I Choose Optimism(secularhumanism.org)
secularhumanism.org
I Choose Optimism
https://secularhumanism.org/2022/08/i-choose-optimism/
219 comments
I am in the camp of we are in overshoot, have been for a very long time. In the same way that a someone can spend way above their income by using the credit card. Looks great now but that looming cloud of debt is coming.
Societal wise we have done this via the monkey pore wish for "unlimited energy" in the form of fossil fuels. We got energy unlike anything else in history but at the cost of environmental blow back and setting the paradigm for our living standards.
Maybe we will rise to the challenge and go green on these, I'm not convinced yet but I am definitely not ruling it out.
When it comes to optimism, it boils down to two distinct modes. Necessity is the mother of invention. Less energy, stuff and stimulation will be good for most people in wealthy countries.
Fossil fuels will decline, we will make some cool new stuff that makes that decline easier, we will demand less stuff and use of energy. This doesn't sound so bad. Hopefully we will move into something akin to Solarpunk + cottage core. A declined future that is more fair. But the pessimist in me feels like that is but fantasy.
Maybe we will rise to the challenge and go green on these, I'm not convinced yet but I am definitely not ruling it out.
When it comes to optimism, it boils down to two distinct modes. Necessity is the mother of invention. Less energy, stuff and stimulation will be good for most people in wealthy countries.
Fossil fuels will decline, we will make some cool new stuff that makes that decline easier, we will demand less stuff and use of energy. This doesn't sound so bad. Hopefully we will move into something akin to Solarpunk + cottage core. A declined future that is more fair. But the pessimist in me feels like that is but fantasy.
Why would energy usage need to decline when there's a giant ball of fusion in our sky we barely make use of, and when we've just begun exploring space in the past century?
Solar energy isn't free, it takes a lot of metals just to turn solar energy into electrical energy (including batteries for storage) and they don't last forever.
Here's a link to a talk from an associate professor doing an estimation of how much metals are needed to switch to renewable energy: https://youtu.be/MBVmnKuBocc?t=2406
Here's a link to a talk from an associate professor doing an estimation of how much metals are needed to switch to renewable energy: https://youtu.be/MBVmnKuBocc?t=2406
Solar energy is the cheapest form of energy we have. Storage is a bit more expensive, but judging from the amount of metals the video proposes they want to go all-in on battery storage, whereas most experts I heard from propose to use hydrogen (or methane) as a storage medium, precisely because the amount of resources it needs are much smaller.
>whereas most experts I heard from propose to use hydrogen (or methane) as a storage medium
What experts? Power to gas has been really energy inefficient with little sign of improving from what I know. It can't really compete with pumped hydro even where pumped hydro makes less to no sense it seems.
What experts? Power to gas has been really energy inefficient with little sign of improving from what I know. It can't really compete with pumped hydro even where pumped hydro makes less to no sense it seems.
Efficiency (almost) doesn't matter. Cost and scalability matters. Pumped hydro and batteries are wonderfully efficient, but they're a lot more difficult to scale than infrastructure for storing, transporting, and burning a gas.
Hydrogen would also help with re-using all the ICE cars we have (and will continue to have) on the roads.
Definitely not a panacaea, and super-inefficient, but that's OK if we're just using it for storage/transportation.
Definitely not a panacaea, and super-inefficient, but that's OK if we're just using it for storage/transportation.
super-inefficient?
as in it's only worth doing if you have nothing else to do with the energy (like when you have too much wind/sun etc)
That's just the concept of energy storage. And even if we lose a significant fraction it's often not an issue given how cheap solar is.
Sure, but it would be better if we had more efficient methods of doing it.
This isn't the first time someone has predicted an end to economic growth soon because of peak raw resources having been attained. We can go all the way back to the numerous failed predictions of Elrich's Population Bomb book. The idea that we're close to the pinnacle of what technology and science can achieve is ridiculous given the immense cosmic time scales and resources available. We're nowhere near the limit of what's possible.
Wow, that was a bucket of water in my face the likes of which I’ve never felt before! We are 100% completely screwed! We simply cannot maintain our standard of living into the future. The picture this professor paints is so incredibly bleak that it puts the war in Ukraine and a potential war in Taiwan into perspective.
Imagine if all the passengers on the Titanic had nuclear weapons. That’s the situation we’re in. And there are no lifeboats.
Imagine if all the passengers on the Titanic had nuclear weapons. That’s the situation we’re in. And there are no lifeboats.
Except that all these problems are soluble.
We can adapt to climate change. We can create new (clean!) energy sources.
Solar is getting more efficient every year. There are new storage solutions appearing every year.
As TFA says, despair is not the answer. We can (and will) overcome all these problems.
We can adapt to climate change. We can create new (clean!) energy sources.
Solar is getting more efficient every year. There are new storage solutions appearing every year.
As TFA says, despair is not the answer. We can (and will) overcome all these problems.
Can you expand more on those new storage solutions?
here let me google that for you... https://www.forbes.com/sites/mitsubishiheavyindustries/2022/...
[deleted]
> We simply cannot maintain our standard of living into the future.
Don't make the mistake of confusing energy use with quality of life.
People like to make such alarmist statement around standard of living but we should instead ask ourselves what makes for quality of life.
A good example is planned obsolescence in technology: it greatly increases energy usage and pollution without making consumers happier (on the contrary they hate it)
Don't make the mistake of confusing energy use with quality of life.
People like to make such alarmist statement around standard of living but we should instead ask ourselves what makes for quality of life.
A good example is planned obsolescence in technology: it greatly increases energy usage and pollution without making consumers happier (on the contrary they hate it)
Don't make the mistake of conflating carbon emissions with transportation. So much of our society is built on carbon and personal automobiles are only a part of it. Cement production, globalized shipping, fertilizers for growing food, natural gas for making steel and other heavy industry. No matter how you slice it, wind and solar can't replace any of that stuff.
Wind and solar might not, but that isn't to say that there arent replacements
Or we just stop pretending that nuclear is bad and build the plants to keep an industrial base going past 2050.
Hell at this point whoever does will just conquer whoever doesn't. Just like the industrial revolution let whoever burn coal take over the rest. I'm hoping to be in a country that isn't conquered, but the west seems to have entered a death spiral of self delusion.
Hell at this point whoever does will just conquer whoever doesn't. Just like the industrial revolution let whoever burn coal take over the rest. I'm hoping to be in a country that isn't conquered, but the west seems to have entered a death spiral of self delusion.
Well in theory, yes. In practice, the Russians have captured a large nuclear reactor and may use it as a dirty bomb if things don't go their way. Can't turn a solar panel or windmill into a weapon like that. You could turn a hydroelectric dam in a weapon though, I believe that's the plot of a few films. And solar heat collectors are impractical death rays.
> In practice, the Russians have captured a large nuclear reactor and may use it as a dirty bomb if things don't go their way
This is still theory unless they actually use it for that.
Also, Russia's own Kursk 2 isn't very far from the captured one. They could turn that into a dirty bomb too. Recency bias on a threat shouldn't overwhelm normal analysis.
This is still theory unless they actually use it for that.
Also, Russia's own Kursk 2 isn't very far from the captured one. They could turn that into a dirty bomb too. Recency bias on a threat shouldn't overwhelm normal analysis.
No, it shouldn't overwhelm it, but it should inform it. There is no proliferation risk associated with wind, solar, geothermal, etc.
Where I live is at risk of declining political stability in the near future. I don't worry about living next to a nuclear power plant because I'm worried about maintenance or operational safety or whatever, I worry about what happens when a thousand men with machetes and an apocalyptic ideology show up. And perhaps you look at the news in your country and wonder if you also may be heading towards declining political stability.
Where I live is at risk of declining political stability in the near future. I don't worry about living next to a nuclear power plant because I'm worried about maintenance or operational safety or whatever, I worry about what happens when a thousand men with machetes and an apocalyptic ideology show up. And perhaps you look at the news in your country and wonder if you also may be heading towards declining political stability.
> No, it shouldn't overwhelm it, but it should inform it. There is no proliferation risk associated with wind, solar, geothermal, etc.
Note my example was also nuclear. I don't know what you're countering with this.
Note my example was also nuclear. I don't know what you're countering with this.
Yes, thank god Russia doesn't have the worlds largest nuclear stock pile of weapons to threaten the world with and has to steal others countries nuclear power plants to threaten them with a dirty bomb. On their border. Less than 100km away from the nearest Russian city.
It does make sense because they will claim that the Ukrainians did it, which they’ve already started to lay the groundwork for.
Also, nuclear plants can be a target for plenty of states or groups that don’t have nuclear weapons like terrorists.
Also, nuclear plants can be a target for plenty of states or groups that don’t have nuclear weapons like terrorists.
There comes a point where you should turn off the television and turn on your brain.
I don’t even know what this means. Are you saying that we should expect propaganda to not work despite it working since the beginning of recorded history? If so, that is really dumb.
On your first point: And this would be believed by whom? Just as everyone credible firmly takes seriously Russia's claims that it attacked Ukraine to rid the smaller country of a Nazi threat to Russian sovereignty? Give me a break.
As for your second claim: So can hydro plants, causing enormous destruction. So? Secure the vulnerable asset, create defensive and preventative strategies. You don't go through life not building genuinely useful things because somewhere, somehow, somebody might aim to do them harm. The logic is absurd if taken to any other level. For example, I should never buy or build a house because some group of landless lunatics might coalesce and try to take it from me one day. Better to not have my own useful home in the first place then? Absurd.
As for your second claim: So can hydro plants, causing enormous destruction. So? Secure the vulnerable asset, create defensive and preventative strategies. You don't go through life not building genuinely useful things because somewhere, somehow, somebody might aim to do them harm. The logic is absurd if taken to any other level. For example, I should never buy or build a house because some group of landless lunatics might coalesce and try to take it from me one day. Better to not have my own useful home in the first place then? Absurd.
Things did get better globally, even if marginally for most, but at what price. If I take out a loan to live it up for a year, but then have no way of paying it back, because I haven't invested the money into anything substantial did things really got better for me? With the Industrial Revolution, and later the Green Revolution we began accumulating a debt. All the gains we made were borrowed against the future. This is not progress, this is ignorance.
"If I take out a loan to live it up for a year, but then have no way of paying it back, because I haven't invested the money into anything substantial did things really got better for me?"
Yes. Because those you spent it with must have, or you wouldn't have been able to buy anything with it. Therefore you caused things to happen that wouldn't otherwise have happened.
Debt is one of human's greatest inventions. It's what allows us to ensure that the underlying currency - human labour time - isn't wasted because there is no call to use it today.
Instead we have a currency - "here's a pig, owe me one" that causes a surplus to arise. Some people won't be able to fulfil that promise in which case it will, in advanced societies, be cancelled. That's what bankruptcy is for. The assets you used to secure the loan are then transferred to others. However the use of labour time in others to create the capacity to generate a surplus remains somewhere down the induced transaction chain.
Debt is the magic by which money is created on demand. That causes information to be transmitted down the supply chain that causes the capacity to make more to arise.
Which is why those societies that use debt are more advanced than those that chose to outlaw its use. They ended up with fewer days wasted in aggregate and more capacity to produce.
Most people fulfil their promises since it is inherent in human society to do right by others. And quite a lot of people like holding the assets that represent the debt as a status symbol of how well they have done - whether they can actually really call in those promises or not.
Yes. Because those you spent it with must have, or you wouldn't have been able to buy anything with it. Therefore you caused things to happen that wouldn't otherwise have happened.
Debt is one of human's greatest inventions. It's what allows us to ensure that the underlying currency - human labour time - isn't wasted because there is no call to use it today.
Instead we have a currency - "here's a pig, owe me one" that causes a surplus to arise. Some people won't be able to fulfil that promise in which case it will, in advanced societies, be cancelled. That's what bankruptcy is for. The assets you used to secure the loan are then transferred to others. However the use of labour time in others to create the capacity to generate a surplus remains somewhere down the induced transaction chain.
Debt is the magic by which money is created on demand. That causes information to be transmitted down the supply chain that causes the capacity to make more to arise.
Which is why those societies that use debt are more advanced than those that chose to outlaw its use. They ended up with fewer days wasted in aggregate and more capacity to produce.
Most people fulfil their promises since it is inherent in human society to do right by others. And quite a lot of people like holding the assets that represent the debt as a status symbol of how well they have done - whether they can actually really call in those promises or not.
Ecological and resource extractive debt is not magic, they have limits and externalities that most financial systems don't fully account for in their balance sheets.
This is something I have to remind people of all the time - usually I just get blank stares.
Forget the dollars and cents tokens on wealth, they can and are manipulated but intentionally and unintentionally. How much energy and resources that gets us do we have? That is the real currency we have to work with.
All the debt in the world means nothing if we cannot produce the goods with the token we produced assuming the resources would be there.
Forget the dollars and cents tokens on wealth, they can and are manipulated but intentionally and unintentionally. How much energy and resources that gets us do we have? That is the real currency we have to work with.
All the debt in the world means nothing if we cannot produce the goods with the token we produced assuming the resources would be there.
If I have a debt of £50 and you have the corresponding £50 asset that you like to look at, then you don't need any material amount of energy to get to that state of happiness.
I have to remind people all the time of a simple truth - there isn't a one to one relationship between money and stuff.
And money isn't real. It's largely an illusion. At best a social relation.
I have to remind people all the time of a simple truth - there isn't a one to one relationship between money and stuff.
And money isn't real. It's largely an illusion. At best a social relation.
If I mortgage the singular life supporting planet we are aware of and don't pay back the debt...
Then whoever gave you the debt will be bankrupt, and whoever you paid the debt to will be rich.
Money doesn't stop at its first use. And debt is nothing more than allowing you to spend the real thing without selling it first.
Money doesn't stop at its first use. And debt is nothing more than allowing you to spend the real thing without selling it first.
> How much energy and resources that gets us do we have?
Millions of years worth..... Like really of course you get blank stares it's not an issue that exists.
Millions of years worth..... Like really of course you get blank stares it's not an issue that exists.
Millions of years of what? We have maybe a few hundred years of helium if we’re generous with our assumptions and we’re literally squirting that into balloons and letting it float away into the atmosphere and off into space. It’s literally an unrecoverable loss.
This is just one of the many resource limits we’re facing as a species, and this is how we address it today.
This is just one of the many resource limits we’re facing as a species, and this is how we address it today.
Since you brought helium into discussion, why do we fill party balloons with helium?
Just how great is the risc of filling them with hidrogen? I know it's flamable and leaks through many materials. But in the context of party balloons just how great is that risc? The quantity is very small. And no ones life depends on it. And in the case of fire, that quantity would burn almost instantly. I doubt it would even have the time to ignite anything other than another flamable gas.
Just how great is the risc of filling them with hidrogen? I know it's flamable and leaks through many materials. But in the context of party balloons just how great is that risc? The quantity is very small. And no ones life depends on it. And in the case of fire, that quantity would burn almost instantly. I doubt it would even have the time to ignite anything other than another flamable gas.
Has anyone actually seriously worked out how much party balloons contribute to the loss of helium from the atmosphere?
And isn't helium an expected waste product from fusion reactors?
Not saying it's not an issue but I'm not convinced it's worth getting too upset over just yet.
https://www.helium-one.com/helium-market/
Apparently 8%. But all of these industries waste it unnecessarily, due to our failing to price in or consider the future scarcity.
Helium as a waste product of fusion reactors is such a pipe dream, and will produce such tiny volumes should that ever happen, that it is not a remotely realistic solution to the problem.
Apparently 8%. But all of these industries waste it unnecessarily, due to our failing to price in or consider the future scarcity.
Helium as a waste product of fusion reactors is such a pipe dream, and will produce such tiny volumes should that ever happen, that it is not a remotely realistic solution to the problem.
Out of curiosity I put the numbers into Wolfram Alpha, and it suggests that even if 100% of our current power (all power not just electricity) needs came from fusing deuterium and tritium into helium, those reactors would make only about 5.3% of our current helium consumption.
That's all "lifting balloons" - I'd think the majority of which would be for weather balloons etc.?
You're probably right about He from fusion reactors but if we have 100s of years to solve it who knows.
Who knows is exactly the problem. Hand waving this away for future generations to deal with is exactly the problem. If we can’t imagine how we’ll solve it, we should probably strive not to create the mess.
But we do know that plenty of other current human activities, primarily around extracting stuff from deep underground and pumping it into the atmosphere, are going to cause huge issues for even just our kid's generation, with no realistic technology likely to be developed quickly enough to solve it(*). If we hypothetically needed to use up the earth's remaining helium to fix that I'd support doing so. Running out of helium isn't expected to introduce a risk of making the planet largely uninhabitable, as far as I'm aware.
(*) I'm more or less convinced that such a miracle technology is the only hope we have of avoiding catastrophic change. I'm baffled why there's not massively more funding into researching potential geoengineering solutions, given the stakes. Even fossil fuel companies would benefit!
(*) I'm more or less convinced that such a miracle technology is the only hope we have of avoiding catastrophic change. I'm baffled why there's not massively more funding into researching potential geoengineering solutions, given the stakes. Even fossil fuel companies would benefit!
What do you have in mind as a "millions of years" power source?
At current rates, fossil fuels will last a few centuries, nuclear a few millennia.
Although geothermal would last for geological timescales, the estimated maximum output only covers current electricity use (~2 TW, well short of the ~17 TW total power use, and ideally we'd increase the minimum power use per person to get closer to European or American levels rather than keeping our current distribution).
The kinetic rotational energy of the earth would last us 400 million years.
Sun will last a few billion, but then we're no longer talking about extractive technologies.
At current rates, fossil fuels will last a few centuries, nuclear a few millennia.
Although geothermal would last for geological timescales, the estimated maximum output only covers current electricity use (~2 TW, well short of the ~17 TW total power use, and ideally we'd increase the minimum power use per person to get closer to European or American levels rather than keeping our current distribution).
The kinetic rotational energy of the earth would last us 400 million years.
Sun will last a few billion, but then we're no longer talking about extractive technologies.
While there is a vast amount of resources below us, the CO2 above us that's causing us so much trouble would form a layer of just 3.8mm (0.15 inch) of dry ice if it was all deposited on Earth's surface as a solid.
I'm not sure I follow your argument. I agree that debt is important for society to function however taking on debt that you don't invest into yourself is literally ruinous and not in a hypothetical way - tons of people's lives have been destroyed by getting into too much debt that they weren't able to pay back.
> Yes. Because those you spent it with must have, or you wouldn't have been able to buy anything with it
This just means that the people that you paid have better lives but you haven't explained how things are better are better for yourself unless you have some way of paying that debt back.
> Yes. Because those you spent it with must have, or you wouldn't have been able to buy anything with it
This just means that the people that you paid have better lives but you haven't explained how things are better are better for yourself unless you have some way of paying that debt back.
You must have a way of paying the debt back, or you wouldn't have been able to obtain the resource you did on a promise.
The people doing the deal with you accepted your promise to repay. They don't do that for the fun of it.
Debt is just a way of spending things without selling them first. You can either borrow against your car to spend it, or you can sell the car to spend it.
Either way if you consume rather than buying another car, then you end up with no car.
The people doing the deal with you accepted your promise to repay. They don't do that for the fun of it.
Debt is just a way of spending things without selling them first. You can either borrow against your car to spend it, or you can sell the car to spend it.
Either way if you consume rather than buying another car, then you end up with no car.
The financial crash would like to have a word with you.
Many people gave 'resources' to people who couldn't afford the debt, because with many layers of obfuscation, and perverse incentives for mortgage providers, they made it look like many more people could afford it than actually could.
Further...payday loans...loan sharks...people get money for things they can't afford, and can't realistically pay back, all the time.
Many people gave 'resources' to people who couldn't afford the debt, because with many layers of obfuscation, and perverse incentives for mortgage providers, they made it look like many more people could afford it than actually could.
Further...payday loans...loan sharks...people get money for things they can't afford, and can't realistically pay back, all the time.
And bankruptcy sorts all that out. That's why we have it as the reset mechanism.
Capitalism without the threat of bankruptcy is like Catholicism without the threat of hellfire.
Capitalism without the threat of bankruptcy is like Catholicism without the threat of hellfire.
Whether bankruptcy is necessary to capitalism is irrelevant to your point
> You must have a way of paying the debt back, or you wouldn't have been able to obtain the resource you did on a promise.
I am stating that some people _don't_ have a way of paying the debt back, and yet they have been loaned to, incurring debt, and thus ruined (as the parent you were originally replying to suggests)
> You must have a way of paying the debt back, or you wouldn't have been able to obtain the resource you did on a promise.
I am stating that some people _don't_ have a way of paying the debt back, and yet they have been loaned to, incurring debt, and thus ruined (as the parent you were originally replying to suggests)
It sounds like you are saying, "Don't worry, if we can't manage to pay back the loans we have taken against the planet's nonrenewable or slowly-renewing resources, we can just declare bankruptcy and start over", which is not as reassuring as you seem to imagine.
Bankruptcy works on a small scale, as an act of grace, because the bankrupt party can bootstrap themselves back into productivity using the functional economy around them.
When too many people go bankrupt at once, the economy crashes.
When the whole planet runs out of ecological credit, and we all go bankrupt at once, where are we going to find another civilization to bootstrap from?
All the easy energy is gone, forever. There will never be another coal- or oil-driven industrial revolution on planet Earth. If we reach bankruptcy on the scale of a planetary ecosystem, it will most likely be permanent, as far as Homo sapiens is concerned.
Bankruptcy works on a small scale, as an act of grace, because the bankrupt party can bootstrap themselves back into productivity using the functional economy around them.
When too many people go bankrupt at once, the economy crashes.
When the whole planet runs out of ecological credit, and we all go bankrupt at once, where are we going to find another civilization to bootstrap from?
All the easy energy is gone, forever. There will never be another coal- or oil-driven industrial revolution on planet Earth. If we reach bankruptcy on the scale of a planetary ecosystem, it will most likely be permanent, as far as Homo sapiens is concerned.
> You must have a way of paying the debt back, or you wouldn't have been able to obtain the resource you did on a promise
This simply isn't true. On small scales, people lose their businesses and families declare bankruptcy. That's why I said this isn't a hypothetical. And on a large scale it causes financial collapses if many people go bankrupt at once.
This simply isn't true. On small scales, people lose their businesses and families declare bankruptcy. That's why I said this isn't a hypothetical. And on a large scale it causes financial collapses if many people go bankrupt at once.
It simply is true. But under capitalism plans don't always work out. That's how it is supposed to work. Things are tried and some fail. That way is progress and productivity.
We have system autostabilisers that rebalance the ship when the private sector has a blow up.
Bankruptcy is the reset mechanism. It's a mechanism that actually works, unlike the debtors' prisons we had previously.
We have system autostabilisers that rebalance the ship when the private sector has a blow up.
Bankruptcy is the reset mechanism. It's a mechanism that actually works, unlike the debtors' prisons we had previously.
The economy gets better for more people in more places than ever before. Environmental destruction is also progressing faster than ever before. Many crucial ecosystems are on the brink of collapse (e.g. the rainforests) and we show no signs of intending to protect them.
Media doesn't report good things that happen in the environment. From 2013-2019, they hammered constantly on how the Great Barrier Reef was dying. But, not a peep when they found that it is healthiest its ever been in recent history: https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/parts-australia...
No wonder the trust in media has fallen to the lowest. Reuters/AP are informative as a root source, but I have stopped trusting environmentalist doom-and-gloom stories from MSM.
Environment is going to get far worse though. Germany is busy burning the shittiest form of coal as its primary fuel (35%): Lignite coal with 1/5th water content. It is the worse than burning literally anything: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany
Again, thanks to the utterly idiotic emotionally-driven environmentalists that are going to make the planet worse ironically. We need to stop giving them fodder and look to the tech/engineering community for solutions.
No wonder the trust in media has fallen to the lowest. Reuters/AP are informative as a root source, but I have stopped trusting environmentalist doom-and-gloom stories from MSM.
Environment is going to get far worse though. Germany is busy burning the shittiest form of coal as its primary fuel (35%): Lignite coal with 1/5th water content. It is the worse than burning literally anything: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany
Again, thanks to the utterly idiotic emotionally-driven environmentalists that are going to make the planet worse ironically. We need to stop giving them fodder and look to the tech/engineering community for solutions.
Regarding the Great Barrier Reef, it's not as simple as you're saying:
https://theconversation.com/record-coral-cover-doesnt-necess...
Maybe, why is this source trustworthy, I have no idea. There are probably many examples of improvement in the environment that goes unreported.
I used to trust climate science. That trust is being eroded for me. Just the other day, someone reported that kids are gaining weight due to climate change. The reason? They can’t go out and play when it’s 2 deg C hotter. Come on.
I despise climate catastrophization by the media.
I used to trust climate science. That trust is being eroded for me. Just the other day, someone reported that kids are gaining weight due to climate change. The reason? They can’t go out and play when it’s 2 deg C hotter. Come on.
I despise climate catastrophization by the media.
Media reporting on climate change is often dramatically wrong, whether it takes the slant of “everything is terrible” or “things are actually great”.
Go read how the IPCC reports are authored, you’ll hopefully develop some faith about the accuracy of what is in them. Then go read the summaries for policy makers to get an idea of what they say. You’ll see that most of what both sides are saying is in there is not what is in there.
Go read how the IPCC reports are authored, you’ll hopefully develop some faith about the accuracy of what is in them. Then go read the summaries for policy makers to get an idea of what they say. You’ll see that most of what both sides are saying is in there is not what is in there.
I'm active in my community advocating for greater transit and modeshare and our transit advocacy network is much better at trumpeting good news than the MSM and many Twitter doomers for a simple reason: nobody will give us more funding until we tell them how $X was spent on initiative Y which led to great outcome Z. It's our job to tell everyone how this little bike lane in this neighborhood decreased car trips and increased safety. The MSM faces no existential risk when it trumpets bad news all day, but we have to convince our neighbors that the money they're spending or the traffic blockage they're facing as new infrastructure is built is worthwhile.
As far as I know the barrier reef is already dead because we emitted enough GHG to force sufficiently high water temperatures that the reef can't survive. It's only a matter of a couple of decades before the temperatures catch up with our emissions.
Wouldn’t environmentalists be opposed to coal as well? Or is it simply that they favor it over nuclear power? I’m not particularly well acquainted with German green parties’ policies.
They are. But when they’ve cornered themselves into freezing this winter, lignite coal it is.
Not sure I follow, even if coal were used for heating in Germany. Would the country be in a better environmental situation overall without the activists? I don’t doubt there’s some level of energy hypocrisy currently going on in Europe, but I don’t see how environmentalists have exacerbated the current crisis. Are you referring to their opposition to nuclear energy?
Yea because if it weren't for these people, Germany would have invested in Nuclear or secure better natural gas than from Russia (Algeria?). Nord Stream 1 was hastily negotiated with the devil. Devil then invaded Crimea to secure the oil fields. Then 8 years later, they did it again with Nord Stream 2! The devil used it as a leverage to take big chunks of Ukraine. Trump warned them (as much as I loathe the guy, he was right, unsophisticatedly but eerily accurate): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O24rulfjA8U
Environmentalists also invested in Solar energy in Germany. It has to be the dumbest idea ever, solar power in Germany is like 10% as efficient as Western USA. It is one of the worst places in Europe to stick solar panels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany
In general, Environmentalists do not understand the difference between gardening and farming. It's the Greta crowd that's going to lead this world towards mass starvation of humans. They have no solutions, only blind clueless activism.
Environmentalists also invested in Solar energy in Germany. It has to be the dumbest idea ever, solar power in Germany is like 10% as efficient as Western USA. It is one of the worst places in Europe to stick solar panels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany
In general, Environmentalists do not understand the difference between gardening and farming. It's the Greta crowd that's going to lead this world towards mass starvation of humans. They have no solutions, only blind clueless activism.
> The devil used it as a leverage to take big chunks of Ukraine
Tried, but then they got back-up in the form of European and US weapon shipments that are trouncing the Russian's poorly trained forces and equipment - or, that's what the diverse media in my neck of the wood is saying. Russia doesn't seem to be winning or gaining though.
Trump is siding with the Russians and rejected military / financial aid to the Ukraine because they refused to find dirt on Biden or whatever it was about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Ukraine_scandal
Tried, but then they got back-up in the form of European and US weapon shipments that are trouncing the Russian's poorly trained forces and equipment - or, that's what the diverse media in my neck of the wood is saying. Russia doesn't seem to be winning or gaining though.
Trump is siding with the Russians and rejected military / financial aid to the Ukraine because they refused to find dirt on Biden or whatever it was about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Ukraine_scandal
Homes are not heated with nuclear power or lignite, they are heated with gas.
Gas is at risk of cut off this winter. Electric heating will be the primary source if that happens.
> In late June, after Russia reduced supplies by 60%, Berlin triggered the second stage of its national gas emergency plan — one step away from gas rationing.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2022/07/18/a...
> In late June, after Russia reduced supplies by 60%, Berlin triggered the second stage of its national gas emergency plan — one step away from gas rationing.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2022/07/18/a...
Electrical heating is impossible. There is neither sufficient generation, nor sufficient grid capacity, so matter how many of the nuclear plants we had we keep running. Even in a mostly-nuclear grid like France's you just don't have the spare capacity lying around to replace fossil fuels for heating in a year.
Heating homes with conventional electric heatpumps is a pipe dream but underground heat pumps which are getting more common can be really efficient no?
Decade+ time scales don’t mean a whole lot. It’s far too short a time.
it's only gotten better if you look at food access, but food access != happiness; depression is rampant because we are being forced to live against our nature. I assure you, I hate being alive in the current world, even if my stomach is full.
Moreover even that is most likely only temporary, we are living inside a consumerist bubble that will soon burst (growing social unrest, ravaging pollution, probably a major war) leaving a horrible mess behind (we don't know how to endure physical discomfort anymore).
Moreover even that is most likely only temporary, we are living inside a consumerist bubble that will soon burst (growing social unrest, ravaging pollution, probably a major war) leaving a horrible mess behind (we don't know how to endure physical discomfort anymore).
Not entirely true, e.g. deaths from natural disasters have been on a steady decline over many decades despite such disasters becoming more common and more destructive. In general our ability to continue improving human life expectancy has seemingly defied the odds - even in 2022 despite covid and everything else, average life expectancy is expected to improve on 2021 in most countries (including the good ol' U S of A).
It does feel a bit like quantity over quality though.
People who choose what they believe have an entirely different understanding of the concept of belief than I do. Belief is something that is inflicted upon me by my environment, not something I choose based on the lifestyle I want or the people I want to associate with. Consumer belief?
If I could choose my beliefs, I would choose to believe in an almost completely different set of things. All of my beliefs would be self-serving, I'd be really happy about how everything was going every day.
The reason I can't do this is because it would be really damaging to the people around me, and to society. I can't choose to ignore that.
If I could choose my beliefs, I would choose to believe in an almost completely different set of things. All of my beliefs would be self-serving, I'd be really happy about how everything was going every day.
The reason I can't do this is because it would be really damaging to the people around me, and to society. I can't choose to ignore that.
While I appreciate your perspective, the construct you described allows one to invalidate others' beliefs as being "wrong" because they don't adhere to the same reference point as yourself.
> All of my beliefs would be self-serving
This is not a true statement.
Why cannot one choose what one feels to be the most appropriate construct after careful inspection and introspection?
> All of my beliefs would be self-serving
This is not a true statement.
Why cannot one choose what one feels to be the most appropriate construct after careful inspection and introspection?
the construct you described allows one to invalidate others' beliefs as being "wrong" because they don't adhere to the same reference point as yourself
Belief based in empirical evidence is at least bound to that evidence.
Belief unmoored from empiricism --- blind faith or revelation --- suffers no such limits. Your criticism would apply all the more so to same, with the further failing that others' beliefs are "wrong" because they ... are simply revealed or adopted faiths. Which is frequently observed.
If my evidence-based belief differs from your evidence-based belief, then we can compare evidence. Evidence does not have to be directly experienced (though for various reasons of psychological evolution we tend often to more highly weight that which is); we can also rely on evidence presented by other trustworthy witnesses. There are numerous social institutions dedicated to precisely this (science, courts, journalism, politics, ...)
Belief based in empirical evidence is at least bound to that evidence.
Belief unmoored from empiricism --- blind faith or revelation --- suffers no such limits. Your criticism would apply all the more so to same, with the further failing that others' beliefs are "wrong" because they ... are simply revealed or adopted faiths. Which is frequently observed.
If my evidence-based belief differs from your evidence-based belief, then we can compare evidence. Evidence does not have to be directly experienced (though for various reasons of psychological evolution we tend often to more highly weight that which is); we can also rely on evidence presented by other trustworthy witnesses. There are numerous social institutions dedicated to precisely this (science, courts, journalism, politics, ...)
The factory owner and the factory worker can look at the same set of data and arrive at completely different world views.
The Empire Did Nothing Wrong™
Was Lucifer actually incorrect in his position in the Garden of Eden?
I'm pointing out how completely different and valid perspectives can be derived from the same set of data, the same circumstance.
The problem arises when one claims their perspective was "inflicted" upon them by some uncompromising, external agent, which implies there is no choice in the matter, which is absurd because there most certainly is.
I don't think you're wrong, by the way, I just see things a little differently.
The Empire Did Nothing Wrong™
Was Lucifer actually incorrect in his position in the Garden of Eden?
I'm pointing out how completely different and valid perspectives can be derived from the same set of data, the same circumstance.
The problem arises when one claims their perspective was "inflicted" upon them by some uncompromising, external agent, which implies there is no choice in the matter, which is absurd because there most certainly is.
I don't think you're wrong, by the way, I just see things a little differently.
The factory owner and the factory worker can look at the same set of data and arrive at completely different world views.
My comment allows for that. Many-sidedness, a/k/a Anekantavada (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekantavada).
But many sidedness is not the any sideness which revealed or blind-faith belief permits. Experiential understanding is bound to and by that experience. Further, the cases you're referring to largely discuss social relational worldviews which are informed by status, standing, and affiliation within a society or culture. There are of course non-social instances of multiple interpretations, such as wave-particle duality, in which how one looks at a phenomenon influences the model arrived. at.
Factory owner and worker at least have beleif and understanding grounded in experience, and might be convinced of or sympathetic to the validity of views generated by the alternate experience. Your "which implies there is no choice" is reading meaning to my comment I did not intend and disagree with strongly.
The fact that people see things differently, that is, arrive at different conclusions based on different empirical evidence or experience is in fact my point.
My comment allows for that. Many-sidedness, a/k/a Anekantavada (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekantavada).
But many sidedness is not the any sideness which revealed or blind-faith belief permits. Experiential understanding is bound to and by that experience. Further, the cases you're referring to largely discuss social relational worldviews which are informed by status, standing, and affiliation within a society or culture. There are of course non-social instances of multiple interpretations, such as wave-particle duality, in which how one looks at a phenomenon influences the model arrived. at.
Factory owner and worker at least have beleif and understanding grounded in experience, and might be convinced of or sympathetic to the validity of views generated by the alternate experience. Your "which implies there is no choice" is reading meaning to my comment I did not intend and disagree with strongly.
The fact that people see things differently, that is, arrive at different conclusions based on different empirical evidence or experience is in fact my point.
Understood. I reread everything three+ times and understand now. I am in the middle of a huge deployment and was rushed this morning.
> others' beliefs are "wrong" because they are simply adopted
But are they... wrong?
I certainly don't operate as you described, but I see plenty who do. I also choose not to judge their "wrongs".
> others' beliefs are "wrong" because they are simply adopted
But are they... wrong?
I certainly don't operate as you described, but I see plenty who do. I also choose not to judge their "wrongs".
It might be more ... useful to think of models, understanding, and/or knowledge (largely interchangeable terms) as having use value rather than truth value.
That is, good models are useful, in some way.
Usefulness, like value, is itself relative and depends on intent, goals, and starting positions.
That said, there are models with greater or usefulness over a wide range of circumstances. Holding to a model which is demonstrably inferior in this regard might well be considered "wrong", in this sense.
That is, good models are useful, in some way.
Usefulness, like value, is itself relative and depends on intent, goals, and starting positions.
That said, there are models with greater or usefulness over a wide range of circumstances. Holding to a model which is demonstrably inferior in this regard might well be considered "wrong", in this sense.
Absolutely. This is exactly what I do, actually. I argue from the perspective of many models at once, assign weights and priorities and then arrive at some conclusion with an estimated probability of effectiveness or usefulness depending on use case. Truth simply is and is also unknowable at the same time.
Personally, I would only make one modification here for my own purposes:
> Holding to a model which is demonstrably inferior in this regard might well be considered "wrong" to me.
I know what is right and wrong for me and to me, but stop short of extending that judgement outside my person. That's just me though.
Personally, I would only make one modification here for my own purposes:
> Holding to a model which is demonstrably inferior in this regard might well be considered "wrong" to me.
I know what is right and wrong for me and to me, but stop short of extending that judgement outside my person. That's just me though.
Once you realize you know way less about everything than you thought you did, and much of what is “known” is future conjectures with many parts, you realize you can select the optimistic view.
I'm not sure I follow. I agree with what GP wrote. Their second paragraph is written in the first person. It's not a claim that everyone would do the self-serving thing. I would do the same as GP. I'd choose a set of beliefs that help me sleep at night and that make me a hoot at dinner parties instead of a Debbie Downer. I can't simply choose to do that, because those beliefs come from my experience with and observations of the world along with my deeply-held values.
> I can't simply choose to do that, because...
To delve a little deeper, this statement shows that it's still a _choice_, even though the choice is apparently a refutation of choice, which is interesting. Asserting that this construct simply _is_, where choice isn't there or doesn't exist, doesn't pass the smell test.
The fact that one may choose to live a life only for oneself were one left to one's own devices is simply commentary about that individual. But again, one may choose not to do that.
To delve a little deeper, this statement shows that it's still a _choice_, even though the choice is apparently a refutation of choice, which is interesting. Asserting that this construct simply _is_, where choice isn't there or doesn't exist, doesn't pass the smell test.
The fact that one may choose to live a life only for oneself were one left to one's own devices is simply commentary about that individual. But again, one may choose not to do that.
> To delve a little deeper, this statement shows that it's still a _choice_, even though the choice is apparently a refutation of choice, which is interesting.
Worldviews and beliefs are answers we come up with to the difficult questions that life asks. If you've done any work to come up with those answers, then your beliefs are built on top of a lot of observations, introspection, and analysis. For me to change my beliefs I would need to discover some kind of mistake I've made in my work or some important piece of information I was missing. How can you casually choose a different belief set unless your original beliefs were not built on anything substantial to start with?
Worldviews and beliefs are answers we come up with to the difficult questions that life asks. If you've done any work to come up with those answers, then your beliefs are built on top of a lot of observations, introspection, and analysis. For me to change my beliefs I would need to discover some kind of mistake I've made in my work or some important piece of information I was missing. How can you casually choose a different belief set unless your original beliefs were not built on anything substantial to start with?
Your perspective is totally valid to me. I'm not going to tell you you're wrong, because you're not. At least not in the "I'm right and you're wrong" way.
I don't casually choose a belief set. I've deliberated this for decades. My beliefs, or more accurately the code that I live by, is just that, my code. I have a choice in the matter, it doesn't come from somewhere else where it's inflicted upon me. I formulated it.
> For me to change my beliefs I would need to discover some kind off mistake I've made in my work....
Not to beat a dead horse, but I think that this again speaks to the fact that it's a choice.
I don't casually choose a belief set. I've deliberated this for decades. My beliefs, or more accurately the code that I live by, is just that, my code. I have a choice in the matter, it doesn't come from somewhere else where it's inflicted upon me. I formulated it.
> For me to change my beliefs I would need to discover some kind off mistake I've made in my work....
Not to beat a dead horse, but I think that this again speaks to the fact that it's a choice.
> Not to beat a dead horse, but I think that this again speaks to the fact that it's a choice.
Your choice here is to live by a code, and more specifically the code you formulated. That's exercising control over your actions, which I don't dispute is a choice.
But why do you follow that code? Do you feel that that code is good for society? Good for your family? Good for you personally? The answers to those questions are your beliefs. Absent some kind of new insight, could you flip a switch and choose to believe that that code is deeply harmful?
And if you do encounter that invalidates those beliefs and makes it obvious that they are wrong - can you still hold them? Definitionally I would say once you know that they're false they are no longer your beliefs.
Suppose I believe that humanity is facing incredible social, economic, technological, and environmental threats and yet our governments and societies cannot even agree that these are threats and when they do their reactions are half-hearted; that I believe the economic system we in has provided lots of powerful people and lots of ordinary people with a vested interest in protecting the most destructive parts of our status quo; and that I think most of these problems are incredibly time sensitive and if we can't address them in the next half-century then we will see cascading failures in the environment and human civilization that cause incredible amounts of death and hardship.
This all sounds very bleak, so you have to imagine that seeing peoples' comments about how pessimism is bad for your mental state, how we should be optimistic about the future because theoretically all our problems are solvable, and how we've solved problems in the past so we'll definitely solve these ones too just bounces off of that. It often feels like people are talking around the major structural problems that are not on trajectory to being solved by focusing on little bits of tech that seem like maybe they'd help in a way or extrapolating lines out from the last that can't obviously be extrapolated.
Your choice here is to live by a code, and more specifically the code you formulated. That's exercising control over your actions, which I don't dispute is a choice.
But why do you follow that code? Do you feel that that code is good for society? Good for your family? Good for you personally? The answers to those questions are your beliefs. Absent some kind of new insight, could you flip a switch and choose to believe that that code is deeply harmful?
And if you do encounter that invalidates those beliefs and makes it obvious that they are wrong - can you still hold them? Definitionally I would say once you know that they're false they are no longer your beliefs.
Suppose I believe that humanity is facing incredible social, economic, technological, and environmental threats and yet our governments and societies cannot even agree that these are threats and when they do their reactions are half-hearted; that I believe the economic system we in has provided lots of powerful people and lots of ordinary people with a vested interest in protecting the most destructive parts of our status quo; and that I think most of these problems are incredibly time sensitive and if we can't address them in the next half-century then we will see cascading failures in the environment and human civilization that cause incredible amounts of death and hardship.
This all sounds very bleak, so you have to imagine that seeing peoples' comments about how pessimism is bad for your mental state, how we should be optimistic about the future because theoretically all our problems are solvable, and how we've solved problems in the past so we'll definitely solve these ones too just bounces off of that. It often feels like people are talking around the major structural problems that are not on trajectory to being solved by focusing on little bits of tech that seem like maybe they'd help in a way or extrapolating lines out from the last that can't obviously be extrapolated.
> The answers to those questions are your beliefs. Absent some kind of new insight, could you flip a switch and choose to believe that that code is deeply harmful?
These beliefs, from your example, are something I arrived at through reason. They are always subject to change.
I could just as easily have devised a moral construct which allowed me to adopt maximal behaviors for accumulating money and wealth, for instance. However, I did not choose that path, in the end. I very easily could have, however. And that was purely my choice.
I do share your concerns, your beliefs, as you described them. There are many, many different perspectives at play there, which is one reason why it is such a difficult problem to solve, from a grand-scheme-of-things perspective. We are only human, after all.
These beliefs, from your example, are something I arrived at through reason. They are always subject to change.
I could just as easily have devised a moral construct which allowed me to adopt maximal behaviors for accumulating money and wealth, for instance. However, I did not choose that path, in the end. I very easily could have, however. And that was purely my choice.
I do share your concerns, your beliefs, as you described them. There are many, many different perspectives at play there, which is one reason why it is such a difficult problem to solve, from a grand-scheme-of-things perspective. We are only human, after all.
> I could just as easily have devised a moral construct which allowed me to adopt maximal behaviors for accumulating money and wealth, for instance. However, I did not choose that path, in the end. I very easily could have, however. And that was purely my choice.
You don't choose your beliefs. You choose your actions. You don't choose to believe generosity is good; you choose to follow a code of generosity. Conversely you don't choose to believe that your own interests and self-preservation are paramount; you choose to follow a code that reflects that belief. It is not a could-have-gone-either-way single choice you make in a single moment. If you try to follow a code that is deeply discordant with your actual beliefs you will struggle with it forever. Which is why "choose optimism", which seems to be the dominant opinion in TFA and this thread, is such garbage advice. Frankly I think a much better avenue of advice to give is telling people who are deeply afraid about the future of the world how to productively cope with it instead of telling them to pantomime a belief that everything's gonna turn out swell.
In my life I've made the conscious choice not to worry too much about the existential problems that I believe will utterly destroy civilization as we know it. I did this because I need to function in society - make friends, pay the bills, marry the husband, buy the house and so on. But this is not optimism; it's not even productive pessimism; it's a selfish decision to ignore the bleak future and focus on living my own happy life and insulating myself from the worst of what's to come.
You don't choose your beliefs. You choose your actions. You don't choose to believe generosity is good; you choose to follow a code of generosity. Conversely you don't choose to believe that your own interests and self-preservation are paramount; you choose to follow a code that reflects that belief. It is not a could-have-gone-either-way single choice you make in a single moment. If you try to follow a code that is deeply discordant with your actual beliefs you will struggle with it forever. Which is why "choose optimism", which seems to be the dominant opinion in TFA and this thread, is such garbage advice. Frankly I think a much better avenue of advice to give is telling people who are deeply afraid about the future of the world how to productively cope with it instead of telling them to pantomime a belief that everything's gonna turn out swell.
In my life I've made the conscious choice not to worry too much about the existential problems that I believe will utterly destroy civilization as we know it. I did this because I need to function in society - make friends, pay the bills, marry the husband, buy the house and so on. But this is not optimism; it's not even productive pessimism; it's a selfish decision to ignore the bleak future and focus on living my own happy life and insulating myself from the worst of what's to come.
> You don't choose your beliefs.
That's a completely unsupported statement presented as fact; therefore I'll dismiss it with just as much effort.
That's a completely unsupported statement presented as fact; therefore I'll dismiss it with just as much effort.
I've actually spent quite a bit of writing in this thread explaining why I'm convinced of this.
[deleted]
"There is always too much information; the problem is knowing what to believe." - Quote from a spy novel I read a long time ago; I may have butchered the quote a bit.
Anyway, the point is, there is data out there that leads to pessimism. Absolutely. There's plenty of it. There is grounds for pessimism.
But there is also data that leads to optimism. There's plenty of it, too. So you choose your belief by choosing which set of data to pay more attention to. (Except it's not that simple. You're choosing which set of data you think is more credible, or more relevant, or more important, or reflects a more accurate picture of the situation. But there still is an element of choice - you choose which data set to pay more attention to, and that data set usually winds up being the one you consider more valid.)
Anyway, the point is, there is data out there that leads to pessimism. Absolutely. There's plenty of it. There is grounds for pessimism.
But there is also data that leads to optimism. There's plenty of it, too. So you choose your belief by choosing which set of data to pay more attention to. (Except it's not that simple. You're choosing which set of data you think is more credible, or more relevant, or more important, or reflects a more accurate picture of the situation. But there still is an element of choice - you choose which data set to pay more attention to, and that data set usually winds up being the one you consider more valid.)
I've always been an optimistic person and consider myself to be very happy. People around me who are more pessimistic often seem unhappy.
I see no value in beating myself down on things that I cannot control. The world around me is beautiful. I just have to make the best of it day by day.
Facing hardships is a natural part of life.
I see no value in beating myself down on things that I cannot control. The world around me is beautiful. I just have to make the best of it day by day.
Facing hardships is a natural part of life.
I believe many of us who worry about the sustainability of our current society is not really worried about facing hardship, but rather about causing hardship (for future generations). At least that’s true for me. I want to leave this world in the best possible condition for my kids, and cause them as little hardship as possible.
However, I’m also trying to not beat myself down over things I cannot control.
However, I’m also trying to not beat myself down over things I cannot control.
I’m optimistic too, not always though. Atleast I know the source on my unhappiness. I just dislike working in a team. I’ve taken a few years off between jobs and those have been the happiest years of my life. I have plenty of hobbies and don’t really get bored anymore. Too bad that’s the one thing in our society you can’t not do.
I think it's like a defense mechanism; it's better to have a constant sense of mild unhappiness than to pretend everything is fine. Because I can see how a lot of people see the subject of this post as a "just think happy thoughts!" kind of advice.
> For most of history, people thought: “The world is bad and, usually, it’s getting worse.” In other words, no longer did humans see themselves as mere pawns for the gods.
What? Citation needed.
A negative view of individual sin is certainly part of the Christian worldview, but gods are not, nor is an overall negative outlook. The whole point is that God loves his people enough to save them, the Church will expand, and Christ will return in glory.
If the author is describing paganism ("pawns for the gods") I'm curious to know which of those had an overall negative view with such widespread influence that those religions could describe people generally. Certainly the Greeks and the Romans thought very highly of themselves and believed that the gods were with them, hence they flourished.
This seems more like an atheist talking point than anything grounded in history.
What? Citation needed.
A negative view of individual sin is certainly part of the Christian worldview, but gods are not, nor is an overall negative outlook. The whole point is that God loves his people enough to save them, the Church will expand, and Christ will return in glory.
If the author is describing paganism ("pawns for the gods") I'm curious to know which of those had an overall negative view with such widespread influence that those religions could describe people generally. Certainly the Greeks and the Romans thought very highly of themselves and believed that the gods were with them, hence they flourished.
This seems more like an atheist talking point than anything grounded in history.
> The whole point is that God loves his people enough to save them, the Church will expand, and Christ will return in glory.
ish. It also promises that not even death is an escape, but that God will raise all the dead and judge an enormous majority to be literally thrown into a valley of fire.
Reading the Bible I see more of a threat, than a promise.
ish. It also promises that not even death is an escape, but that God will raise all the dead and judge an enormous majority to be literally thrown into a valley of fire.
Reading the Bible I see more of a threat, than a promise.
But just as sin entered the world through one man, it was defeated through one man as well, Jesus Christ. There is no condemnation for anyone who believes in Jesus. So being saved from hell is quite simple, which is why it's called "the good news" or the gospel. And that's God's plan for humanity, and he's begging you to simply seek this man named Jesus.
God's wisdom is made that much more powerful in what some might call foolishness, just as he prescribed circumcision to the Jews. Abraham was required to put off his pride and simply believe God, that circumcision was a commandment from God for the Jews, and this faith in God is what saves. You don't think Abraham received a lot of judgement for prescribing circumcision?
Just as Christians receive judgement for prescribing the new circumcision, which is the circumcision of the heart to believe in Jesus Christ. It requires people to put off their pride, realize their very nature offends God (because he is perfect so anything less than perfect is an offense to him) and repent of their unbelief in the only begotten son of God, who knew our same struggles here on Earth and was killed without reason so that we could live. This belief covers our heads from wrath, because now when God looks at us he sees Christ.
So it's called the good news because it is. We can defeat death and enter into an unimaginable state of perfection. What I find with people who don't believe is that they're blinded by what they think Christianity is. So for you I would say you're blinded by the problem of hell. But if God tells us it is real, that is true and you have no say in the matter. Your belief or unbelief doesn't change the truth of the word of God. God is above politics, above human wisdom, and also above the people that claim his name.
I should note that I used to have the same opinion as you! No judgement!
God's wisdom is made that much more powerful in what some might call foolishness, just as he prescribed circumcision to the Jews. Abraham was required to put off his pride and simply believe God, that circumcision was a commandment from God for the Jews, and this faith in God is what saves. You don't think Abraham received a lot of judgement for prescribing circumcision?
Just as Christians receive judgement for prescribing the new circumcision, which is the circumcision of the heart to believe in Jesus Christ. It requires people to put off their pride, realize their very nature offends God (because he is perfect so anything less than perfect is an offense to him) and repent of their unbelief in the only begotten son of God, who knew our same struggles here on Earth and was killed without reason so that we could live. This belief covers our heads from wrath, because now when God looks at us he sees Christ.
So it's called the good news because it is. We can defeat death and enter into an unimaginable state of perfection. What I find with people who don't believe is that they're blinded by what they think Christianity is. So for you I would say you're blinded by the problem of hell. But if God tells us it is real, that is true and you have no say in the matter. Your belief or unbelief doesn't change the truth of the word of God. God is above politics, above human wisdom, and also above the people that claim his name.
I should note that I used to have the same opinion as you! No judgement!
Christianity falls apart if there is no fear or belief in repercussions after death.
Why not just be a decent person without being threatened? It's how the majority of people in the world do things.
Why not just be a decent person without being threatened? It's how the majority of people in the world do things.
You misunderstand Christianity in the way most people do.
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." - Ephesians 2:9
"know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified." - Galatians 2:16
So Christianity is simply placing your faith in Jesus Christ. If you believe that God forgave your sins at the behest of Christ, and that you will enter an eternal kingdom also as a son of God, wouldn't you eventually be more liable to forgive and love others?
So being good is a side-effect, not the point, of Christianity. God will not let me enter heaven because of how good I am, and if that was the measure none of us would make it. The point of Christianity is to know God and have faith that through Christ's death on the cross, burial, and resurrection, he can impart the mercy of God onto you. That he quite literally died for every sin everyone had ever committed.
“For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” - 2 Corinthians 5:21
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." - Ephesians 2:9
"know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified." - Galatians 2:16
So Christianity is simply placing your faith in Jesus Christ. If you believe that God forgave your sins at the behest of Christ, and that you will enter an eternal kingdom also as a son of God, wouldn't you eventually be more liable to forgive and love others?
So being good is a side-effect, not the point, of Christianity. God will not let me enter heaven because of how good I am, and if that was the measure none of us would make it. The point of Christianity is to know God and have faith that through Christ's death on the cross, burial, and resurrection, he can impart the mercy of God onto you. That he quite literally died for every sin everyone had ever committed.
“For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” - 2 Corinthians 5:21
> If you believe that God forgave your sins at the behest of Christ, and that you will enter an eternal kingdom also as a son of God, wouldn't you eventually be more liable to forgive and love others?
No. History has been the judge and has left Christianity wanting. You want a faith that truly causes love and care for others? Jainism. "By their fruits you shall know them" Jesus said didn't he? Well the fruits of Christianity are rotten.
No. History has been the judge and has left Christianity wanting. You want a faith that truly causes love and care for others? Jainism. "By their fruits you shall know them" Jesus said didn't he? Well the fruits of Christianity are rotten.
There is no threat, unless you do exactly what I say.
Yea, that's the threat.
> I should note that I used to have the same opinion as you! No judgement!
Common thing to hear. I have never believed anyone has ever gone from a strong atheist who reads the bible and can so obviously see the cruelty and madness, and then suddenly turn around and become a christian apologist? It's just as believable as the bible in the first place.
Yea, that's the threat.
> I should note that I used to have the same opinion as you! No judgement!
Common thing to hear. I have never believed anyone has ever gone from a strong atheist who reads the bible and can so obviously see the cruelty and madness, and then suddenly turn around and become a christian apologist? It's just as believable as the bible in the first place.
>There is no threat, unless you do exactly what I say.
You do your taxes every year so you can avoid jail time. But you won't simply call out to Jesus Christ with a true heart and ask for salvation?
Think about it! That's all it takes!
You do your taxes every year so you can avoid jail time. But you won't simply call out to Jesus Christ with a true heart and ask for salvation?
Think about it! That's all it takes!
I pay my taxes because I'm not an absolute monster, not because I fear jail. You are again confused.
Our Lord and Saviour Donald Trump will save us from the evil tax man though! We just have to believe He won the 2020 election and we will be saved!
(actually this is a thing, some republicans like Ted Cruz (he ate my son) are going on about how the IRS should be abolished: https://twitter.com/SenTedCruz/status/1561360677255643136)
(actually this is a thing, some republicans like Ted Cruz (he ate my son) are going on about how the IRS should be abolished: https://twitter.com/SenTedCruz/status/1561360677255643136)
Btw, if you are honestly trying to sell christianity, don't say stuff like "realize their very nature offends God (because he is perfect so anything less than perfect is an offense to him)" or "the circumcision of the heart" (lol!).
> So for you I would say you're blinded by the problem of hell.
I'm "blinded" by the threat of torture for the majority of humans? I don't think you can be "blinded" by such an atrocity that makes Hitler look like a total wimp. You are LITERALLY claiming that ALL jews that were killed by Hitler will be reincarnated by God and then tortured. And of course all other Jews, past and present. And all atheists, muslims, sheiks, hindus.
And somehow you can't see the problem...
> So for you I would say you're blinded by the problem of hell.
I'm "blinded" by the threat of torture for the majority of humans? I don't think you can be "blinded" by such an atrocity that makes Hitler look like a total wimp. You are LITERALLY claiming that ALL jews that were killed by Hitler will be reincarnated by God and then tortured. And of course all other Jews, past and present. And all atheists, muslims, sheiks, hindus.
And somehow you can't see the problem...
I'll only respond to your first part since solving the problem of hell differs from person to person.
>don't say stuff like "the circumcision of the heart" (lol!).
This is not a term I made, it's biblical. And as my post says I'm aware the entire gospel is foolish to unbelievers, and the Bible and God is aware of that. That's the basic hurdle of accepting the gospel.
"But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men."
1 Corinthians 23-25
"But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;"
1 Corinthians 27
"At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children."
Matthew 11:25
>don't say stuff like "the circumcision of the heart" (lol!).
This is not a term I made, it's biblical. And as my post says I'm aware the entire gospel is foolish to unbelievers, and the Bible and God is aware of that. That's the basic hurdle of accepting the gospel.
"But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men."
1 Corinthians 23-25
"But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;"
1 Corinthians 27
"At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children."
Matthew 11:25
Admitting your stance is lunacy isn't a defense. You should instead ponder why you believe absurdities.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire (ish). This is the most important quote about how to live in the world. It explains Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, but also the mass rape done by the Catholic Church, 9/11, the current climate change crisis, and on and on. It's the Grand Unified Theory of atrocities.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire (ish). This is the most important quote about how to live in the world. It explains Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, but also the mass rape done by the Catholic Church, 9/11, the current climate change crisis, and on and on. It's the Grand Unified Theory of atrocities.
if (the_world_is_evil && the_world_hates_the_word_of_god && the_world_hated_jesus_enough_to_kill_him_despite_him_doing_nothing_wrong ){
console.log("maybe it's something you should look into");
}
So if you care so much about evil you should ask yourself, who was the only person to walk the Earth who had no evil. That would be Jesus. And what did Jesus say? He said he was God, and quoted the old testament that correctly spoke of his coming.
Shouldn't you look into it?
console.log("maybe it's something you should look into");
}
So if you care so much about evil you should ask yourself, who was the only person to walk the Earth who had no evil. That would be Jesus. And what did Jesus say? He said he was God, and quoted the old testament that correctly spoke of his coming.
Shouldn't you look into it?
Being the literally biggest religious movement of the world and then at the same time saying the world hates the word of god is silly. You are the majority. If you include Islam, you are the VAST majority.
> who was the only person to walk the Earth who had no evil. That would be Jesus.
Of course it wasn't. I've read the bible. I remember "pearl before swines". That was evil.
> He said he was God
He didn't though. "You said that" is what he said. He was very clear. You are now lying about what the bible says. As is common among christians sadly.
> who was the only person to walk the Earth who had no evil. That would be Jesus.
Of course it wasn't. I've read the bible. I remember "pearl before swines". That was evil.
> He said he was God
He didn't though. "You said that" is what he said. He was very clear. You are now lying about what the bible says. As is common among christians sadly.
There's no lack of people to walk the earth who have no evil though. You have to contrive good people to be evil to make that the case.
I agree however the problem is that you can probably find someone claiming to be Christian that lives as a "pawn for the gods". That kind of legalism slips into peoples lives. Especially the kind of people that are not fully convinced but go along for other reasons. Often these people become strong champions against Christianity, as it's a pretty horrible way to live. If you think that is the way Christianity is supposed to be it's no wonder you'd try to prevent others from living that way.
Her statement: "They could bring logic and the scientific method to bear and actually fix things that were bad, wrong, or deadly. That is our inheritance, and a priceless one at that. We were given tools, not answers. But those tools, when properly deployed, transform human lives."
Lines up with the Christian purpose for people: "God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
But we all misunderstand each other all the time. I'm sure I don't fully understand the authors beliefs. I'd love for her to meet some "Christian nationalists" to find out what they really want. I think we all have more common ground than most realize. It's a shame things have become so tribal.
Her statement: "They could bring logic and the scientific method to bear and actually fix things that were bad, wrong, or deadly. That is our inheritance, and a priceless one at that. We were given tools, not answers. But those tools, when properly deployed, transform human lives."
Lines up with the Christian purpose for people: "God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
But we all misunderstand each other all the time. I'm sure I don't fully understand the authors beliefs. I'd love for her to meet some "Christian nationalists" to find out what they really want. I think we all have more common ground than most realize. It's a shame things have become so tribal.
Seems that since Euler developed exponential functions (circa the enlightenment), exponential growth of knowledge and economies and exponential improvement in the human condition have become the standard expectation for the enlightened world, replacing the previous standard expectation of alternating good times and bad times. The optimists and the winners over the recent centuries have been able to make a good case that this change in thinking has not been completely discredited by experience. Does that mean that the good times are here to stay?
A reasonable attempt at an unbiased point of view on this issue would acknowledge some kind of selection effect -- one would expect that a few hundred years experience would appear particularly favorable to civilizations and cultures that you get after a few hundred years of that same experience, so maybe things are not objectively quite as good as they look to us.
A simple statistical estimate of how long the current era might be sustained can be made by coming up with a number for how long it has already been here, and considering ourselves as occurring at a uniformly random point in its total lifetime. That procedure produces ~90% certainty that things will continue as is for at least 1/20th as long as the era has been here but not more than 20 times as long. For example, if you put the start of the era of technological progress around 1620, this kind of know-nothing (about specific current conditions) estimate would put us 90% sure that it will last at least another 20 years, but not more than 8000 years. YMMV.
A reasonable attempt at an unbiased point of view on this issue would acknowledge some kind of selection effect -- one would expect that a few hundred years experience would appear particularly favorable to civilizations and cultures that you get after a few hundred years of that same experience, so maybe things are not objectively quite as good as they look to us.
A simple statistical estimate of how long the current era might be sustained can be made by coming up with a number for how long it has already been here, and considering ourselves as occurring at a uniformly random point in its total lifetime. That procedure produces ~90% certainty that things will continue as is for at least 1/20th as long as the era has been here but not more than 20 times as long. For example, if you put the start of the era of technological progress around 1620, this kind of know-nothing (about specific current conditions) estimate would put us 90% sure that it will last at least another 20 years, but not more than 8000 years. YMMV.
If there is a thing that marked the whole span of the Medieval age in the Christian world, from 500 to 1500, is the generalised, widespread belief that the world was about to end. That it was corrupted and degenerated and that the end of the world coming.
No matter what you personally believe to be the message of Christianity, this was the thinking for a huge chunk of Christianity's existence so far.
No matter what you personally believe to be the message of Christianity, this was the thinking for a huge chunk of Christianity's existence so far.
Perhaps the author is thinking of the many creation myths about an original nearly-divine past.
In practical terms, for most of history the large majority of people were farmers and simply thought that the world was just about the same as it had always been.
Traditional belief systems were usually structured in terms of cycles, whether the yearly change of the seasons, the growth and decline of a human life, or the silent movements of celestial bodies.
Leaving aside great wars or catastrophes, social and economic changes happened slowly and would have been hard to identify by an individual living through them.
In practical terms, for most of history the large majority of people were farmers and simply thought that the world was just about the same as it had always been.
Traditional belief systems were usually structured in terms of cycles, whether the yearly change of the seasons, the growth and decline of a human life, or the silent movements of celestial bodies.
Leaving aside great wars or catastrophes, social and economic changes happened slowly and would have been hard to identify by an individual living through them.
Pray toward heaven, but row toward shore.
Humans no longer seeing themselves as the pawns of nature is nothing to be proud of. We still depend on nature, nothing have changed, only this dependence is now obfuscated. There is a buffer between us and nature, which makes us utterly blind to the consequences of our actions. We are not living in the best of times, we are living the biggest lie ever. Our way of life is utterly unsustainable, and by our way of life I mean us the upper 10% that gets to reap 90% of the benefits.
Robyn E. Blumner did not choose optimism, she choose ignorance, because she is among the priviledged few who can be freely ignorant. Optimism is not a choice in any case. We are biologically inclined to be optimistic, even when we are fatalistic, in which case we are optimistic about a negative outcome. This is a cognitive limitation, not something to be proud of.
Robyn E. Blumner did not choose optimism, she choose ignorance, because she is among the priviledged few who can be freely ignorant. Optimism is not a choice in any case. We are biologically inclined to be optimistic, even when we are fatalistic, in which case we are optimistic about a negative outcome. This is a cognitive limitation, not something to be proud of.
Society decided we wanted good things and we took action to get those things.
I am against poverty and not having things such as electricity and clean tap water, abundant food, education, hospital care, sewage treatment and proper waste disposal. I like these things, they are good.
You would be surprised at how sustainable things are by sheer hard work and will. In other words, we get what we cause.
The alternative to these things is worse. To be sustainable (no or renewable electricity, sparse population, no cars, no factories, no meat, land used for growing food) you need to remove the things society wants by sheer will. And I don't think you'll sell anybody on that.
In other words, telling people that they need to give up good things is not enough.
I am against poverty and not having things such as electricity and clean tap water, abundant food, education, hospital care, sewage treatment and proper waste disposal. I like these things, they are good.
You would be surprised at how sustainable things are by sheer hard work and will. In other words, we get what we cause.
The alternative to these things is worse. To be sustainable (no or renewable electricity, sparse population, no cars, no factories, no meat, land used for growing food) you need to remove the things society wants by sheer will. And I don't think you'll sell anybody on that.
In other words, telling people that they need to give up good things is not enough.
That’s a false dichotomy; we can have all these things without burning down rainforests at a furious pace and filling the oceans with plastic, etc. These things are done out of laziness and carelessness.
I don't think it's false but it might be a dichotomy.
The good things we enjoy are destructive and have externalities.
To offer a solution, if the people who do bad things such as not dispose waste properly or want to cut down rainforests for profit, we need to solve the incentives behind those decisions. Such as universal basic income. Or lowering crime.
Unfortunately poverty is the baseline. In other words you need to expend resources to get resources. I said in my comment things are sustainable by sheer will.
To implement sustainability we need to invest profound amounts of resources and do extreme amounts of work by sheer will to solve the problem. We also need the right people working on these problems. The smartest people from my simple perspective are working on the wrong problems. What we have is an improper allocation of limited resources.
The good things we enjoy are destructive and have externalities.
To offer a solution, if the people who do bad things such as not dispose waste properly or want to cut down rainforests for profit, we need to solve the incentives behind those decisions. Such as universal basic income. Or lowering crime.
Unfortunately poverty is the baseline. In other words you need to expend resources to get resources. I said in my comment things are sustainable by sheer will.
To implement sustainability we need to invest profound amounts of resources and do extreme amounts of work by sheer will to solve the problem. We also need the right people working on these problems. The smartest people from my simple perspective are working on the wrong problems. What we have is an improper allocation of limited resources.
No solution is worse than a flawed solution. There are many ways to make progress that aren’t being tried, like using tax code to dissuade Americans from buying SUVs, but those are the only American made cars people buy so there is no action.
Very "when humans act like gids, the Earth & it's species suffer". Which has been shown again & again & again, no argument there.
Still, I choose optimism too. We have collectively become the stewards of spaceship earth, and nature does have a more minor part from here on out (for a while); anthropocene era is here. It's just a fact. I forget the quote, please help someome, but 'we are all gods now and it's about time we start acting like it', or something to that effect.
Still, I choose optimism too. We have collectively become the stewards of spaceship earth, and nature does have a more minor part from here on out (for a while); anthropocene era is here. It's just a fact. I forget the quote, please help someome, but 'we are all gods now and it's about time we start acting like it', or something to that effect.
That would be Stewart Brand. There's a movie that just came out with that quote as its title: https://weareasgods.film .
It's not just being free from being a pawn of nature is a silly idea, you don't go far enough. Anything that's not built on nature is temporary and is going to fall apart at some point. The people who blind themselves to that fact, are going to have a bad time. Whether you quote the bible or physics to support the fact, the outcome is the same.
American homes in 1950 averaged 983 square feet; by 2014, the size had nearly tripled to 2,657 square feet. Today, 91 percent of our homes are air-conditioned.
This is not actually a good thing. This is actually a problem.
This is not actually a good thing. This is actually a problem.
Exactly. The author is living in a middle/upper class suburbian bubble. Bigger and bigger houses that consume more and more resources is a problem, not a sign of progress. It is a glaring sign of the consumerism and resource depletion that is fueling the crisis we're in.
There is no amount of renewable energy that will make "average homes are 2,657 square feet and have air conditioning" a sustainable way of living.
There is no amount of renewable energy that will make "average homes are 2,657 square feet and have air conditioning" a sustainable way of living.
If there hypothetically was a magical source of near infinite renewable energy that could be harnessed without negative side effects, would you be ok with 2600+ sqft homes and air conditioning? I sometimes get the impression that sustainability advocates/environmentalists are more anti-technolgy or anti-human than they are pro-nature and saying things like "there is no amount of renewable energy that will make [enjoyable living standards] a sustainable way of living" doesn't make environmental reforms seem very palatable to me. What number of humans can the Earth ideally sustain in your estimation? If it's substantially less than the current population, then the cure is worse than the disease.
Air conditioning wasn't really a need in most places historically. Vernacular architecture relied heavily on passive solar design as the default. This uses less energy and also provides superior human comfort.
It's true, but our life expectancy when air conditioning wasn't used was also a lot lower, and life was very difficult outside a small band of areas with good climates (usually cold climates because until the invention of air conditioning, it was much easier for humans to heat spaces than cool and dehumidify them.) And many people in very humid parts of the world had their lives immensely improved thanks to the aircon. Lee Kuan Yew, the founder of modern Singapore, credits [1] the aircon as a core reason for development to even exist in the tropics.
American homes are built cheaply (and needlessly sprawly but that's another story) without any heed to ventilation because the US government has put every policy in place possible to make sure energy prices remain low which has removed any market incentive to decrease energy usage, partially because fossil fuel companies spend lots of money lobbying the government. But strategic use of AC in a properly ventilated home is absolutely life-changing.
[1]: https://www.vox.com/2015/3/23/8278085/singapore-lee-kuan-yew...
American homes are built cheaply (and needlessly sprawly but that's another story) without any heed to ventilation because the US government has put every policy in place possible to make sure energy prices remain low which has removed any market incentive to decrease energy usage, partially because fossil fuel companies spend lots of money lobbying the government. But strategic use of AC in a properly ventilated home is absolutely life-changing.
[1]: https://www.vox.com/2015/3/23/8278085/singapore-lee-kuan-yew...
Coming from Europe, where air conditioning is not really a thing (outside of places of business), yes, you are probably right. It is not a need. But neither is clothing in most parts of the world, or houses larger than a bed, or food that's not oatmeal and the random scavenged fruit. Creature comforts matter.
I've been to Morocco lately, with dry 45-48 degrees celsius outside. I've experienced that "vernacular architecture". Every single one of those buildings I have been in (including stalls in the soukh, which is ridiculous because they are essentially missing a wall towards the street) had some form of air conditioning retrofitted.
Of course, the tendency of Americans to set their air conditioning to below 20 degrees is ridiculous.
I've been to Morocco lately, with dry 45-48 degrees celsius outside. I've experienced that "vernacular architecture". Every single one of those buildings I have been in (including stalls in the soukh, which is ridiculous because they are essentially missing a wall towards the street) had some form of air conditioning retrofitted.
Of course, the tendency of Americans to set their air conditioning to below 20 degrees is ridiculous.
> If there hypothetically was a magical source of near infinite renewable energy that could be harnessed without negative side effects, would you be ok with 2600+ sqft homes and air conditioning?
Yes. In a world with zero negative externalities for massive resource consumption, then by all means, give everyone a mansion and a yacht.
> What number of humans can the Earth ideally sustain in your estimation? If it's substantially less than the current population, then the cure is worse than the disease.
In our current industrialized, consumerist, global economy? Far less than 8 billion. You're painting me as a rabid anti-human eco-fascist though, so let me assure you I'm none of those things. I want humanity to succeed and I want all people to be happy and successful. But the current rate of resource extraction and ecological disturbance that we're directly responsible for will drive our species into a brick wall very soon. Along with millions of other species. We will come to a point where we simply cannot extract the energy we need to feed everyone, and where the biosphere has been so damaged that the necessary agriculture yields just won't be there. And also the other things, like the tropics becoming uninhabitable, ocean acidification killing marine life that the food chain depends on, etc.
I'm not anti-human, I'm very much a humanist, and pro-nature. Humans are part of nature. Unfortunately, we seem incapable of limiting our consumption to sustainable levels when given the opportunity to overshoot. Or at least our current civilization does (past ones have done better, but they also didn't have to try to resist the temptation of internal combustion engines like we do now). I've lost hope for any political solutions given how lackluster all efforts have been thus far, so we don't really need to sit here and debate solutions, because no one's at the wheel and the brick wall is getting very close. Enjoy the surplus of energy while we can still extract it.
TL;DR the famous book "Limits to Growth" was very prescient and it mostly hit the mark.
Yes. In a world with zero negative externalities for massive resource consumption, then by all means, give everyone a mansion and a yacht.
> What number of humans can the Earth ideally sustain in your estimation? If it's substantially less than the current population, then the cure is worse than the disease.
In our current industrialized, consumerist, global economy? Far less than 8 billion. You're painting me as a rabid anti-human eco-fascist though, so let me assure you I'm none of those things. I want humanity to succeed and I want all people to be happy and successful. But the current rate of resource extraction and ecological disturbance that we're directly responsible for will drive our species into a brick wall very soon. Along with millions of other species. We will come to a point where we simply cannot extract the energy we need to feed everyone, and where the biosphere has been so damaged that the necessary agriculture yields just won't be there. And also the other things, like the tropics becoming uninhabitable, ocean acidification killing marine life that the food chain depends on, etc.
I'm not anti-human, I'm very much a humanist, and pro-nature. Humans are part of nature. Unfortunately, we seem incapable of limiting our consumption to sustainable levels when given the opportunity to overshoot. Or at least our current civilization does (past ones have done better, but they also didn't have to try to resist the temptation of internal combustion engines like we do now). I've lost hope for any political solutions given how lackluster all efforts have been thus far, so we don't really need to sit here and debate solutions, because no one's at the wheel and the brick wall is getting very close. Enjoy the surplus of energy while we can still extract it.
TL;DR the famous book "Limits to Growth" was very prescient and it mostly hit the mark.
Before climate change was a thing, Malthus was making the same claims about society hitting a brick wall in the late 18th century. You then had scientists in the 19th century predicting the downfall of society because we would run out of places to store horse manure as more people could afford a horse. In the 20th century intellectuals predicted that the world would run out of food. When that didn’t work, scientists predicted the world would end in nuclear war, with rediculous props like the clock counting down to midnight. That didn’t happen, and there had to be a new boogeyman.
Even if we could push a button and solve climate change, I’m sure there would always be a reason why we need to stop having babies, turn back time, and live a subsistence lifestyle (Which is also incredibly racist, since it’s usually directed at people in developing economies, as their standard of living increases). And this is why I don’t believe most of the arguments against big houses, cars, air conditioning, are honest or being made in good faith.
Even if we could push a button and solve climate change, I’m sure there would always be a reason why we need to stop having babies, turn back time, and live a subsistence lifestyle (Which is also incredibly racist, since it’s usually directed at people in developing economies, as their standard of living increases). And this is why I don’t believe most of the arguments against big houses, cars, air conditioning, are honest or being made in good faith.
> That didn’t happen, and there had to be a new boogeyman.
The world didn't end in nuclear fire, for much the same reasons it didn't end in a civilisation-breaking IT meltdown at the start of the new millennium - because everyone put in a shit-ton of work to make sure it didn't happen in the first place. Calling those dangers a "boogeyman" is showing ignorance of titanic efforts that went into mitigating them.
The other issues that you described as "failed boogeymen" - it's great that we've been able to outrun them, but how long have we left to run, exactly? We don't have a silver-bullet solution for climate change, whether flawed or perfect. Nobody seems to be keen on doing the hard work, so I'm not bullish on making it to 2050 without damaging the ecosystems across the planet.
> this is why I don’t believe most of the arguments against big houses, cars, air conditioning, are honest or being made in good faith.
FWIW, I'm a white Western guy and I 100% believe that we should try to do without some luxuries, me included. Part of the problem of getting rid of such luxuries is that they may not be luxuries at all to some - urban planning can be often very car-centric (which makes not owning a car either impractical, or a huge waste of time), AC can be required because other ways of cooling down buildings haven't been put in place, etc. Holistic change AND a reduction in resource use across the board is what we need.
The world didn't end in nuclear fire, for much the same reasons it didn't end in a civilisation-breaking IT meltdown at the start of the new millennium - because everyone put in a shit-ton of work to make sure it didn't happen in the first place. Calling those dangers a "boogeyman" is showing ignorance of titanic efforts that went into mitigating them.
The other issues that you described as "failed boogeymen" - it's great that we've been able to outrun them, but how long have we left to run, exactly? We don't have a silver-bullet solution for climate change, whether flawed or perfect. Nobody seems to be keen on doing the hard work, so I'm not bullish on making it to 2050 without damaging the ecosystems across the planet.
> this is why I don’t believe most of the arguments against big houses, cars, air conditioning, are honest or being made in good faith.
FWIW, I'm a white Western guy and I 100% believe that we should try to do without some luxuries, me included. Part of the problem of getting rid of such luxuries is that they may not be luxuries at all to some - urban planning can be often very car-centric (which makes not owning a car either impractical, or a huge waste of time), AC can be required because other ways of cooling down buildings haven't been put in place, etc. Holistic change AND a reduction in resource use across the board is what we need.
I'm acutely aware that middle to upper class, mostly white, Americans are the worst offenders of overconsumption and that people who make overpopulation claims about the third world are being racist. Britain, and then America, led the charge of industrial imperialism that doomed us to this current timeline. And we colonized and brutalized people of color the world over to get there. I understand that, and I understand the hypocrisy of living a middle class American lifestyle while I type this. Though at least I live in a small-ish duplex without AC :)
I'm also aware that people have been predicting the apocalypse for as long as there have been people. But this is not as simple as manure storage, and it's a bit disingenuous to draw that comparison. You simply cannot have 8 billion people living in huge houses with air conditioning. It will not work. If our definition of racial equality and harmony is to let everyone fuck up the environment equally, rather than restricting everyone's (including rich white people) ability to overconsume, then we are all equally toast.
> And this is why I don’t believe most of the arguments against big houses, cars, air conditioning, are honest or being made in good faith.
Reminder: all the information and points I'm citing come from the world's leading climate and environmental scientists. If you think the IPCC is just being racist when they lay out the data about how bad climate change will be and say we need to reduce our emissions (i.e. consumption), then I don't know what to tell you.
I'm also aware that people have been predicting the apocalypse for as long as there have been people. But this is not as simple as manure storage, and it's a bit disingenuous to draw that comparison. You simply cannot have 8 billion people living in huge houses with air conditioning. It will not work. If our definition of racial equality and harmony is to let everyone fuck up the environment equally, rather than restricting everyone's (including rich white people) ability to overconsume, then we are all equally toast.
> And this is why I don’t believe most of the arguments against big houses, cars, air conditioning, are honest or being made in good faith.
Reminder: all the information and points I'm citing come from the world's leading climate and environmental scientists. If you think the IPCC is just being racist when they lay out the data about how bad climate change will be and say we need to reduce our emissions (i.e. consumption), then I don't know what to tell you.
> If our definition of racial equality and harmony is to let everyone fuck up the environment equally, rather than restricting everyone's (including rich white people) ability to overconsume, then we are all equally toast.
I wish some people would have this sentence printed and framed on a wall. Yes, equality-wise it's unfair that only we have energy-consuming QoL improvements. Environmentally speaking, it would be a massive disaster if everyone did it while we still rely on fossil fuels for our energy supply.
I wish some people would have this sentence printed and framed on a wall. Yes, equality-wise it's unfair that only we have energy-consuming QoL improvements. Environmentally speaking, it would be a massive disaster if everyone did it while we still rely on fossil fuels for our energy supply.
> TL;DR the famous book "Limits to Growth" was very prescient and it mostly hit the mark.
Didn't he get pretty much everything wrong? Like embarrassing wrong even messing up, or intentionally misunderstanding, basic economic theories?
Didn't he get pretty much everything wrong? Like embarrassing wrong even messing up, or intentionally misunderstanding, basic economic theories?
You're probably referring to another book as this one's main author is a she.
The book makes a point of how you can't predict the future. Instead it enumerates a bunch of shapes the future could take given various sets of assumptions. Some of the shapes look decent but require a lot of things to go right in the meantime.
The book makes a point of how you can't predict the future. Instead it enumerates a bunch of shapes the future could take given various sets of assumptions. Some of the shapes look decent but require a lot of things to go right in the meantime.
> "there is no amount of renewable energy that will make [enjoyable living standards] a sustainable way of living" doesn't make environmental reforms seem very palatable to me.
Imagine that those environmentalists are correct. Doesn’t advocating for change, palatable or not, make them at their core more pro-human than most? They are, after all, trying to make the human species survive.
> If it's substantially less than the current population, then the cure is worse than the disease.
If that is the case, then there ain’t no cure that any elected politican can pursue.
Imagine that those environmentalists are correct. Doesn’t advocating for change, palatable or not, make them at their core more pro-human than most? They are, after all, trying to make the human species survive.
> If it's substantially less than the current population, then the cure is worse than the disease.
If that is the case, then there ain’t no cure that any elected politican can pursue.
> They are, after all, trying to make the human species survive.
A perceived "good cause" does not make an argument - or an action - necessarily good. Remember that medieval witch hunts were doing the "humanitarian" thing when they set people aflame because they were trying to save the suspected witches' souls from eternal damnation.
> If that is the case, then there ain’t no cure that any elected politican can pursue.
... so have unelected politicians do the dirty work? Just like with every radicalism, radical environmentalism will eventually lead to a less-than-democratic system.
I sympathise with the environmental movement, even if I think that there's a lot of doom porn happening there and some people's energies would be better invested looking for workable solutions instead of protesting. But we need to watch them. radicalised, they are likely to become dangerous.
A perceived "good cause" does not make an argument - or an action - necessarily good. Remember that medieval witch hunts were doing the "humanitarian" thing when they set people aflame because they were trying to save the suspected witches' souls from eternal damnation.
> If that is the case, then there ain’t no cure that any elected politican can pursue.
... so have unelected politicians do the dirty work? Just like with every radicalism, radical environmentalism will eventually lead to a less-than-democratic system.
I sympathise with the environmental movement, even if I think that there's a lot of doom porn happening there and some people's energies would be better invested looking for workable solutions instead of protesting. But we need to watch them. radicalised, they are likely to become dangerous.
Build nuclear reactors.
My house is about that size with air conditioning and we consume less than half the solar energy we produce with a 6.6kW system on the roof - a pretty typical size for Australia. I'm lucky to live in one of the sunnier places in the world, but I don't agree that it's not possible.
> There is no amount of renewable energy that will make "average homes are 2,657 square feet and have air conditioning" a sustainable way of living.
Why not? Do you think it's impossible for energy to become 'to cheap to meter'?
Why not? Do you think it's impossible for energy to become 'to cheap to meter'?
They are also missing the fact that new, large homes are much more efficient. My 3600 sq/ft new construction consumes less energy to heat and cool than the 900 sq/ft 1960s ranch I used to live in, due to more advanced construction techniques, HVAC technology improvements, and better materials science.
The same applies to cars. Take something like a Rivian and it’s easily more efficient than a Prius or a subcompact car, while being larger, faster, more performant, and more comfortable. Bigger and more comfortable does not necessarily mean worse for the planet.
The same applies to cars. Take something like a Rivian and it’s easily more efficient than a Prius or a subcompact car, while being larger, faster, more performant, and more comfortable. Bigger and more comfortable does not necessarily mean worse for the planet.
We're not remotely close to being there yet, and there isn't even a clear path. So we should not act like a miraculous technological invention is gonna fall from the sky and save us.
Sure, I agree that we're nowhere close.
The parent comment said that no amount of renewable energy would make larger houses sustainable. That makes me think he believes that the real issue is about land use, building materials for larger houses, or some other point aside from energy.
I should've been more direct rather than focusing on the energy point, but I suppose I was hoping the commenter would reply about why energy isn't the problem.
The parent comment said that no amount of renewable energy would make larger houses sustainable. That makes me think he believes that the real issue is about land use, building materials for larger houses, or some other point aside from energy.
I should've been more direct rather than focusing on the energy point, but I suppose I was hoping the commenter would reply about why energy isn't the problem.
"There is no amount of renewable energy" - very true, but that only means that renewables are the wrong solution, if they are not able to provide progress and sustainability. If only we had a magic technology that from a small amount of matter can produce a lot of energy! But wait, we have that, for good 60 years, it is called nuclear energy power plant and works great, but, for some reason some people don't like it.
If you mean we'd all benefit from houses built so that they were comfortable and spacious without requiring constant artificial heating & cooling, and such that we didn't live so far apart from each other that we relied entirely on unwieldy polluting (and dangerous) automobiles to get anywhere we needed to be, then sure.
But the replies to your message suggest plenty of people interpret your message as a requirement to sacrifice living standards.
It also does not mention the distribution and availability of affordable housing. I mean I like to think it's better than it was in 1950, but it's far from perfect - and a country the size of the US with the economy of the US can and should do better for its people.
If you just mean from a resource / climate change point of view then that's fine but it's a totally different point than personal happiness, optimism etc...
I've had a class on Homelessness and Public Policy and studied housing issues. It's a problem because a lack of small residential spaces in walkable neighborhoods is de facto tearing apart our social safety net.
I mean they objectively provide a better quality of life to people... Not to pick a side, but there's pros and cons to it.
To the privileged that can afford it. Meanwhile, global warming is fueling a real need for AC that didn't historically exist in most places and chronic homelessness has become a thing that didn't really exist in the past.
We have set the minimum so high that some people simply cannot attain it. Such individuals end up being a net drain on society in many cases due to their lack of housing.
Some hospitals have found that simply providing housing to some of their most expensive charity cases saves them money.
We have set the minimum so high that some people simply cannot attain it. Such individuals end up being a net drain on society in many cases due to their lack of housing.
Some hospitals have found that simply providing housing to some of their most expensive charity cases saves them money.
I think the root cause of homelessness is many things, but it's not the bare minimum cost of living. Not saying CoL isn't high right now, but it's not what's causing the vast majority of homelessness. Poverty? Sure. Homelessness? No.
In analyzing political pieces (especially one so concerned with The Enlightenment), it's important to go deeper than content. What moved someone to put so much effort into this thought specifically? Nietzsche, critic of enlightenment, would ask: "which kind of will-to-power is expressed here?"
Steven Pinker is popular among accomplished people, and there's no conspiracy about this: rational optimism just gets that crowd going. Maybe it's because they don't have much better to worry about!
Reading this kind of writing is like eating a bag of candy. I eat one saccharine piece of "{X} good thing has grown by {Y}%", and then I grasp for the next morsel before I've finished chewing the first.
Steven Pinker is popular among accomplished people, and there's no conspiracy about this: rational optimism just gets that crowd going. Maybe it's because they don't have much better to worry about!
Reading this kind of writing is like eating a bag of candy. I eat one saccharine piece of "{X} good thing has grown by {Y}%", and then I grasp for the next morsel before I've finished chewing the first.
This comment is a text book case of projection. Everything written above is 100% true of the comment itself. Critical but without substance. Looks down their nose but not realizing they are lying on their back and actually lookup UP.
The original article and Pinker are quite clear: there are HUGE problems to be solved. Theirs is not a philosophy of complacency, but of hard work. REAL hard work that can actually SUCCEED. Unlike complaining, and unlike just ignoring the problem, and unlike pretending everything is getting worse when we know it isn't.
The original article and Pinker are quite clear: there are HUGE problems to be solved. Theirs is not a philosophy of complacency, but of hard work. REAL hard work that can actually SUCCEED. Unlike complaining, and unlike just ignoring the problem, and unlike pretending everything is getting worse when we know it isn't.
> Pinker are quite clear: there are HUGE problems to be solved
That's... not the impression I get from reading Pinker. On the contrary, he has an infuriating habit of presenting "x is getting better" shortly after bashing a straw man version of the groups working hardest to make x better. Everyone from civil rights activists to software developers who worked on on the Millennium Bug were, in Pinker's eyes, committing the cardinal sin of Availability Bias rather than focusing on all those nice comforting trend lines pointing in the right direction.
That's... not the impression I get from reading Pinker. On the contrary, he has an infuriating habit of presenting "x is getting better" shortly after bashing a straw man version of the groups working hardest to make x better. Everyone from civil rights activists to software developers who worked on on the Millennium Bug were, in Pinker's eyes, committing the cardinal sin of Availability Bias rather than focusing on all those nice comforting trend lines pointing in the right direction.
Source?
[deleted]
It’s great to recognise what we’ve achieved as a species. And maybe the arc of history has historically bent towards justice.
What’s different about this moment in time versus any other in human history is that we face not one but two known existential risks.
Climate change is the sort of knotty long-term vs short-term, private vs public, incentives problem that we as a species excel at fucking up.
In addition to that, we have a new cold war and the proliferation of nuclear weapons to states that haven’t previously had them and have different ideas about using them. If you’ve read any accounts of nuclear near-misses from the last Cold War, you’ll know that “there was never any real danger” is the wrong conclusion to draw.
Respectfully, I don’t understand the case for optimism at all. The fact that the vast majority of people are good (and I believe that they are) has little bearing on it.
What’s different about this moment in time versus any other in human history is that we face not one but two known existential risks.
Climate change is the sort of knotty long-term vs short-term, private vs public, incentives problem that we as a species excel at fucking up.
In addition to that, we have a new cold war and the proliferation of nuclear weapons to states that haven’t previously had them and have different ideas about using them. If you’ve read any accounts of nuclear near-misses from the last Cold War, you’ll know that “there was never any real danger” is the wrong conclusion to draw.
Respectfully, I don’t understand the case for optimism at all. The fact that the vast majority of people are good (and I believe that they are) has little bearing on it.
[deleted]
To which countries that have different idea about using them? So far there's only two camps - the US who has used them on civilians on purpose, and everyone else who have not used them.
Most countries aiming for them want them to prevent American(and maybe Russian ones too now) invasions like what happened in Iraq.
Most countries aiming for them want them to prevent American(and maybe Russian ones too now) invasions like what happened in Iraq.
It was the same with the last cold war. They were convinced over population would destroy the earth and Russia and America would start throwing Nukes around.
Unfortunately, the worst days of the cold war were appreciably less likely than we are now to immolate all of mankind. In 1963, the two nations capable of global annihilation were run by “company men” who acted with caution and tons of input from myriad experts who knew the real cost of global war all too well. Those bureaucrats understood that their rash act would end their “life at the top” in a heartbeat, even if they survived nuclear armageddon. But today's strongmen/ dictators who control nuclear weapons have shown far less cluefulness or concern than their forebears for the very plausible dangers of committing a single stupid blunder that could end life on Earth. Hard to be upbeat given that, regardless of appeals to rational technical optimism.
There are more players now but I don't think the cold war Soviets were as stable as you're arguing here.
We've had mad men with nuke since we've had nukes. The more time we spend in that situation the higher the chances someone uses them but I think we're far safer now than times such as the Cuban missile crisis. The Soviets had their nukes on a dead man switch. That was insane and could have killed billions accidentally.
We've had mad men with nuke since we've had nukes. The more time we spend in that situation the higher the chances someone uses them but I think we're far safer now than times such as the Cuban missile crisis. The Soviets had their nukes on a dead man switch. That was insane and could have killed billions accidentally.
I think it's hard to argue that we DON'T live in an age with the highest life expectancy and material wealth ever (at least for the western countries, but this probably holds around globe). But there are quite a few things we are not good at measuring like mental health, freedom and overall happiness. It the points we can measure are not correlated to the non-measurable points. Though I would deem the non-measurable points even more important.
That said, I always choose optimism over so called realism and pessimism. This optimism doesn't mean that anything changes for the better by itself but that personal decisions can have an impact for the better.
That said, I always choose optimism over so called realism and pessimism. This optimism doesn't mean that anything changes for the better by itself but that personal decisions can have an impact for the better.
Who is going to rebut optimism? But only the part that needs a fair counterweight to it. Consider the evidence that life of all kinds thrives everywhere. It is its very purpose to thrive above all else, or it just ceases. Existence then, necessarily favours a force or direction for life to thrive, even just probabilistically. I would argue that these favourable odds for life to exist and thrive are indistinguishable from an intent for life, for you, to thrive. And this is the rational case for a divine intent. For you, as life, to thrive. Accepting this as an axiom of your existence is all anyone needs to experience the optimism described so well in the article. It's the funniest thing in the world to look back and be wrong about as well.
Well deep in the hillbilly country they still tell the story of the little blacksmith who was way back in the mountains and was very lonely. He was not even 5 feet tall but he was strong and handsome and did his work well but all the girls in his community had overlooked him and were already married.
One day a beautiful lady from a nearby mountain comes into his shop and needs new hinges for her daddy's barn door. The little blacksmith thinks she's attractive even though she's well over 6 feet tall, and he eagerly agrees to do an outstanding job. She's quite agreeable herself and he asks her if she's married, and she is not.
So he asks if he can come and call on her in the future and she said that would be alright and she bent down and kissed him right on the cheek. He hopped right up on his anvil and kissed her back and she said good-by until the next day when she will pick up the hinges.
On the next day she came back and before she was going to leave he invited her to take a look around his part of the mountain a little bit, they went to where he had a wonderful garden, the birds were singing, it was so romantic.
He looked up into her eyes and sincerely told her how much he was thinking of another kiss.
She was a little too bashful right then and told him to wait until the weekend when he could be her date at the barn dance.
He understood, and couldn't complain, so he said "well if there's not going to be any more kissin' today, I think I'll put this anvil down."
One day a beautiful lady from a nearby mountain comes into his shop and needs new hinges for her daddy's barn door. The little blacksmith thinks she's attractive even though she's well over 6 feet tall, and he eagerly agrees to do an outstanding job. She's quite agreeable herself and he asks her if she's married, and she is not.
So he asks if he can come and call on her in the future and she said that would be alright and she bent down and kissed him right on the cheek. He hopped right up on his anvil and kissed her back and she said good-by until the next day when she will pick up the hinges.
On the next day she came back and before she was going to leave he invited her to take a look around his part of the mountain a little bit, they went to where he had a wonderful garden, the birds were singing, it was so romantic.
He looked up into her eyes and sincerely told her how much he was thinking of another kiss.
She was a little too bashful right then and told him to wait until the weekend when he could be her date at the barn dance.
He understood, and couldn't complain, so he said "well if there's not going to be any more kissin' today, I think I'll put this anvil down."
The media is highly pessimistic. So yeah when you look at the world you are looking at the world through a biased lens of pessimism. Pessimsim draws attention and sells hence the media creates a sort of negative viewpoint of the world.
But here's the weird part. Most individuals bias towards optimism. Most people are unable to see the hard truths of the world or even about themselves. The world is indeed cruel and hard and on the individual level people can't admit certain things about themselves. We see the world through rose colored lenses.
When people look at the world or news, they think everything is going to shit. But on the individual level when they look at things locally or at themselves, things are actually a bit too positive. People lie to themselves.
It's a strange dichotomy.
You will note that no one on this thread talks about what goes in between pessimism and optimism. What is the middle ground? That's how deluded everyone is. They read her article and buy into her BS. To be pessimist is to be negatively biased. To be optimist is to be positively biased. Logically the middle ground will then be unbiased.
Truth is what lies in between positive and negative biases. I choose to be unbiased. I choose to not be pessimistic or optimistic. I choose truth.
But here's the weird part. Most individuals bias towards optimism. Most people are unable to see the hard truths of the world or even about themselves. The world is indeed cruel and hard and on the individual level people can't admit certain things about themselves. We see the world through rose colored lenses.
When people look at the world or news, they think everything is going to shit. But on the individual level when they look at things locally or at themselves, things are actually a bit too positive. People lie to themselves.
It's a strange dichotomy.
You will note that no one on this thread talks about what goes in between pessimism and optimism. What is the middle ground? That's how deluded everyone is. They read her article and buy into her BS. To be pessimist is to be negatively biased. To be optimist is to be positively biased. Logically the middle ground will then be unbiased.
Truth is what lies in between positive and negative biases. I choose to be unbiased. I choose to not be pessimistic or optimistic. I choose truth.
I think pragmatism would be the middle ground, or 'dealing with reality as best you can'.
I don't think it's possible to actually sit perfectly in the middle, won't you always end up thinking slightly positively or negatively about whatever situation comes up?
In that case I think that 'Expect the best but prepare for the worst' is a good mindset to have.
I don't think it's possible to actually sit perfectly in the middle, won't you always end up thinking slightly positively or negatively about whatever situation comes up?
In that case I think that 'Expect the best but prepare for the worst' is a good mindset to have.
Consider a rock. Is it negative or positive? It is neither. The rock is proof that you can be neutral.
Enlightenment is realizing that everything shares the same nature as a rock.
Enlightenment is realizing that everything shares the same nature as a rock.
Now consider the rock that somebody threw at your face, and knocked out your tooth. Is it still neutral?
The neutrality is gone as soon as people are involved
The neutrality is gone as soon as people are involved
You don't get it. Your blindness is laid bare by this example.
You present this example to me as if the truth doesn't even matter. WHY did the person throw the rock? That is the truth behind it all. Seems like a critical part of a hypothetical situation that is entirely missing from your example.
Your biases are so strong that you didn't even feel a need to mention it. It's like talking about a flying turtle without describing why or how the turtle can fly. You inserted so much emotion and violence into this hypothetical situation that basically you are blinded by the fact that it's missing a critical point.
And that is the essence of what I'm talking about. A state of mind. If you can't view the situation neutrally. Then you are crippled. Forever blind from asking the critical question and realizing the ultimate truth.
But let's be straight here. The OP of this article is not in an emotionally charged situation. She's a neutral arbiter observing a changing world shielded from all the flying rocks being thrown all over the place. And from this neutral vantage point she makes a choice... she says, I choose to be biased... I choose to lie to myself... I choose to be an optimist.
You present this example to me as if the truth doesn't even matter. WHY did the person throw the rock? That is the truth behind it all. Seems like a critical part of a hypothetical situation that is entirely missing from your example.
Your biases are so strong that you didn't even feel a need to mention it. It's like talking about a flying turtle without describing why or how the turtle can fly. You inserted so much emotion and violence into this hypothetical situation that basically you are blinded by the fact that it's missing a critical point.
And that is the essence of what I'm talking about. A state of mind. If you can't view the situation neutrally. Then you are crippled. Forever blind from asking the critical question and realizing the ultimate truth.
But let's be straight here. The OP of this article is not in an emotionally charged situation. She's a neutral arbiter observing a changing world shielded from all the flying rocks being thrown all over the place. And from this neutral vantage point she makes a choice... she says, I choose to be biased... I choose to lie to myself... I choose to be an optimist.
I’m a bit ambivalent about optimism on the historical scale. History does have examples of things getting worse, it’s hard to pinpoint the cases where it got worse for the majority of earth’s population at once, since different regions sometimes prosper at the time others decline, but there are things like the Bronze Age collapse which are widespread enough to be likely candidates.
That particular scenario of civilization collapse I think is unlikely, however it does create the question of whether history always gets better over the long term.
And the long term scales of history are long, long enough to make it impossible to tell a definite trend from a possible one if you are looking for meaning behind history.
But I am a religious man and I have hope things will stay on the uptrend in some way. I think a CB lot of faith in history is ultimately a matter of faith, one with arguments behind it but I don’t think those arguments are bulletproof
That particular scenario of civilization collapse I think is unlikely, however it does create the question of whether history always gets better over the long term.
And the long term scales of history are long, long enough to make it impossible to tell a definite trend from a possible one if you are looking for meaning behind history.
But I am a religious man and I have hope things will stay on the uptrend in some way. I think a CB lot of faith in history is ultimately a matter of faith, one with arguments behind it but I don’t think those arguments are bulletproof
Encouraging trends:
- Energy is getting fixed. Simply because wind and solar are cheap, and electric vehicles work well. There will be lots of kicking and screaming during the transition, but 20 years out, it won't be a problem.
- We seem to be past peak crazyness in major national leaders. Donald Trump is out. Boris Johnson is out. Benjamin Netanyahu is out. Putin remains a problem.
- Vaccine technology has made huge strides in recent years. Omicron vaccine ships in October. Broad-spectrum vaccines for most of the flu/coronavirus family are in test. We have a monkeypox vaccine already. Cranking out a designed vaccine for a new threat is now routine. Even an AIDS vaccine, which is really hard, now looks possible.
- The supply chain disruptions of the last few years have led to major investments in new manufacturing capacity all over the world. From wafer fabs to fertilizer factories, plants are going up. Having multiple sources is now important again. It takes a while for this to have an effect, after which prices go down.
- The population bomb fizzled out. World population is leveling off. All the major developed countries are now below replacement rate.
- Energy is getting fixed. Simply because wind and solar are cheap, and electric vehicles work well. There will be lots of kicking and screaming during the transition, but 20 years out, it won't be a problem.
- We seem to be past peak crazyness in major national leaders. Donald Trump is out. Boris Johnson is out. Benjamin Netanyahu is out. Putin remains a problem.
- Vaccine technology has made huge strides in recent years. Omicron vaccine ships in October. Broad-spectrum vaccines for most of the flu/coronavirus family are in test. We have a monkeypox vaccine already. Cranking out a designed vaccine for a new threat is now routine. Even an AIDS vaccine, which is really hard, now looks possible.
- The supply chain disruptions of the last few years have led to major investments in new manufacturing capacity all over the world. From wafer fabs to fertilizer factories, plants are going up. Having multiple sources is now important again. It takes a while for this to have an effect, after which prices go down.
- The population bomb fizzled out. World population is leveling off. All the major developed countries are now below replacement rate.
>- We seem to be past peak crazyness in major national leaders. Donald Trump is out. Boris Johnson is out. Benjamin Netanyahu is out. Putin remains a problem.
Not to throw cold water over this too much but Johnson's likely successor is basically him again but without any of the charisma that sold many of the public on him in the first place. Liz Truss is an author of Britannia Unchained which pretty much accuses the British public of being workshy good-for-nothings and bemoans the fact they won't cheerfully volunteer for long hours and exploitative wages. The irony is by Dominic Cummings' account at least Truss is a bit of a chocolate teapot herself! It's said that history repeats itself first as tragedy then as farce, I think Margaret Thatcher might be about to get her farcical repetition in a month or so.
Not to throw cold water over this too much but Johnson's likely successor is basically him again but without any of the charisma that sold many of the public on him in the first place. Liz Truss is an author of Britannia Unchained which pretty much accuses the British public of being workshy good-for-nothings and bemoans the fact they won't cheerfully volunteer for long hours and exploitative wages. The irony is by Dominic Cummings' account at least Truss is a bit of a chocolate teapot herself! It's said that history repeats itself first as tragedy then as farce, I think Margaret Thatcher might be about to get her farcical repetition in a month or so.
That's still progress. A crazy leader with charisma is much more dangerous than the same amount of crazy without charisma.
It's hard to be an optimist when it looks like the years we're living in right now are the same future historians will argue about when deciding whether WW3 "actually began" in 2022.
I am commenting in support of optimism and to counterweight pessimistic outlook.
Humanity indeed faces a lot of problems. Each of them have many possible solutions (The only one unsolvable is a heat death of the universe).
Thing is, the solutions usually may be divided into two categories: technical and societal.
For example, for the horse manure problem in big cities there were two possible solutions: invent a car, or limit the number of horses in the city.
The thing is: technical solutions are always cool. They open up new possibilities, the one which could not be foreseen. Technical solution also creates new problems, that require solutions of their own. Societal solutions always suck. Societal solution is to make people do less of the thing that causes trouble. The problem therefore kind of resolves, but the life become more boring and less free. Such solution does not bring new possibilities, does not advance life, but there is no risks of unforeseen new problems.
Examples of the problems and possible solutions:
Global worming: limit consumption and consumerism - or - perform climate engineering (spray high albedo particles in stratosphere, send controllable aluminum foil mirrors to the orbit, install more solar cells and wind turbines
Cancer, Alzheimers, heart diseases, obesity, etc.: live "healthy life", eat boring non-tasty grass, die 5 times a week at the gym, don't eat most awesome sugar, don't dring amazing coke, don't smoke, don't enjoy, don't ... - OR - Concentrate on solving the cause of those illnesses, that is the ageing. Treat ageing as a disease and fund anti-ageing research.
"Overpopulation": Make people believe that earth is dying and they shouldn't have children - OR - Build habitat (O'Neil cylinders) on the orbit thus opening virtually endless living space
Nuclear war: Pacify a horrible dictator, leave him "ways to retreat" - OR - build habitats on the orbit; atomic explosions in space won't do much damage at all (there is a constant atomic explosion already there, called Sun).
Hunger: Not a problem, earth agriculture is overproducing; the real problem is horrible dictators and the lack of new land that people can escape to from that dictator.
Humanity indeed faces a lot of problems. Each of them have many possible solutions (The only one unsolvable is a heat death of the universe).
Thing is, the solutions usually may be divided into two categories: technical and societal.
For example, for the horse manure problem in big cities there were two possible solutions: invent a car, or limit the number of horses in the city.
The thing is: technical solutions are always cool. They open up new possibilities, the one which could not be foreseen. Technical solution also creates new problems, that require solutions of their own. Societal solutions always suck. Societal solution is to make people do less of the thing that causes trouble. The problem therefore kind of resolves, but the life become more boring and less free. Such solution does not bring new possibilities, does not advance life, but there is no risks of unforeseen new problems.
Examples of the problems and possible solutions:
Global worming: limit consumption and consumerism - or - perform climate engineering (spray high albedo particles in stratosphere, send controllable aluminum foil mirrors to the orbit, install more solar cells and wind turbines
Cancer, Alzheimers, heart diseases, obesity, etc.: live "healthy life", eat boring non-tasty grass, die 5 times a week at the gym, don't eat most awesome sugar, don't dring amazing coke, don't smoke, don't enjoy, don't ... - OR - Concentrate on solving the cause of those illnesses, that is the ageing. Treat ageing as a disease and fund anti-ageing research.
"Overpopulation": Make people believe that earth is dying and they shouldn't have children - OR - Build habitat (O'Neil cylinders) on the orbit thus opening virtually endless living space
Nuclear war: Pacify a horrible dictator, leave him "ways to retreat" - OR - build habitats on the orbit; atomic explosions in space won't do much damage at all (there is a constant atomic explosion already there, called Sun).
Hunger: Not a problem, earth agriculture is overproducing; the real problem is horrible dictators and the lack of new land that people can escape to from that dictator.
I'm not sure if I agree on the dichotomy of technical vs. social solutions.
Where would you place something like efforts to increase a population literacy rates? It's not a new technical advantage, but it doesn't suck or limit possibilities. If anything, it creates them, since a literate population is one you can teach to drive, where employers can assume literacy for training purposes, where governments can give information to their people in writing, where people can read their own religious texts without intermediaries, etc.
Where would you place something like efforts to increase a population literacy rates? It's not a new technical advantage, but it doesn't suck or limit possibilities. If anything, it creates them, since a literate population is one you can teach to drive, where employers can assume literacy for training purposes, where governments can give information to their people in writing, where people can read their own religious texts without intermediaries, etc.
The book learned optimism covers the value of both optimism and pessimism. He wrote the book to help people become more optimistic.
The main thing I learned from the book, is knowing when it is good to be optimistic or pessimistic. There is a time and a place for each. But, on average, optimists tend to win, because they keep trying longer.
The main thing I learned from the book, is knowing when it is good to be optimistic or pessimistic. There is a time and a place for each. But, on average, optimists tend to win, because they keep trying longer.
I'm surprised not to find any mention of Chomsky here and his "new pascal wager".
> Optimism is a strategy for making a better future. Because unless you believe that the future can be better, you are unlikely to step up and take responsibility for making it so.
> Optimism is a strategy for making a better future. Because unless you believe that the future can be better, you are unlikely to step up and take responsibility for making it so.
[deleted]
>It was optimism that made science take off.
No, the title should be "optimism chose me". Articles like this are the product of scientific progress. People don't have ideas, ideas have people. Science took itself off once it got started. (in tandem with capital).
It's funny that 'rational optimism', Enlightenment obsessed people stress science and secularism so much. They may not notice it but the framework they're in is fundamentally religious and idealistic, assuming they can move the world in directions they want by thinking the right thoughts.
"Appreciation and its close cousin, gratitude, are something we need a lot more of these days. But our gratitude is not for heaven-sent good fortune. It’s for the innumerable positive changes and advancements forged by science,"
The author is even somewhat self aware of the fact that this sounds suspiciously like worship, but somehow not completely.
No, the title should be "optimism chose me". Articles like this are the product of scientific progress. People don't have ideas, ideas have people. Science took itself off once it got started. (in tandem with capital).
It's funny that 'rational optimism', Enlightenment obsessed people stress science and secularism so much. They may not notice it but the framework they're in is fundamentally religious and idealistic, assuming they can move the world in directions they want by thinking the right thoughts.
"Appreciation and its close cousin, gratitude, are something we need a lot more of these days. But our gratitude is not for heaven-sent good fortune. It’s for the innumerable positive changes and advancements forged by science,"
The author is even somewhat self aware of the fact that this sounds suspiciously like worship, but somehow not completely.
Pandemic, War and Famine Probably until 2019 in some places on earth, the author was absolute right. Let's wait until the Fall/Winter to see.
I'm convinced this article's poster never learned about native American history properly. America never had democracy. It has always been a totalitarian country that only benefits upper-class white men who profitably kill and bully people. Authoritarianism was never on the rise. Freedom is an illusion. The American dream is a scam. The C.I.A. targets black people more than white people. The C.I.A. created political coups to bully countries for creating dehumanizing sweatshops that have child slavery. The C.I.A. agents rape people. America's prisons are created to trap working class Americans into poverty, drug abuse, and insanity. America's cops are required to have poor intelligence and low empathy to benefit very rich oligarchs only. America's rulers are attacking free speech and union workers to keep working class Americans enslaved. America's rulers intentionally created broken education systems to enslave working class Americans. America's rulers want working class Americans selling their souls to the American military instead of creating a peaceful world based on reason rather than greedy violence. America's rulers are not interested in creating a society where everyone is compassionate critical thinkers. They are interested in creating mind-controlled weapons living in poverty that make our world burn for profit. It's Sociopathic Capitalism 101.
Realism is what we need, how can all of those "optimists" be so foolish?
Optimism is treatable by revelation of the Keeling Curve.
Optimism is for children.
The attitude you want to cultivate is meliorism. Start with realism and then progress to meliorism.
Read Thomas Hardy's poetry. He'll help you understand.
The attitude you want to cultivate is meliorism. Start with realism and then progress to meliorism.
Read Thomas Hardy's poetry. He'll help you understand.
This article comes across as extremely tone-deaf, and the author seems unaware of the existential scale of the problems humanity is facing. The fact that the phrase "climate change" only appears once - at the beginning, as a throwaway line - really speaks volumes.
If the only problems we face were war and rising Christian fascism, I would also be optimistic, because those things can and have been fought successfully in the past. However...
The very real situation of climate change, described by leading scientists as "code red for humanity," cannot be waved away by comparing our current struggles to that of medieval peasants seeking freedom from monarchy. We're talking about a collapsing biosphere. We're talking about mass extinction. We're talking about large areas of the Earth becoming functionally uninhabitable.
I would even be optimistic about that, too, if world leaders (economic and political) seemed to take any of it seriously. But they don't, so I'm not. And I think the author is conveniently ignoring this entire subject.
If the only problems we face were war and rising Christian fascism, I would also be optimistic, because those things can and have been fought successfully in the past. However...
The very real situation of climate change, described by leading scientists as "code red for humanity," cannot be waved away by comparing our current struggles to that of medieval peasants seeking freedom from monarchy. We're talking about a collapsing biosphere. We're talking about mass extinction. We're talking about large areas of the Earth becoming functionally uninhabitable.
I would even be optimistic about that, too, if world leaders (economic and political) seemed to take any of it seriously. But they don't, so I'm not. And I think the author is conveniently ignoring this entire subject.
Does the IPCC report anywhere claim that climate change is an existential threat? What does a "code red" actually entail for the next century? Where in the climate science does it actually say that large ares of Earth will become functionally uninhabitable and the biosphere will collapse? Outside of hothouse Earth scenarios, which are deemed unlikely at this point within the 2.5-3.7 degrees warming scenarios, I'm not aware of any such doomsday predictions by the actual mainstream climate science.
IPCC AR6 (2022)'s summary for policymakers [1] makes such a claim.
Here is the last paragraph:
"The cumulative scientific evidence is unequivocal: Climate change is a threat to human well-being and planetary health. Any further delay in concerted anticipatory global action on adaptation and mitigation will miss a brief and rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all. (very high confidence)"
You can find more information here: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-g...
[1]: https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg2/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGII_SummaryForPo...
Here is the last paragraph:
"The cumulative scientific evidence is unequivocal: Climate change is a threat to human well-being and planetary health. Any further delay in concerted anticipatory global action on adaptation and mitigation will miss a brief and rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all. (very high confidence)"
You can find more information here: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-g...
[1]: https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg2/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGII_SummaryForPo...
I don't see where in that sentence it says large parts of the planet will become functionally inhabitable or that climate change is an existential threat.
"rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all"
It literally says "livable future." As in, a future that is as livable for humanity in general as the present currently is.
There are numerous scientists that predict sea level rise coupled with lethal wet-bulb temperatures in the tropics will make living around the equator difficult if not impossible. Here is a direct quote if you need it:
"SSP5-8.5 — Imagine a world where humanity doesn’t just do nothing about climate change but continues to make it worse... The net result would be 4.4°C of warming, with a range between 3.3°C and 5.7°C. As if large-scale coastal inundation and extremely destructive weather weren’t enough, parts of the planet would become unlivable during the hottest times of the year."
Source: https://www.vox.com/22620706/climate-change-ipcc-report-2021...
That's a timeline in which we continue to increase emissions year over year and actively double down on business-as-usual. So far, that has been the case (emissions dipped in 2020 during lockdown, but we are now back to emitting more than ever before).
It literally says "livable future." As in, a future that is as livable for humanity in general as the present currently is.
There are numerous scientists that predict sea level rise coupled with lethal wet-bulb temperatures in the tropics will make living around the equator difficult if not impossible. Here is a direct quote if you need it:
"SSP5-8.5 — Imagine a world where humanity doesn’t just do nothing about climate change but continues to make it worse... The net result would be 4.4°C of warming, with a range between 3.3°C and 5.7°C. As if large-scale coastal inundation and extremely destructive weather weren’t enough, parts of the planet would become unlivable during the hottest times of the year."
Source: https://www.vox.com/22620706/climate-change-ipcc-report-2021...
That's a timeline in which we continue to increase emissions year over year and actively double down on business-as-usual. So far, that has been the case (emissions dipped in 2020 during lockdown, but we are now back to emitting more than ever before).
Human civilization will survive mass extinctions and change of habitability of some places. Humans are resilient.
And if they won’t, life itself is even more resilient.
And if they won’t, life itself is even more resilient.
This is a very, very annoying strawman. Nobody believes that life, or even humanity will be wiped off the face of the earth. It's the tremendous amount suffering it'll have to endure that we'd rather avoid.
The tremendous amount of suffering will be there soon enough in the form of the next world war. Judging from observations in human history, mass suffering is normal, and the relatively peaceful environment of the “end of history” is quite an anomaly.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t do anything, converting our energy needs to nuclear and solar is the first priority. But yes, there’s a significant probability that it won’t happen soon enough, so we might want to think how to live when famines and mass climate migrations will happen. Linear progress is an exception, not a rule.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t do anything, converting our energy needs to nuclear and solar is the first priority. But yes, there’s a significant probability that it won’t happen soon enough, so we might want to think how to live when famines and mass climate migrations will happen. Linear progress is an exception, not a rule.
> And if they won’t, life itself is even more resilient.
You realize that's hardly reassuring, right? You're right though - life is resilient. Life has survived worse.
But our fragile global civilization, propped up by fossil fuels at a core level, is not resilient in the worst case outcomes of climate change. And keep in mind: in order to avoid the worst case scenarios, massive economic and political change needs to happen. No such changes are happening yet, though.
So yeah, I agree that humans and life in general will probably survive, but not in any way that would be recognizable to us now.
You realize that's hardly reassuring, right? You're right though - life is resilient. Life has survived worse.
But our fragile global civilization, propped up by fossil fuels at a core level, is not resilient in the worst case outcomes of climate change. And keep in mind: in order to avoid the worst case scenarios, massive economic and political change needs to happen. No such changes are happening yet, though.
So yeah, I agree that humans and life in general will probably survive, but not in any way that would be recognizable to us now.
Hey, we are all going to die anyway, so that’s a baseline. The bar is pretty low :)
Now, I believe that human civilization is not there yet for coordinated global action. At the very least, it requires world peace, and we are on the brink of the next world war. Civilization can disappear even before we’ll feel consequences from climate change. Nothing is permanent.
Having said that, I think we should do everything to improve our prospects and our long-term quality of life, like building a lot of climate-safe nuclear power plants, stopping burning fossil fuels, and preparing for mass climate migration (which will not even be the first in humanity’s history). I think we’ll manage. But if not — I’m pretty sure that there are many other fine civilizations in the universe that will pass this particular test. We are not that important on the cosmic scale, and everything there is temporary anyway.
Now, I believe that human civilization is not there yet for coordinated global action. At the very least, it requires world peace, and we are on the brink of the next world war. Civilization can disappear even before we’ll feel consequences from climate change. Nothing is permanent.
Having said that, I think we should do everything to improve our prospects and our long-term quality of life, like building a lot of climate-safe nuclear power plants, stopping burning fossil fuels, and preparing for mass climate migration (which will not even be the first in humanity’s history). I think we’ll manage. But if not — I’m pretty sure that there are many other fine civilizations in the universe that will pass this particular test. We are not that important on the cosmic scale, and everything there is temporary anyway.
Humans have still suffered far worse. At one point, around 70kya, there were only an estimated maximum of 10,000 humans, and it is from that population that sprung forth 8 billion today. I highly doubt with even all the damage climate change will cause that we will go back to such numbers.
Your goalposts are still apocalyptic. Even going from 8 billion to 4 billion would be catastrophic amounts of suffering. The raw number of humans that currently exist is not a good measure for quality of life in general.
"it's not the end of all life" isn't much of a consolation for those that will have to live through the shitshow
Some people are used to such a good life that the concept of actual, intense, long-term suffering doesn't even register as something that can happen to them. And even when it is pointed out to them there's no gut feeling for how shit life can be
Some people are used to such a good life that the concept of actual, intense, long-term suffering doesn't even register as something that can happen to them. And even when it is pointed out to them there's no gut feeling for how shit life can be
[deleted]
There are two issues with OP.
First, is that this optimism is indefinite in words of Peter Thiel. It's gonna be fine but without any directions how to make that future actually happen. Can we just sit and wait?
Second, it addresses factors that just aren't important.
Doesn’t she know that Christian nationalism has largely taken over the Republican Party and that the Enlightenment values of freedom of inquiry, tolerance, and reason are being threatened from the political Right as well as—to a worrying extent—the political Left?
These are downright silly concerns in the world with collapsing birth rates on the verge of a world war with Russia and China trying to use their last gasp for empire building.
Living five years longer in a larger house with AC is nothing to sneeze at but perhaps not quite the win in the world of record-breaking obesity and drug addiction. We're trading biological capital for material comforts. And not even at a good exchange rate.
First, is that this optimism is indefinite in words of Peter Thiel. It's gonna be fine but without any directions how to make that future actually happen. Can we just sit and wait?
Second, it addresses factors that just aren't important.
Doesn’t she know that Christian nationalism has largely taken over the Republican Party and that the Enlightenment values of freedom of inquiry, tolerance, and reason are being threatened from the political Right as well as—to a worrying extent—the political Left?
These are downright silly concerns in the world with collapsing birth rates on the verge of a world war with Russia and China trying to use their last gasp for empire building.
Living five years longer in a larger house with AC is nothing to sneeze at but perhaps not quite the win in the world of record-breaking obesity and drug addiction. We're trading biological capital for material comforts. And not even at a good exchange rate.
The author comes across as the extremely echo-chambered, brainwashed, close-minded person she herself is afraid of. I couldn't invent a more on brand characterization of person with a heavily biased/politicized/skewed worldview if I tried.
You choose homeostasis. Feeeling good about the future makes you feel good. This leads to immediate improvements in one's quality of life. People are attracted to those who have a "positive outlook." No one likes hanging around a doomsayer.
This author clearly lives in a place where he can afford such optimism. It's not so easy in the slums of Tanzania.
This author clearly lives in a place where he can afford such optimism. It's not so easy in the slums of Tanzania.
I believe feeling good about the future with many specific reasons to feel good about the future is totally valid though.
Ask yourself why people in the slums of Tanzania might not be "optimistic about the future". Is it because of their poor current living situation, or is it because they don't see as much of the political, scientific, and social progress being made over time globally? I'd argue it's more likely the latter.
Ask yourself why people in the slums of Tanzania might not be "optimistic about the future". Is it because of their poor current living situation, or is it because they don't see as much of the political, scientific, and social progress being made over time globally? I'd argue it's more likely the latter.
I don't know what's going to happen in the future. No one does. I don't have all the facts. And even if I did, I would need a galaxy brain to integrate them all into an outlook. Not everything is publicized. There are many groups of people who work to further their own agendas. We aren't one globe, one humanity. It's a nice idea, but it doesn't reflect reality.
I base my pessimism on the childishness I see flourishing in adults who have lost contact with reality because they've never endured serious hardship. These people can be easily manipulated because they have little fear. They have never made life or death decisions. So they don't understand the significance of forming an accurate model of the world. The result is a nation full of dreamers. Such people are ill adapted to the real world and will naturally be ineffective in all that they do.
There are very strong incentives for forming an optimistic outlook. None of these are conditioned on data or serious consideration. I think people look for reasons to justify how they want to feel. In other words, optimism precedes the reasons one has for being optimistic.
Voltaire lampooned optimism very well in Candide. His ultimate conclusion was: don't waste your time on idealistic notions of a world in which terrible things are always happening; instead, tend to your garden--do your best to improve what you can and no more. This is a wise suggestion. Optimism and pessimism are both traps. They are pathological extensions of present conditions.
I wish I could heed this wisdom...
I base my pessimism on the childishness I see flourishing in adults who have lost contact with reality because they've never endured serious hardship. These people can be easily manipulated because they have little fear. They have never made life or death decisions. So they don't understand the significance of forming an accurate model of the world. The result is a nation full of dreamers. Such people are ill adapted to the real world and will naturally be ineffective in all that they do.
There are very strong incentives for forming an optimistic outlook. None of these are conditioned on data or serious consideration. I think people look for reasons to justify how they want to feel. In other words, optimism precedes the reasons one has for being optimistic.
Voltaire lampooned optimism very well in Candide. His ultimate conclusion was: don't waste your time on idealistic notions of a world in which terrible things are always happening; instead, tend to your garden--do your best to improve what you can and no more. This is a wise suggestion. Optimism and pessimism are both traps. They are pathological extensions of present conditions.
I wish I could heed this wisdom...
Addressing those things for those people in those places should certainly be a top priority but we shouldn't let that blind us to the broader reality that by most standardized, objective measures things are mostly getting better for more people more of the time.