici tout va bien. » Mais l’important, c’est pas la chute. C’est l’atterrissage.
> This is a story of a man who is falling from a 50 story building. He, gradually during his fall, continuously reassures himself “so far, so good... so far so good... so far so good.” But what’s important is not the fall. It’s the landing.
> This is a story of a man who is falling from a 50 story building. He, gradually during his fall, continuously reassures himself “so far, so good... so far so good... so far so good.” But what’s important is not the fall. It’s the landing.
The opening lines of La Haine, if you haven't seen it, you should.
I guess it depends on the audience. Pretty sure that if the parent post were a Twitter thread it would get 32,000 RTs, as everyone seems to be a doomer on that site. Glad to know that HN is mostly in the optimist camp. As argued in the article, building things requires optimism.
> outside of internet forums I have only occasionally met anyone who exhibits even the most mild form of pessimism.
> As the final insult to injury, questioning that future becomes heresy and so you cannot even voice your anguish as the world around you starts to collapse.
I think these are related. It's very socially difficult to express serious pessimism about the world - I don't think the future is bright, I think it is miserable and you either shouldn't have kids or you should be preparing them for a very different life. I can't really bring myself to say that to all my friends who have or are having children.
I think these are related. It's very socially difficult to express serious pessimism about the world - I don't think the future is bright, I think it is miserable and you either shouldn't have kids or you should be preparing them for a very different life. I can't really bring myself to say that to all my friends who have or are having children.
I am so far down the pessimistic rabbit hole, that for each point he mentioned my mind goes towards what to me seems like the elephant in the room.
"Total Urbanization" - What should we do with its impact on the environment ? How will total urbanization be sustainable (i.e. who will buy your waste now ?) ? Should we even think about this, or just try to build technology to leave this planet ?
"Universal Connectivity" - How do we address rise in anxiety and other mental illnesses due to this rise of total connectivity.
"Ubiquitous AI" - We all know the pitfalls here. Hint: We are not able to secure the "Ubiquitous Internet", how will we secure the "Ubiquitous AI" ? AI related hacking incidents will be astronomically more damaging (for ex. let's replace nurses with AI robots so that they can properly care for patients without getting tired, now this system gets deployed, obviously it will be connected to some kind of "knowledge base" (to train/retrain/get updates), what happens if this gets hacked, there would be direct impact on people's lives). This is the same argument as cloud connected self driving cars.
I don't want to go further, I hate my pessimism, I WANT to be optimistic, I don't enjoy my pessimism, it gives me no joy. Even with so many academic disciplines, unfortunately we can only keep a bunch of them in our head to think about problems/ideas/etc and the ones which are left out, often that becomes the cause of my pessimism.
For instance, when creating the "algorithm" for the social media, what are the chances that they had a psychologist or even a sociologist in their team (during the nascent stages). Even if they had, did they have the same decision making powers (as MBAs ?)
Even if we consider "Long Termism", what have we borrowed from the ancient wisdom(s) in our modern world ? Obviously we have biologically evolved from them and we can establish a chain of information going back to the ancient civilizations. But even then, we have lost lot of our touch with this very Earth itself, we lost our respect for it, we have lost our respect for the stars, our quest for industrialisation (of course with its merits) has affectively wiped lots of our ancient wisdom. In this information age, we should have been starting where things were left, but it seems like we want to start our new "beginning" because now we are more "intelligent", now we know more laws and algorithms.
If we assume asteroid impacts, on large scale cataclysmic events, what kind of "long termism" will exist ? Even now we are finding hints that there could have been lost civilisations on earth. Their information and wisdom is now completely lost.
The issue I feel is that, we think the world revolves around us, we think the nature is there to provide us resources, provide us shelter, and that has lead us to completely ignore that this world, this universe was there before us and will exist after us. If we get wiped out, we get wiped out.
The only source of optimism I have are completely selfish points. I am grateful I can see, hear, move, feel, eat, type. I am grateful that I can have impact on lives of others directly or indirectly. I am grateful that I have a convincing experiencing of free will. I am grateful that our capitalistic society has structures in it to provide healthcare to the ill. I am grateful to have a chance to witness this reality.
"Total Urbanization" - What should we do with its impact on the environment ? How will total urbanization be sustainable (i.e. who will buy your waste now ?) ? Should we even think about this, or just try to build technology to leave this planet ?
"Universal Connectivity" - How do we address rise in anxiety and other mental illnesses due to this rise of total connectivity.
"Ubiquitous AI" - We all know the pitfalls here. Hint: We are not able to secure the "Ubiquitous Internet", how will we secure the "Ubiquitous AI" ? AI related hacking incidents will be astronomically more damaging (for ex. let's replace nurses with AI robots so that they can properly care for patients without getting tired, now this system gets deployed, obviously it will be connected to some kind of "knowledge base" (to train/retrain/get updates), what happens if this gets hacked, there would be direct impact on people's lives). This is the same argument as cloud connected self driving cars.
I don't want to go further, I hate my pessimism, I WANT to be optimistic, I don't enjoy my pessimism, it gives me no joy. Even with so many academic disciplines, unfortunately we can only keep a bunch of them in our head to think about problems/ideas/etc and the ones which are left out, often that becomes the cause of my pessimism.
For instance, when creating the "algorithm" for the social media, what are the chances that they had a psychologist or even a sociologist in their team (during the nascent stages). Even if they had, did they have the same decision making powers (as MBAs ?)
Even if we consider "Long Termism", what have we borrowed from the ancient wisdom(s) in our modern world ? Obviously we have biologically evolved from them and we can establish a chain of information going back to the ancient civilizations. But even then, we have lost lot of our touch with this very Earth itself, we lost our respect for it, we have lost our respect for the stars, our quest for industrialisation (of course with its merits) has affectively wiped lots of our ancient wisdom. In this information age, we should have been starting where things were left, but it seems like we want to start our new "beginning" because now we are more "intelligent", now we know more laws and algorithms.
If we assume asteroid impacts, on large scale cataclysmic events, what kind of "long termism" will exist ? Even now we are finding hints that there could have been lost civilisations on earth. Their information and wisdom is now completely lost.
The issue I feel is that, we think the world revolves around us, we think the nature is there to provide us resources, provide us shelter, and that has lead us to completely ignore that this world, this universe was there before us and will exist after us. If we get wiped out, we get wiped out.
The only source of optimism I have are completely selfish points. I am grateful I can see, hear, move, feel, eat, type. I am grateful that I can have impact on lives of others directly or indirectly. I am grateful that I have a convincing experiencing of free will. I am grateful that our capitalistic society has structures in it to provide healthcare to the ill. I am grateful to have a chance to witness this reality.
Thank you for writing all of this. I think undying optimism was okay when you really couldn't do that much harm with your terrible decisions based on false optimism. That's no longer the case. I also think, practically speaking, unfounded optimism will be the reason we fail to address Climate Change. It's time for realism now.
Optimism and realism should go hand in hand. Proper optimism is not about dismissing the fact that real problems do exist, and are very serious, but in the realization that we are equipped and able to find solutions and implement them. Climate change for example, there is so much going on in the Green Tech sector, innovations and companies emerging everywhere to take steps toward solving this. Sadly, mainstream media doesn't cover these things. Warp News site that posted this Kevin Kelly article has a lot of great stories on the topic, among many others.
https://www.warpnews.org/green-tech/
https://www.warpnews.org/green-tech/
> https://www.warpnews.org/green-tech/
This site is mostly press releases for products. Purchasing even more new things isn't going to stop climate change or its consequences. We need broad regulation to make an impact.
This site is mostly press releases for products. Purchasing even more new things isn't going to stop climate change or its consequences. We need broad regulation to make an impact.
I think that interpretation circularly defines optimism to always be the correct viewpoint.
The article makes some good points but: "the liberation of humans from their unwanted jobs" shows him to be out of touch. There is a lot of manual repetitive labour that people enjoy and take pride in. And these jobs are often one of the only ways of ensuring distribution of wealth.
> I am talking about the state of the world and its future on average global terms.
There is little cause for optimism on global terms. The decentralization that Kevin Kelly, Thomas Friedman and others lauded has led to a predictable increase in global insecurity by almost every measure (See below). The self-organization and techno-utopianism Kelly predicted in "Out of Control" (A book I loved enough to read twice) hasn't materialized - quite the opposite in-fact.
International Peace Institute: https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/cperry1848/viz/Intern...
World Bank Political Stability Rankings: https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/wb_political_stabi...
IMF Financial Stability: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/GFSR?page=1
There is little cause for optimism on global terms. The decentralization that Kevin Kelly, Thomas Friedman and others lauded has led to a predictable increase in global insecurity by almost every measure (See below). The self-organization and techno-utopianism Kelly predicted in "Out of Control" (A book I loved enough to read twice) hasn't materialized - quite the opposite in-fact.
International Peace Institute: https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/cperry1848/viz/Intern...
World Bank Political Stability Rankings: https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/wb_political_stabi...
IMF Financial Stability: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/GFSR?page=1
I used to take Kelly seriously. Back in the 90s he was boosting a glorious connected utopia of free education, explosive creativity and endless opportunity.
What we got was personal surveillance by huge monopolies, a toxic culture of disinformation and social media driven by "engagement", and the fathomless banality of an IT economy devoted largely to ad tech.
And none of the real problems - climate change, wealth distribution, democratic stability - are any closer to being solved.
I'm out of patience. He's always been a prophet of comforting nonsense, and this is another meaningless sermon from the top of Happy Clappy Mountain.
What we got was personal surveillance by huge monopolies, a toxic culture of disinformation and social media driven by "engagement", and the fathomless banality of an IT economy devoted largely to ad tech.
And none of the real problems - climate change, wealth distribution, democratic stability - are any closer to being solved.
I'm out of patience. He's always been a prophet of comforting nonsense, and this is another meaningless sermon from the top of Happy Clappy Mountain.
> free education
Many top universities release entire courses for free. YouTube is an incredible resource for learning. Khan academy, Wikipedia, sci-hub, library genesis, all free. I can confidently say I’ve learned more from the internet than I have from books and university combined.
> explosive creativity
The internet is nothing if not novel. That’s precisely why it holds our attention so well - it’s an endless source of creativity and new things.
> endless opportunity
Again, surely this has come to pass? My job certainly wouldn’t be possible without the internet. There are tens of not hundreds of millions who make a living purely online.
No doubt it has caused all the negative things in your comment too, but they’re in addition to the positives not instead of them.
Many top universities release entire courses for free. YouTube is an incredible resource for learning. Khan academy, Wikipedia, sci-hub, library genesis, all free. I can confidently say I’ve learned more from the internet than I have from books and university combined.
> explosive creativity
The internet is nothing if not novel. That’s precisely why it holds our attention so well - it’s an endless source of creativity and new things.
> endless opportunity
Again, surely this has come to pass? My job certainly wouldn’t be possible without the internet. There are tens of not hundreds of millions who make a living purely online.
No doubt it has caused all the negative things in your comment too, but they’re in addition to the positives not instead of them.
All we got was the entirety of human knowledge in our pockets, functionally for free.
I don’t like ad tech and I’m not dismissing that modern software has problems, but I think there’s a lot to be optimistic about.
On most metrics (infant mortality, poverty, violence) - things are massively better than they were thirty years ago.
I don’t like ad tech and I’m not dismissing that modern software has problems, but I think there’s a lot to be optimistic about.
On most metrics (infant mortality, poverty, violence) - things are massively better than they were thirty years ago.
Metrics metrics. The only metric I care about is happiness. I rather die when I am 50 than living in a cage till I am 80.
I really don't think happiness is a good single metric to judge your life by. If pure happiness is all that matters, should you just quit everything and do heroin all day? You would feel really happy.
Life is about many things, and happiness is only one part.
Life is about many things, and happiness is only one part.
> should you just quit everything and do heroin all day? You would feel really happy.
No he wouldn't. He would become addicted very fast and eventually live on the streets, Heroin addicts are as miserable as can be. If there was an actual happy pill that worked I don't see why we shouldn't take it, there isn't one.
No he wouldn't. He would become addicted very fast and eventually live on the streets, Heroin addicts are as miserable as can be. If there was an actual happy pill that worked I don't see why we shouldn't take it, there isn't one.
>If there was an actual happy pill that worked I don't see why we shouldn't take it
Like the Soma from Brave New World. When I reread that book last year I realized how useful and good that drug would be.
Like the Soma from Brave New World. When I reread that book last year I realized how useful and good that drug would be.
I really tried reading it few months ago. The English was too much for me, its ancient or something. I had to fight with every sentence. Too bad.
Soma wasn't meant by Huxley to be a positive thing. It's a way of controlling the population. Brave New World is dystopian.
I understand that, but I don't know, maybe I'm just too different from Huxley to feel it? Like, everyone in the Society is happy, and the few people who aren't happy are sent to live somewhere they can be happy.
Wait till you are 50, see if you feel the same - assuming you aren't 50. There are other cages in life, family, job, spouse, expectations, that prevent all of us from being "free". Maybe you have a sick spouse or kid that needs constant care. I'm willing to be there for them even if I can't be free in the last third of my life.
>All we got was the entirety of human knowledge in our pockets, functionally for free.
No. What you got was a subset of knowledge, that which can be articulated and is transmissible via audio, video or text. The overwhelming amount of human knowledge is tacit, that is to say it is embedded in practices, cultures, crafts, traditions, institutions, and so on. Which is why there are still billions of people living in poverty despite the fact that you have wikipedia on your phone.
>On most metrics (infant mortality, poverty, violence) - things are massively better than they were thirty years ago.
There are countless of points in time at which things are better than before, this is virtually a truism. Things in the 1920s were perceived to be better than in the 1890s, yet in the 1930s, they were not. This strange belief in some sort of fatalistic progress is just bad Whig history.
No. What you got was a subset of knowledge, that which can be articulated and is transmissible via audio, video or text. The overwhelming amount of human knowledge is tacit, that is to say it is embedded in practices, cultures, crafts, traditions, institutions, and so on. Which is why there are still billions of people living in poverty despite the fact that you have wikipedia on your phone.
>On most metrics (infant mortality, poverty, violence) - things are massively better than they were thirty years ago.
There are countless of points in time at which things are better than before, this is virtually a truism. Things in the 1920s were perceived to be better than in the 1890s, yet in the 1930s, they were not. This strange belief in some sort of fatalistic progress is just bad Whig history.
There's tons of free education, creativity and opportunity on the internet alongside the darker stuff. Being pessimistic means only seeing the problems and not the progress.
People like Kelly (and there's loads of them) are so insulated from normality that one can't possibly see them as anything but useful idiots to the techonomic powers that be. Their delusional optimism acts as a constant counterweight to people beginning to ACT in the real world in order to effect change.
He forgot a big one: Massive use of fossil fuels, whose long term effects are, depending on where you live, threatening to undermine that very standard of living.
The challenge of this generation will be trying to figure out how to improve and that standard of living while undoing it's fossil fuel dependency. That may in turn require redefining what a high standard of living is.