How should we react to climate change, with Pessimism or Optimism?
READ COMMENTS BEFORE VOTING: Following a discussion on Utilising technologies designed for Mars as a backup plan for preparing humanity to weather climate change here on Earth, it appeared a deeper question came up.
How should we react to this existential threat? With Pessimism or Optimism? Will how we choose to face the challenge factor into our chances of meeting it?
At the moment, despite reality painting a very dim outlook I’ve been choosing to be optimistic that we will find a way and I haven’t given up hope. Is it the biggest challenged we’ve faced as a species? Probably. However, weren’t all the previous challenges we’ve made it through as a species described as impossible by many? I look around me and see many items we take for granted, that not so long ago would be described as magic to our ancestors. Water comes to my beck and call whenever I want, I can summon fire in less than a second, I can communicate with multiple people instantly, I can see the faces of people on the other side of the globe in real time, I can make voices and music fill my home without opening my mouth or touching an instrument, I have access to what used to be only a mere fantasy with plenty of food at hand. These are barely a handful of the other things I could describe in this fashion.
At the moment, it’s extremely hard to get a true gauge of what our chances really are. Political priorities of world governments don’t seem to be matching up with the priorities that are required for long term survival and actually seem to be going the wrong direction entirely as we see the rise of radical tyrannical groups gaining power in many places around the world from the USA, Brazil, India, Philippines to name a few.
Our resources aren’t being put towards the problem adequately either with military spending still making up the bulk of government investment which in turn feeds the fossil fuel industry causing our existential threat in the first place. It’s almost crazy to think, that this investment might kill us all without any nuclear device ever being detonated and a massive stockpile of death machines lie unused yet successful in their ultimate purpose.
I have more thoughts I could share but I feel I’m rambling and it would be better to get this debate going as I feel debate leads to the real arguments which help us determine how we should really feel.
https://time.com/5709100/halt-climate-change-300-billion/ Is this enough to be optimistic about? A 20 year stay?
How should a Pragmatist resolve this?
How should we react to this existential threat? With Pessimism or Optimism? Will how we choose to face the challenge factor into our chances of meeting it?
At the moment, despite reality painting a very dim outlook I’ve been choosing to be optimistic that we will find a way and I haven’t given up hope. Is it the biggest challenged we’ve faced as a species? Probably. However, weren’t all the previous challenges we’ve made it through as a species described as impossible by many? I look around me and see many items we take for granted, that not so long ago would be described as magic to our ancestors. Water comes to my beck and call whenever I want, I can summon fire in less than a second, I can communicate with multiple people instantly, I can see the faces of people on the other side of the globe in real time, I can make voices and music fill my home without opening my mouth or touching an instrument, I have access to what used to be only a mere fantasy with plenty of food at hand. These are barely a handful of the other things I could describe in this fashion.
At the moment, it’s extremely hard to get a true gauge of what our chances really are. Political priorities of world governments don’t seem to be matching up with the priorities that are required for long term survival and actually seem to be going the wrong direction entirely as we see the rise of radical tyrannical groups gaining power in many places around the world from the USA, Brazil, India, Philippines to name a few.
Our resources aren’t being put towards the problem adequately either with military spending still making up the bulk of government investment which in turn feeds the fossil fuel industry causing our existential threat in the first place. It’s almost crazy to think, that this investment might kill us all without any nuclear device ever being detonated and a massive stockpile of death machines lie unused yet successful in their ultimate purpose.
I have more thoughts I could share but I feel I’m rambling and it would be better to get this debate going as I feel debate leads to the real arguments which help us determine how we should really feel.
https://time.com/5709100/halt-climate-change-300-billion/ Is this enough to be optimistic about? A 20 year stay?
How should a Pragmatist resolve this?
Comments (135)
Same attitude we should take toward everything.
I’m a pragmatist by philosophy so I’m already responding with pragmatism.
Which is the better motivator to actually act and contribute toward the problem within your area of it? For example, if I was pessimistic, would I have bothered to post and ask the question?
Think of the problem as if it were a referendum where we actually have the ability to vote on whether or not climate change even happens. Answering with Optimism is voting for it not to happen and Pessimism is voting for it to happen. What happens if too many people vote Pessimism and what happens if enough people vote Optimism? That’s not to say outlook is the only factor here, but is it a contributing factor?
The butterfly effect argument:
We believe that making even a small change in the past, would drastically alter the present. So is the Optimism butterfly the one we should be collectively stepping on? Doesn’t it also follow that if a small change to the past will drastically alter the present, then a small change in the present can drastically alter the future?
Hence, pessimism.
For whom/what? Time-horizon? :brow:
Do not make the mistake of thinking you are personally responsible. If you are not a high level national decision maker; if you are not a coal/oil/gas CEO or member of any of several coal/oil/gas boards of directors; if you are not a CEO of an auto maker; if you are not a major stockholder in any of these industries--then you are not in a position to make critical decisions.
Those who are in positions where they could make critical decisions have, by and large, decided to burn the last ton of coal, the last barrel of petroleum, and the last cubic foot of gas. That is why I am fairly certain that we will collectively suffer a hot wet death.
We are running out of time (or we have run out of time--not sure which) for our usual slow rate of change to make a difference in the outcome. What we are doing now (putting in modest wind and solar farms) we should have been doing 40 years ago. Jimmy Carter put a solar panel on the White House roof in 1976. Ronald Reagan took it down in 1980. End of discussion. We should have started worrying about temperate and tropical rain forests 40 years ago. We didn't.
A hand full of ultra-rich and power people in the world are both guilty and responsible for the critical problems we face.
It might be, but you know, the bubonic plague wiped out at least a third of Europe's population in a short period of time. The plague was horrible, but once it let up, the survivors picked up where they left off and carried on. A lot of people found they were better off than before the plague because they had inherited bits of property that the dead had left them. The economy boomed.
I don't cite the plague as evidence that all will be well. I cite it as evidence that abandoning coal/oil/gas, and the private auto would be a horrible experience (it really would be) but that many people would survive. Walking or riding a bike to work, taking a bus, literally running to the store for bread, forgoing many of the luxuries that have become necessities (like fresh strawberries all year round, organic air-cooled-chicken, or flying 10,000 miles to attend a wedding) would be hard, but people would learn to make do. It would be easier than recovering from bubonic plague.
Quoting Mark Dennis
IT ISN'T
Quoting Mark Dennis
It's really very simple: IF political [and economic] priorities don't match up with long term survival requirements
THEN
we won't survive.
We're screwed. The world will become our rotisserie.
Optimism and pessimism have nothing to do with pragmatism. Optimism and pessimism are emotional states. Neither are a solution to anything.
I do agree somewhat the realism approach. Realistic evaluation will naturally lead you to the answer of this.
Yum, fried humans. :ok:
We are not capable of altering our behaviour. We are captivated by the new, the interesting, the existential experience so to speak. We are explorers, innovators, creators, and when we are doing those things is when we as a species advances and shines. As individuals when we feel most alive. We cannot change.
The only way to deal with it is to create a cost effective way to reverse the damage we have done, are doing, and will do. Scrub carbon from the oceans and atmosphere. Remove toxins. Remove food sources that are compromised, or mitigate the problems. Basically we have to win the race, but we are not capable of stopping or reversing course.
Economically at some point it will make sense to put vast resources into the problem. But not now because the problems aren’t costing money. When they do then the calculation is that at some point solving the problem will save money. Or make money, if u will.... that is when things will start to happen. Not before.
The social protest is but a mere contradiction - we indulge and waste what we have and at the same time demand change to our own behaviour. Because we are not capable of effecting change, nor do we desire it.
That's a very good point.
Define 'made it through'. What criteria are you using to determine that we've 'made it' - mere survival of the species (I expect that's going to happen anyway at some level).
Quoting Mark Dennis
Basically as good a description of the problem as you're ever going to get. Success measured by number of shiny items.
Quoting Mark Dennis
Positive thinking about the future is strongly associated with poor performance..
Here's another of Oettingen's experiments, this time with charitable giving.
She's done similar research on small-scale environmental efforts (recycling, in this case) and found negative correlation between activity and positive future outlooks, but I can't find an internet version of this one.
No, we don't.
Quoting Mark Dennis
Um, I think you got lost in your metaphors here. Stomping on an optimism butterfly is supposed to accomplish what? Extinguish optimism?
Yes, I have read the Bradbury story when I was a kid. But it's just a story, an entertaining thought experiment; besides, if you remember, the effect, as described in the story, was rather subtle, was felt tens of millions of years after the event, and was completely unpredictable - so no drastic changes from small disturbances and no apparent connection between cause and its distant effect. There are some chaotic systems in the world, but lucky for us, they are few and far between, otherwise any sort of stable, structured existence would have been impossible. For the most part, nature seems to be quite robust.
I agree: this is the realistic view of what's happening. So I'm quite pessimistic unless power can be confiscated from those people. I can't imagine how that would happen.
I just want to ask why is it so difficult or impossible for people to realize and see clearly just how psychopathic all the elites are who mindlessly continue to destroy the planet and environment.
Sarcasm alert.
Sarcasm or irony? Are you being sarcastic or ironic about the entire discussion?
The statement, "Climate is a matter of faith and ideology," is vague. What is climate change a matter of???
Yeah it was pretty late when I was writing this and I did get lost in the metaphors a bit! Stepping on the Optimism butterfly in my mind at the time meant to choose to be optimistic but you’re right, it could be interpreted as stamping out optimism.
We don’t? Everything I’ve read about chaos theory and time travel theory and every science fiction seems to indicate this and the margins aren’t always by millions of years. While literally stepping on one butterfly may be the sort of change that might take these magnitudes, to metaphorically choose the Optimism butterfly can mean a lot of different things to a lot of people. A working class man may invest a dollar a month toward climate change research or technology to fight climate change, his student daughter may believe there is a way and go to school to study to look for it, in order to join the scientist whose optimism makes him work and research for a solution in the first place and the scientists grandmother may decide to gift as much of her accumulated wealth as she can to her grandsons research. These are all examples of (Freeing instead of stepping on?) the Optimism butterfly.
I feel there is a difference here between unrealistic optimism and optimism coupled with realism.
I actually agree with this, however I wasn’t describing this as things as a list of successes, but only as a list of things which previous generations would have thought impossible. Which they would have.
Yeah the survival of the species will probably happen. The survival of our morals, culture and diversity is up for debate though. Those are things that I feel really need to be safeguarded as diversity increases long term survival.
As for morals... well when things start to get really bad you’ll see what I mean.
Follow instructions here: Stand up, take up a wide stance, hands on your hips, look up, force yourself to put on the biggest grin you can, hold for 1 minute. Let me know how it goes.
I think some people are pessimistic by habit, but optimism I believe is overall a healthier frame of mind and probably does equip us to make better choices.
I think a lot more will be done, in a coordinated political way, about climate control, but I don't think that much will be done until climate change starts costing big corporations a lot more money. When that happens, though, you'll see relatively quick action.
How ironic of you to be suggesting my sarcasm alert is more properly an irony alert, and then questioning the precision of my comment. Let me be entirely straightforward therefore to avoid any misunderstanding.
The climate is relatively unaffected by what people think about it. Be optimistic or pessimistic about it as you wish; the climate nor I could give a fart. It is what folks do that matters. And what most people will do is die trying to migrate, or trying to prevent others migrating.
I agree. So it’s what Optimism makes people do vs what Pessimism makes people do.
I think it’s ironic that even though this is man made climate change, people think there is nothing man can do to stop it. That may or may not be true but you can rest assured it’s mans job to try and fix mans own mistakes whether it is possible or not and the only way to have a fighting chance is to be optimistic.
Did you read the linked papers? The positive scenarios were perfectly realistic. It just seems that people who are optimistic seem to be less strongly driven to act. The more you imagine the rosy future, the more real it becomes. The more real it becomes the less of a concern it is to skip doing stuff to bring it about.
This is especially true with futurism where, for most, the stuff which needs doing is in someone else's hands.
Quoting Mark Dennis
Fair enough, but to use them to support a "well find a way" kind of optimism, you'd have to show solutions we'd never thought possible. Just things we'd never thought possible isn't what we're looking for.
Quoting Mark Dennis
I don't think any of those three things has survived intact from 50 years ago, so definitely not going to survive another 50,climate change or not.
I assumed that everyone participating in the discussion understood this, but you chose to chastise the discussion as if it should not have taken place. That seems inappropriate to me.
It seems appropriate to me to chastise the discussion of irrelevancies, especially if everyone is assumed to understand the irrelevance already. But there you go, it's a matter of taste.
I think the only rational thing to do is adopt an optimistic attitude. Here's my calculation:
If we're pessimistic about it, then we won't do anything, and if we don't do anything the chance of averting climate change or dealing with it successfully =0%.
If we're optimistic about it, then we'll do something, and if we do something the chance of success is >0%.
Nobody assumed the irrelevance but you.
Positive thinking in the form of fantasies specifically. However much can be said here about these papers. I agree with the conclusions already, however they aren’t really the full components of the Optimism argument. Optimism that we as an individual can act and contribute to effect change is not the same as positive thinking about a idealised fantasy about the future.
Maybe this is where we see the need for both optimism and Pessimism but should be clear on what we are being pessimistic about and what we are being optimistic about. We should absolutely be pessimistic about the future because realistically it is absolutely terrifying when you use futurism to determine potential outcomes based on how things appear to be going. However, unless you are bound, gagged and chained up permanently you can always be optimistic that you as an individual have the power to act and effect a magnitude of positive change that is at least better than 0%.
When we start to think about modality and utility in ethics in regards to studies in futurism; we should be broaching questions of what is and isn’t possible for ethics to achieve and even what is and isn’t possible for ethics to fail.
With so many probabilistic factors at play, any single positing of one possible outcome be it negative or positive is going to ultimately be misleading. Therefore any complete philosophy of futurism, must come with a multitude of predictions of potential outcomes and all of these predictions must come with their own pros and cons. No future is going to be either all positive or all negative, at least from a biocentrist perspective. At the point when no life is possible in the universe due to big freeze or crunch etc (whichever is the correct end theory) There will be no one around to say it is either positive or negative. While the universe holds life however; there is always the chance someone will be able to find both the good and the bad in every realistic potential outcome. Any form of life that claims it is only one or the other is probably wrong though.
Example number 1: We have a great economy, we are the strongest we’ve ever been, we’ve made America great again.
Vs
Example number 2: Sure not everything is great, but you can make it better.
Paraphrasing Trumps ramblings, and Obama’s “Make it better speech”.
I’m going with optimism on this one. We are in an interglacial period and we need the Holocene period to last, or else slip into another ice age. But the pessimism at least serves to remind us to clean up after ourselves and conserve our environments.
All humans ever truly do is change, every day. That’s all life does; Obstacle, adapt, fail, adapt, succeed, obstacle, adapt etc. This is the basis for evolution. If you are trying to suggest we can’t evolve, that’s not to as evolution is happening with every single birth.
Now, social evolution is even more chaotic than physiological evolution because it involves so many abstract factors.
If you can honestly look back at how drastically our society has changed in just the last few decades let alone the last few centuries and still say that “we can’t change” them I’m sorry but it’s just wrong.
I think, if we stop categorically stating that “we can’t change” and instead ask ourselves “how do we change?” at least our mind is open to realistic possibilities and opportunities as opposed to disbelieving and missing them all. Once we have an answer to that question, we need to act on it and enter a conflict with ourselves for change. Sometimes you will fail, but you can always adapt both your tactics and strategy until you succeed.
People that say they can’t change are only correct until they stop believing that, at the point they stop believing that it becomes much more open for debate at the very least.
Chin up my friend. Outcomes might look grim but unless we are bound, chained and gagged we can always be optimistic in our ability to act in some way. Even speaking is an action, as is writing.
Agreed. So if realism dictates after a dispassionate assessment; Optimism in the face of adversity. And, if we are also asking what the options are. Aren’t we already engaging in realism if we ask and discuss which is the better of the two options? So long as we are willing to periodically repeat our dispassionate assessments?
Yes, but optimism that we can do what? Keep on growing the population? Keep on with industrial agriculture? Keep on driving cars and taking international (or even national) flights? Inordinate optimism or pessimism would seem to be a problem. Realism would dictate that we face the situation dispassionately and assess as honestly as possible what we are justified in being optimistic about ,and what we are justified in being pessimistic about.
So there are not just "two options", but countless options, when it comes to optimism or pessimism. The only two options are as to whether we face the situation honestly or remain in denial.
:clap: :up:
Neither pessimism nor optimism plays a role in pragmatism. Your personal opinion on the future of a physical phenomenon is completely negligible. It is null and void. It is immaterial, it is totally irrelevant.
What if optimism tells us, "hey, God will save us all, don't worry, we are made in his image, just forget it."
Good luck then to you.
Optimism alone or pessimism alone are ridiculous measures when it comes to fighting a physical phenomenon that threatens mankind.
Aside from the quote not making any grammatical / semantic sense, it is nonsense to think that optimism is a help or a hindrance in the face of adversity, and it is a nonsense to think that pessimism is a help or a hindrance in the face of adversity. They both, optimims and pessimims, play no role in dispassionate assessments. Remember, optimism and pessimism are both reflections of passions; dispassionate excludes the role of passion; therefore it excludes optimism and pessimism.
Quoting Mark Dennis
You can change people's behaviour to recycle paper and plastic bottles, and to even eat less, or to breathe and exhale carbon dioxide only 17 times every minute.
But you can't change them to not having children, to not nurturing their children, to not bringing their children to maturity.
I say that when somebody says "we are not capable of effecting change" he may only mean change that brings on sufficiently satisfactory results toward our aim.
If we keep on having children, then no change you make will make a materially satisfactory change.
Pessimism just means preparation in short. Optimism prohibits, if not severely reduces being prepared. How does "optimism" prepare or equipped you for the realism of dire situations? It is a false hope.
If optimism is quenched; it is luck. If pessimism fails, it is no harm done. Nothing about pessimism restricts foresight, examination, or effective judgment. It prepares you for all possible obstacles; it is not optimism that makes you overcome challenges. It is preparation, strategy, unclouded judgment, cost/benefit analysis, fitness, willpower, among other things.
In my experience, Optimists are terrible at cost/benefit analysis and seem largely (emotion>luck>blind>rationality) driven. They are a lot like the totalitarian color-blinds in at other sub.
HOW MANY MARBLES are you going to lose in the "luck game"? Do you think professional gamblers are a table full of optimists, or a table full of pessimistic strategists? There is a reason no one smiles at the tables.
Do you think Greta Thunberg, is an OPTIMIST? The only optimists are climate change deniers. Pessimism at it's best, is JOKER - with many tricks up the sleeve. Optimism at IT'S best is DENIAL.
Also, please stop confusing pessimism with chronic/untreated mental disorders (e.g. depression).
If it didn’t make sense then how did you understand what I meant? If you’re having a problem with the language used that’s fine but if you understand my meaning then it clearly made sense. Also, if you’re best objection is grammatical in nature then it kind of just highlights that you don’t have a strong counter argument. Particularly as it pays no mind to theories describing utility in different emotional states.
Then I’d say this is unjustified optimism about the future and apathy to ones own ability to act in the present for the lazy purposes of appealing to a higher authority to excuse oneself of responsibility.
In the event happening it is completely null and void. In surviving said event however..
By yours and others answers this is becoming apparent. Any measure employed alone is ridiculous. Luckily I never suggested that Optimism or Pessimism alone would be all that was needed. That’s no better than the theory of attraction nonsense peddled by self help con artists.
Outlook is still going to be one of the many many contributing factors but that doesn’t subtract from the importance of discussing that factor.
Overall you are correct though and I’ve rethought my position.
In conclusion I feel with everyone involved this has been a very fruitful conversation.
My stance has shifted somewhat; We should absolutely feel pessimistic about the future, but should be optimistic in our ability to act now in the present to at least mitigate the damage climate change will invariably cause even if we figure out how to start reversing it within the next decade or two.
I think maybe the next thing to move on to once you and others have the chance to reply to my conclusion and offer your criticisms. Would be to open up a new discussion along the lines of asking what or who should we be prioritising in our efforts to increase the survival chances of some of the human race?
I think we can probably most of us agree that it shouldn’t just be the rich elite?
Anyway, keep an eye out for a new discussion.
Unjustified optimism/pessimism vs justified seems to me the best option for now, or just making it clear that we are optimistic about the fact that we can act now to lessen a pessimistic future outlook.
I did not claim I understood what you meant. I said what makes sense and what does not make sense. I even gave all the qualifiers, and stated my opinion, independently of your nonsensical quote. Read my response, and you will see.
You made no distinction between unjustified optimism and general optimism. You are moving the goal posts now.OPTIMISM encompasses all optimism. That's what you have been talking about for two days.
If you want to single out "unjustified optimism" and drop all other optimism in this thread, say so now.
No, no, no. You are throwing out the baby with the bath water. You said, "any" and meaning all, "measuers are ridiculous." You show impoverished thought by equating "optimism or pessimism" to all.
Optimism and pessimism are not all.
You ignorantly dismiss all scientific, techological and social influences. Because they are also part of all, but you include them in "pessimism and optimism" as to you pessimism and optimism are all.
What about "doing everything in our power, to avoid catastrophy and at the same time not make an impossible pre-judgement whether our efforts will be fruitful and work, or not, by being pessimistic or optimistic."
Okay unlike you I do actually read the comments, yours, others and people who aren’t even replying to me. If you had read the other comments you would know that I have actually made the distinction to others raising similar issues as yourself. I you read the reply I made to you properly you would also read that I agree with the overall premise that pessimism or optimism alone and even outlook alone is insufficient. So overall this has been a successful discussion really. Was I somewhat wrong in my opening statements and perspective? A little bit. Yet I am not struck down as if by lightning? I don’t care if I’m wrong, what I care about is knowing I’m willing to admit it and alter my perspective. It’s called intellectual honesty.
I just checked with others and they say that although compact, it’s understandable and correct.
You really need to calm down and learn what discussion is all about instead of making it a competition.
Other comments in this thread or elsewhere?
I never read all your other comments in this thread but the general ones, the ones directed at me, and some (but not all) of the comments directed at others.
I plead quilty to that charge.
Is it a site rule, or just your unnamed requirement by you which you spring on me now?
Quoting Mark Dennis
I read that, in a paraphrase form, and I think not only are they insufficient, but superfluous and immaterial. That also includes insufficient, but insufficient can mean also that it is necessary. I say optimism and pessimism are neither sufficient, nor necessary in this instance.
You're pushing your own blunder's onus on the community? Pfuy.
Here, you haughty "better than thou":
Quoting Mark Dennis
Even Kant and many many other philosophers admitted to mistakes later in life from Socrates to the modern day.
If you go around looking for things to be 100% right before you listen to them then you are going to be eternally disappointed and I feel very sorry for you because you’re going to miss so many things. I hope you grow up soon and figure out what debate and discussion is all about but it would help if you learned some humility in the long run.
In reality, all philosophers are on the same team in the pursuit of knowledge even if they identify in different ways. We are all here for the same reasons. If you’re angry at me for knowing that I can change and improve my understanding by accepting the wisdom of others (including yourself by the way) then that’s your prerogative.
then don’t claim I never made a distinction if you can’t even figure out which comments where the distinction is evident. Can’t exactly accuse anyone of lying about what they wrote when you didn’t read It.
Yet you think you can make fun of my grammar and semantics? Wow. Go away and rethink how you’re approaching education because it’s pretty much a patch job.
[quote=Mark Dennis]?180 Proof About our chances of making safe our biosphere for us and as much within it as we can within the next 50 years. Should we as individuals be optimistic? [/quote]
Hell no. Optimism is why we're in this "global warming" mess to begin with: not just cynical sociopathic elites but the masses - all have neglected the environmental costs of extractive, industrial, technocapitalism for centuries; now too many still neglect the autistic "climate science" Cassandras and carping green-fundies because they're optimistic that their g/G-of-choice is "on their side" or optimistic that the climate science must be wrong (i e. Who needs a precautionary principle?) or optimistic because the propaganda pushed by pro-corporate hegemons and their state-ish mass media reassures them 24/7/365 that "global warming is only a radical leftist, anti-capitalist, anti-American/Western, anti-globalism HOAX" even as the frequency of catastrophic sea-level rise from glacier-loss, 100 year storms, 500 year floods, wildfires, mudslides, extended droughts, etc grows asymptotically bringing many urban metrozones in many rich developed nations to the brink of uninsurability (& public infrastructure insolvency) etc.
Opportunity in disaster. ("Shock Doctrine" rehearsals.)
Living in interesting times. ( ??????????? )
Gigacide is coming. (Jon Stark knew that much!)
Cold warriors & banksters have gamed this out for decades, even better now with AlphaGo-enabled big data-populated simulations. Preppers' grands & great-grands are just as fucked as their obliviously smug & climate-change denier neighbors' descendents will be UNLESS they have deep roots or resourceful stakes in places where currently NOBODY wants to live or industrially exploit. Crowded planet and plastic oceans are on their way to much needed malthusian respite within a century, give or take a few decades, as the Anthropocene die-off irreversibly crashes the human population back to below a billion.
:death:
As a species we're wired to deny that we're ever fucked - especially by our own wishful negligence. Except for fringe types, homo insapiens refuses to be pessimistic enough to grapple en mass with the hazards trending (above) and so they'll go on 'amusing themselves to death' until they're begging to die rather than watch each other's babies starve or slowly waste away from thirst in briny drowned cityscapes. The optimistic cunts who wage wars feeding masses of other optimistic cunts down abattoirs of convenience, profit or ruin always do so again because THIS TIME IT WILL BE DIFFERENT; the latest and greatest war to come: surviving the "climate change" (near?)extinction event. AND THIS TIME, FOR US, IT WILL BE DIFFERENT ... for fuck's sake.
:flower:
How we ‘should’ react is neither here nor there. We don’t know how to react, but maybe we’re more inclined to jump on the pessimistic bandwagon due to our current social environment?
The true horror of human existence is quietly clawing its way out of the abyss. We’re effectively deconstructing ‘morality’ which is quite interesting given that most of the people doing so think they’re the vanguard of ‘morality’. Comedy precedes the Tragedy? I just hope we learn to embrace heaven and hell without delusional biases.
Pessimism is an aspect of apocalyticism. Al Gore was John. His video was Revelations.
But now that google has a quantum computer, we should be seeing some modeling breakthroughs.
Quoting I like sushi
Could you explain this a little more?
Optimism is not gambling, it is a fundamental attitude that underlies a perspective in which one is positively motivated. Likewise, pessimism is not caution or care, it is a fundamentally negative attitude, an orientation.
I would never presume to argue with someone who feels pessimism is more productive than optimism. I think the juxtaposition of the two terms speaks for itself. I know if I had to choose between being stuck in a situation with a pessimist or an optimist which I would prefer.
If the difference between success and failure is a healthy attitude then perhaps that is enough. We are speaking in generalities, after all.
I can try ...
I mean that we’ve been stuck in a world (humanity), for a long time, where ethical ideas and law have taken away human choice and responsive social activity. We’re bare under the glaring sun of authority, we’ve become instant upon ideals of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ so as to ignore our inner horror.
We’re neither angels nor demons, yet we’ve simplified the world into this dull polarity. We’re waking up. Some are clinging onto ideas of ‘utopia’ and ‘happiness’, but I guess they’re just speeding the inevitable realisation along.
Quantum computers? They don’t do anything yet. It will probably be a decade or two before someone actually makes any practical use of them ... by then you’ll probably have attempts to hand of human choice to emotionless unfeeling algorithms. People tend to go to great strides to avoid responsibility.
I guess you could call my position akin to Dionysian inclinations. I don’t think many people today have even the slightest appreciation of the power of ‘entertainment’ or how the interact with ‘feelings’. People prefer to be passengers (myself included) because the existential abyss is hard to look at - so we pretend it’s irrelevant whilst staring right into it.
That is a ‘little more’ of an explanation. I understand it’s wanting, but hey, I’m watching TV :D
As I frequently find to be the case, our perspectives are closely aligned. In a way, morality is the true nihilism because to be wholly dependent on laws and condemnations is to become the shell of a person: psychically hollowed out.
It's when you step into the truly godless world that your own being comes into view. You realize then that you actually do love other people as you love yourself. Looking back to that hollowed out self, there's nothing to love. It's just a clunking computer trying and failing to follow an algorithm without any feeling other than a drone of fearful guilt that occasionally crescendos into a flash of rage, and then back to the drone. There is no love of self. There is no recognition of the fragility of life. Eyes are fixed on eternal phantom rules. These rules are the defense against the void, and they're made of nothing but sounds and marks.
Quoting I like sushi
But google has one. Why couldn't they start making them to replace super-computers?
Quoting I like sushi
I'm drinking morning coffee. Trying to wake up.
To relate this to the OP: if you're hollow, you'll just look for rules to follow. If you face the abyss, you'll act out of love.
Well, technically, you can recycle pizza boxes where I am from. They just do not actually get recycled, because they are unable to reuse/process if you throw them in the bin. Very few items are actually being recycled properly.
Alright, Sir Righteous. Seems you know exactly what you're talking about. /s
I think there not two possibilities here but four, getting falsely lumped together as two:
"Broad Optimism" in the sense that a solution is possible, the negation of narrow pessimism.
"Narrow Optimism" in the sense that a solution is guaranteed, a subset of broad optimism.
"Broad Pessimism" in the sense that a solution is not guaranteed, the negation of narrow optimism.
"Narrow Pessimism in the sense that a solution is impossible, a subset of broad pessimism.
These are just the four basic logical modalities (possibility, necessity, contingency, and impossibility) applied to the solvability of the problem.
It seems to me that some people are arguing against narrow pessimism and so in favor of broad optimism (but not necessarily in favor of narrow optimism), while other people are arguing against narrow optimism and so in favor of broad pessimism (but not necessarily in favor of narrow pessimism). Those two arguments are compatible with each other, and if both are right (as I agree) then [the right attitude is to assume that] a solution is what I like to call merely possible: possible but contingent.
Because either narrow optimism or narrow pessimism is an excuse not to act, and only if we act might a solution be possible, though even if we act it is still not guaranteed.
It makes a lot of sense to me. I’m gonna have to cite you in my work! Some really strong arguments here.
What you call "broad" optimism and pessimism seem to refer more to overall dispositions which are not relative to any actual situations. It is only if you believe that an overall optimistic disposition will be a greater motivator to effective action than an overall pessimistic disposition will be. I don't believe that is a given at all. The willingness of people to act regardless of their assessments of the likelihood that their actions will achieve the desired result would vary with individual psychology, I would say.
What you refer to as "narrow" optimism and pessimism I would say best relates to assessments of the likelihood of achieving some desired result in particular situations (although that does not seem to be what you mean by the terms).
So, imagine that on a comprehensive assessment we come to believe we are justified in thinking that a proposed course of action will not be effective in attaining some desired result. We will rightly be pessimistic as to the chances of success of that course of action. There may be other, better, courses of action.
If, however we cannot imagine any other course of action, and there is a dire need to achieve the desired result would, or should, our pessimistic (say it's realistic for the sake of argument) assessment of the likelihood of failure necessarily stop us from trying the course of action? If we don't try we will have zero chance of achieving our ends, if we act at least there may be some chance of success or even of just improving our situation without realizing the full goal we might have in mind.
Perhaps one might want to say that blind (unjustified) optimism would justifiably be thought to be better than crippling pessimism, since at least the former might give us some chance of success. However, can we ever be sure that not acting at all can never lead, despite ourselves, to a better outcome than forging ahead in a state of blind optimism?
So, it seems futile to try to assess which is better between optimism and pessimism as such; because the question is inevitably complexly context-dependent.
I think waiting patiently is an excellent thing to bring up as an example of when not acting may lead to a better outcome. Although I think the potential use of Pfhorrests terms still comes in handy to describe something here. Broad pessimism can involve waiting to act, narrow pessimism is just going to be waiting.
Also, while the question is context dependant; these terms provide a useful tool to take with us into future context analyses.
One thing needs to be said of thinking time though. One could make an argument that most situations that demand action would be best carried out with a well thought out plan, strategy, mindset etc. However, we won’t always be given the time that might be required to do this in every context. In these situations it may be best to go in with the right default position if that makes sense? So upon entering any situation that requires action or becoming aware of a situation that will require action, we should be asking ourselves how much time do we have to think about how we want to act? If we don’t know how long, how long do we give ourselves to think in any situation?
For example, in relation to the risk of global warming, it seems to me to be highly unlikely that we will be able to continue driving private cars (whether electric or fossil fuel-powered), taking international, or even national flights, trading globally to a significant extent, and continuing to grow the economy and the human and livestock populations, without precipitating conditions which will devastate animal and human populations and the natural environment generally, in the most unpleasant ways in the next few decades.
So, if we just forge ahead with business as usual on account of optimistically believing that we can do so, for example, simply by substituting electric vehicles for fossil fuel driven vehicles, and switching to renewable for power generation, then I would count that as foolish optimism because it does not take account of the complexities involved.
I think that's a good point you bring up. We may not have enough time to think exhaustively about options before making a decision to act, and must follow our "gut" sometimes and hope for the best. This "hoping for the best" could be thought to be optimism, but if the situation is dire we may still act, despite our pessimism, because we see that no action would likely be worse or even be fatal, and that any action might turn out to be better. Also feeling paralyzed is very bad for morale, so the aim of boosting morale alone may be a good motivation for acting even in situations of extreme uncertainty.
I agree. Materialism got us here in the first place. I’d be happy living in a society with just the running water and small amounts of renewable energy for heating in the winter. I could get much more reading done and could tend my own little polyculture fruit forest... I’m optimistic about my ability to do this but pessimistic of others to give up the “comfort and ease”. Then you have something else strangling the planet right now besides climate change. Red Tape! Damn bureaucrats.
I’d need to come back on here one last time to get some of your mailing addresses though ^_^ can’t miss out on these conversations too much.
Me too!
Quoting Mark Dennis
And the fucking plutocrats too!
Quoting Mark Dennis
Philosophical conversations by snail mail, eh? Hasn't that been done before? :joke:
As I mentioned in my other response. The problem is when your actions toward 'making it better' are the very things the next generation finds constitute 'not everything is great'.
A little too uncompromising was I? Maybe so. I think I am just losing patience with philosophizing by way of equivocation. Start with a premise X, then start arguing as though X means Y. Pessimism is not a "broad" term. It literally means, 'tending to see the worst.' The normative denotation is already built in to the term and it is negative. So optimism vs. pessimism? Easy choice.
Yea. I didn't mean it in a hippy sort of way, though.
Forming ethical ideas and law IS a form of responsive social activity though?
Morality and ethics is largely the study of value theory. Unless I meet a human that values absolutely nothing then I’ll not believe there is no such thing as ethics and morality because all life seems to keep going on valuing things. I mean, even rocks have the value of their own being without being aware of it. That rocks exist is a fundamental value statement in and of itself because it’s intrinsically more than nothing. 0 vs 1.
You right now are getting something you value out of engaging in discussion. You even value the idea that there is no morality, yet you are valuing.
Now, you could be right to say that if what we call reality is a computer simulation in some larger universe that it may be that this “real” universe has no morals or value. However, this is pretty implausible because it implies that the computer simulation we may be in is purely abstract and not based on anything that exists in that reality, which wouldn’t really match up with the fact that our video games try to emulate parts of reality and the ones that are mostly abstract (because they cannot be purely abstract) are usually more simplistic than the ones we base on reality. Take gravity for example; if this is a simulation, where did the idea for gravity come from? Is there a gravity like force in a larger universe that is the inspiration for the simulations gravity?
Yet if we can know we are in a computer simulation we can know two things, that the beings there who made the simulation value computer simulations, and that they value.
Now I’m not sure I buy simulation theory; however the idea that value doesn’t exist is mathematically incorrect as we are all beings greater than 0.
Can you see how that if I command you to value birds (when you don't of your own sentiment), then your actions will be hollow, and you'll likely drop it when you realize I have no power over you?
Morality is often for show, as Jesus is said to have pointed out.
An interesting perspective. So for this we will hypothetically say that you are my teacher. Which I actually do identify you as because I don’t believe in a student teacher relationship, only ever teacher - teacher because people cannot interact without teaching the other about themselves.
So you my teacher have commanded me to value birds, (I love birds haha) one day I realise that you have no power over me. Have I stopped valuing you?
...I don't know, I'm a little worried. I live in a waterfront community (Virginia) and it's very evident tides have risen. Some docks and streets are flooding at high tide where they haven't flooded before. And some people are spending money raising their docks. And much of Tangier Island/Chesapeake Bay is under water now.
I hear Florida is worse... . The direct cost impact will certainly be associated with Government backed FEMA flood insurance claims (which to get a mortgage everyone is required to have in a flood zone or otherwise purchasing any waterfront property).
This is pretty raw and real.. Are you okay? Nobody is saying, this time it will be different. At least I’m not, there will always be a next fight to move onto... but we’re probably not going to be around for those. The thing is though in some way the future is always different, I mean we made up a system to track the time and log phases of when light is and isn’t hitting us. its ridiculous to think that most humans celebrate their birthday every year when in reality the day never really came back.
This is where we’d say that narrow pessimism is crippling, because when in the midst of tough situations there is always someone who freaks out and says “we are all going to die” and it’s easy to be that guy because given enough time you’re always proven right. That’s not the same as saying “we are all going to die right now by this tragedy” and you don’t know that.
I mean, you need to think about it like this; those elites at the top who are benefiting from all this. They want you to be narrowly pessimistic so you don’t raise a finger to them.
I will tell you something though, everyone reaches a point where biology takes over and the self saving optimism kicks in. You see it in people who run away from tsunamis. Their mind knows it’s a lost cause but the body still spurs you to run away as if you have a chance. However, for the ones only a short distance from higher ground, they have a chance. There will always be survivors. Banding together sooner rather than later is better than doing nothing at all and fighting your bodies survival mechanisms in reality is a form of suicide.
...oh thank you kindly Mark for your well wishes! No, we are good for now, it's just at high tides combined with, as you say, heavy rain events. I kinda hate to move because of all the nature and beauty here/feels very spiritual to me (I live on the historic Chickahominy River-you know the Chickahominy Indians/Pocahontas married first Colonist John Rolfe/Williamsburg Colony, etc. etc.).
Anyway, you are certainly used to colder temps which is fine, not to mention you not having any sea- level/elevation concerns in parts of Illinois. Though I'm assuming Chicago is at risk?
I applaud you for the thread. I think too, we need more public awareness of the issue. Politically, the Global (participation) challenges are real... .
While shore levels aren’t being cited as a worry here, it is not all sunshine and roses. Bacteria levels will need to be addressed, introduction of warm water fish. At the moment though, if the water contamination can be curbed, the lake states will be a source of fresh water for awhile.
Realistically though, retirement and setting up shop in Siberia is from what I can make out of my research, is probably going to be one of the best places to be for survival. While other places are becoming too hot, Siberia will be becoming lush fertile farmland. Although, the melting permafrost also has the potential to release ancient bacteria and viruses although I need to do more research on that to figure out if that fear is legitimate.
Thank you kindly for your well wishes too! Please keep safe as you can.
Thank you for the article Mark....this issue is very far reaching...awareness is key.
Thanks again.
Sure, but I've composed no argument, only presented an alternative to your (shallow) dependency on the equivocate definition of pessimism that is devoid of any explanation of what pessimism is in the context of the discussion.
Pessimism does not have a "broad" definition or a "broad term" - definitions and terms are not required to philosophize but analyzed to what extent they are useful in the particular context - I find your definition of 'pessimism' insufficient and more psychological than it is philosophical - reflecting further we see that 'pessimism' isn't just "expecting the worse" - but comes about from a reasonable observation, examination, and evaluation of particular/unique circumstances (of reality) & cost/benefit analysis - not just an emotional reaction to ongoing state of affairs nor is it necessarily reached by some negativity bias as you are trying to pass off.
It's just like that one discussion months ago from people trying to make "hate" merely an emotion - where I pose the distinction between 'hate' and 'hatred' & other meaningless words that need to be redefined - (which isn't just an emotion - I dislike bananas), but doesn't explain the manifestation of it in the form of someone's identity & requires 'foundation' to be put into practice - and/or an institutionalization of some sort, some rapport to seem superficially interesting from something like 'disgust' or any other emotion in the book; yeah people that claim to dislike Asians may or may not be 'racists' - or even the lack the power to be so, but sure, Asians make them emotionally uneasy, so what?
Go back and read my post and you'll see what I'm talking about.
So, all you can cough up from that post is another appeal to 'clear' 2+2=4 definitions? You do not want to reflect or discuss?
Well I have nothing else to say, then.
In Soviet Russia pissing contest stops you. Now.
• Optimism is the expectation that things won't get any worse; and (somehow) things will get better. (Re: nostalgic)
• Pessimism is the expectation that things won't get any better; and (somehow - let me count the effin' ways) things will get worse. (Re: entropic)
• [s]Realism[/s] Absurdism is the recognition that things will resist - or hurt / kill especially when neglected - requiring struggle no matter what is expected of or believed/not believed about them. (Re: adaptive; objective)
[quote=Mark Dennis]"... masses of other optimistic cunts ..."
—180 Proof
This is pretty raw and real.. Are you okay?[/quote]
Cheerful af. And you - optimistic? :shade:
I don't know. Was there a point you were trying to make?
Isn’t generally saying “things” making this a bit too general? I don’t really think it is a case of we should only feel optimistic and we should always be pessimistic toward everything. Can a person not be optimistic that turning the key will start the car but pessimistic that it will make it out of the street at the same time?
To me, adaptive pragmatism demands evaluating what you should and shouldn’t be pessimistic or optimistic about. I can be optimistic about my ability to act to make better a pessimistic view of the future. As opposed to being irrationally optimistic about the future despite all the evidence of why you shouldn’t be optimistic about it. Our outlooks aren’t always uniform for every single thing.
Forget the bird example let me ask something a little simpler. Is it a rule to value things or do we make rules around our values?
Why command that I don’t kill the bird? Does the teacher value the life of the bird?
:roll:
It's in the NT. He accuses the Pharisees of making a show of morality. I'm not quite motivated enough to give you a citation.
Quoting Mark Dennis
You can't be made to value something. You can only be made to put on a show.
Why would we need to make rules around our values?
- Matthew 23 v1-7
Simply put, Jesus is saying the Pharisees are hypocrites because they teach morality according to the laws of Moses but act immorally and against the laws of Moses.
I don’t know about that, biology does a good job of making us value air, food, water etc. Maybe I’m faking it though, maybe I don’t really need food or water or air?
Well for example, you don’t make a rule “don’t kill” unless you value life in some way. Ethics is the study of value theory. I don’t really know how to put this any more simply for you.
That's one scripture. You left out the part about white-washed tombs. The so-called Woes of the Pharisees are an important component to Jesus' message. Understanding that the Pharisees were legalistic but hollow sets the stage for his big ethical revolution.
To relate it to climate change, imagine someone who makes a show of insulating her house, but the office building she works in is practically a refrigerator in the summer due to air-conditioning. This isn't hypocrisy as in: "I'm professing it, but not doing it." This is a person who pays attention to details, but misses the bigger picture. In the same way, Jesus is supposed to have criticized the Pharisees for paying close attention to the way they washed their hands, but failed to pay attention to compassion and justice.
That isn't the point I was making, though. I was talking about nihilism.
Quoting Mark Dennis
You separate yourself from your biology? That's a neat trick.
Quoting Mark Dennis
I don't think anyone alive made the rule "don't kill." We just follow it when it suits us. Sometimes we value life, sometimes we don't.
Truly becoming nihilistic isn't something everybody is going to do. It's not a way of thinking I'd recommend (or warn against for that matter.) It just comes.
I think this is the key. What we are really talking about here is optimism vs. pessimism in the case of serious and complex situations with lots of unknowns. In that context, to me, optimism takes the form of believing that "we can make a difference" not just that "the best result will ensue" (a la Leibniz). Pessimism that "there is nothing we can do".
Uhm, okay? Thou shalt not kill obviously doesn’t mean what it says then.
Literally the complete opposite of what I’m doing.
Nihilism is for people in their early twenties. Been there, done that. The perspective still has its uses in certain times and areas but not as a fixed ideology.
Yes, exactly so. Have you seen @Pfhorrest comment on here about the terms Narrow and Broad being applied to Optimism and Pessimism?
What did you think of this?
I could even say “I am narrowly pessimistic that an asteroid is going to hit the earth” but my knowledge that I don’t know when this is going to happen or even if it is in my lifetime makes me act.
However I’ll probably act differently than most as I try and live by “If you can act, you do not need to worry, if you can’t act then worrying will get you nowhere.”
I agree with that entirely (and just wish I could make my pointlessly anxious brain be okay with it too). There's a lot of different formulations of that in different places, from the famous prayer that asks for "the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can" (and "the wisdom to know the difference", which I normally find the hard part; besides my pointless anxiety this year, I've always found it easy to find the serenity to accept things I know I can't change, and the courage to change the things I know I can, and it's only when I'm not sure which applies to the present situation that I felt uneasy); to the cognitive-behavioral therapy method called Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, which is all about accepting things beyond one's own control and just committing to acting in accordance with one's principles and values.
My difficulty is that just knowing that that's the way I rationally ought to feel doesn't make me actually feel that way.
For example; when I was younger my anger and anxiety management skills were awful. Looking for a rational reason to explain why we are this way tends to end up just leading us down paths of blame for the external world. “If only the world wouldn’t be so terrible, then I could let go of my anger and my anxiety”.
However, a lot of us don’t realise that when we have episodic and regular bouts of anxiety or anger they are actually remnants of strong powerful emotions felt during early childhood and what is causing the bulk of your anxiety and anger (generalised you, I know you have anxiety issues but not sure about anger) is actually due to your internal world.
I’ll message directly from here as I’ll share some personal history with you that I don’t really need to share here.
I think perhaps you meant to send this privately, not post it to this thread? Nothing you've asked is anything I'm afraid to answer publicly, but you said you were sharing personal history you didn't want public.
"Narrow Optimism" in the sense that a solution is guaranteed, a subset of broad optimism.
"Broad Pessimism" in the sense that a solution is not guaranteed, the negation of narrow optimism.
"Narrow Pessimism in the sense that a solution is impossible, a subset of broad pessimism.
These are just the four basic logical modalities (possibility, necessity, contingency, and impossibility) applied to the solvability of the problem.
It seems to me that some people are arguing against narrow pessimism and so in favor of broad optimism (but not necessarily in favor of narrow optimism), while other people are arguing against narrow optimism and so in favor of broad pessimism (but not necessarily in favor of narrow pessimism). Those two arguments are compatible with each other, and if both are right (as I agree) then [the right attitude is to assume that] a solution is what I like to call merely possible: possible but contingent.[/quote] @Pfhorrest
Some posited terms to use.
"You house proud town mouse ... What do you get for pretending the danger's not real"
:yikes: