This feels like a "terrorist/freedom-fighter" thing and so is effectively saying nothing.
Like, Bill Gates accepts climate change is happening, that we should do something to avert the problems, and thinks that we can do that as a species. He thinks that renewables and EVs etc. will all help, but aren't enough and we should look for newer solutions. He has invested in multiple different solutions, presumably because he thinks some will be needed but not all will work.
So he's a pessimist, pessimist, optimist, optimist, pessimist, optimist, optimist/pessimist. And that's one person on one idea.
I agree with some of his opinions and methods, but disagree with others. I don't mind him investing in nuclear things, I just wish he'd tone down his 'pessimism' about renewables when pitching them because overall I think that is unhelpful, untrue and unnecessary.
He gets many of his downer talking points from Vaclav Smil, who is a grumpy pessimist about both the science and politics of climate change and I think personifies the "Pessimism sounds smart. Optimism sounds dumb" idea.
But does that mean "pessimism" is bad in the abstract? I don't think so.
The optimist keeps trying to do something even as the evidence piles up against it. He calls someone pointing this out a pessimist.
In general, for any action, there is already some means of judging whether it's a good one. Not a perfect means, but you can get some idea. And after trying things a bit, the evidence gets better. It's utterly vital to use negative information obtained in this exploration. Otherwise, you can go off into an institutional failure mode where resources are poured down a black hole just because that's what's been done before.
> The optimist keeps trying to do something even as the evidence piles up against it. He calls someone pointing this out a pessimist.
If someone insists that something would work even when the evidence is clear that's borderline stupid.
But let's look at pessimism and optimism in relation to something unknown. An optimist would continue trying even if they fail multiple times, they continue trying until they either succeed or find enough evidence that it won't work. While a pessimist won't even try once, or give up pretty early.
Or you could interpret it charitably, where the person states that when looking at actions after the fact, it can be said that being optimist about an action that turned out to not work caused you to waste time.
Yes, I'm talking about after the fact analysis of whether optimism wasted time or not. I didn't say that optimism or pessimism is hindsight. So I'm not sure how your comment relates to anything I said, except you taking three random words out of my comment.
Believing climate change is happening isn’t pessimism though, neither are almost any of the other things you mentioned. Thinking a particular solution won’t work isn’t pessimism. Thinking all solutions won’t work or humans just aren’t capable of coming up with a solution therefore we shouldn’t bother trying is. What you seem to describing is what the author is railing against that is blind optimism.
> Bill Gates accepts climate change is happening, that we should do something to avert the problems, and thinks that we can do that as a species. He thinks that renewables and EVs etc. will all help, but aren't enough and we should look for newer solutions. He has invested in multiple different solutions, presumably because he thinks some will be needed but not all will work.
>
> So he's a pessimist, pessimist, optimist, optimist, pessimist, optimist, optimist/pessimist. And that's one person on one idea.
That's a really interesting way to slice and dice it. When I read your first few sentences that's not how I interpreted it at all.
I got fact, fact, optimist. Optimist, fact. Fact, optimist, optimist.
But I'm not convinced that's a better way to go about it. What is likely needed is each of those chunks to be taken into context and when I look it at that, it's really "here is a problem and a solution to move things forward." To me that's optimistic. If it were pessimistic, I'd expect it to be "here is a problem and there's nothing we can do about it."
I think that the difference in perspectives is seeing pessimism/optimism as just a mood valance. In a sense, it takes some pessimism to even perceive that problems exist. Purified optimism would see every kind of evidence as good and interesting and every possible outcome as rosy.
These are spectra, and neither extreme is "correct" and rooted in objective reality. Pessimism/optimism can be decoupled from other axes like ignorance/knowledge, acceptance/denial, awareness/delusion, etc. Assuming "climate change is happening" as fact, someone might exhibit climate change denial for any number of reasons. These are just illustrative sketches, not an effort to build some taxonomy of beliefs:
Ignorance: someone may be unable to comprehend the complicated climate system concepts, statistical concepts, nor noisy data.
Cynical pessimism: someone may believe it is happening and unavoidable, but they want to minimize their own inconvenience or discomfort prior to the end game.
Blind optimism: someone may just harbor a profound faith that things will work out in the end; to them, the people trying to address climate change seem like toxic pessimists who harbor delusions of grandeur!
> This feels like a "terrorist/freedom-fighter" thing
Exactly. The author is stapling all the good qualities onto optimism and all the bad ones onto pessimism so that he can declare one good and the other bad.
I'm optimistic we can have a more meaningful conversation about optimism and pessimism if we forget this article.
Optimism usually sounds dumb because most people don't justify it well. It winds up sounding like marketing. All promise, no substance. A pessimist will generally provide right/wrong but specific reasons why it won't work out.
Optimism is believing that good cars exist and can be a lot of fun. Pessimism is complaining that one person's Corvette is going to wreck the planet.
Optimism is believing that good electric cars exist and can be a lot of fun. Pessimism is saying that they'll never work and are terrible because our grid will collapse if too many people buy them.
Optimism is also believing that both problems are remarkably solvable.
So, I still don't like Gates for various historical reasons.
Even some of his climate stuff annoys me.
But, it's highly likely that if you ranked the whole human race on how much they'd done to reduce climate change, he may well be at the top.
So if it's about "doing his share" then he's probably doing okay.
But regardless, I don't want people to stop flying, I want them to stop releasing fossil C02 in the air because it's inefficient. Inefficiencies on an individual scale don't matter, inefficiencies on a civilization wide scale add up quickly.
I don't see how flying, or doing any other rich person thing, reduces his credibility. Unless you believe dealing with climate change is going to make us all poorer, which it isn't.
If you're really all about hating rich people, then there's lots of "climate justice" projects aiming to help poor people and carbon taxes that replace regressive taxes would be a good thing to champion.
I don't hate him for being rich, I simply want him to stop polluting excessively. It would help the climate and his message alike.
And I don't buy that you can do your share by talking one way and doing the exact opposite privately. It's like being an animal rights advocate who (openly) tortures animals in their free time. Simply doesn't work that way, even if you save more animals than you torture.
If he releases 100 tons, then prevents the release of 10000000000 tons, I'd say he'll have done pretty well, even if he could have release only 50 tons.
He's not just talking about doing things, he's putting people to work doing things. To focus on his individual emissions is a premature optimization
It is not like animal torture at all because there is a clear line of the right amount of animal torture (for the sake of torturing) that is acceptable (which is obviously none).
Where is the line on how much pollution one is allowed to expel? 500sq ft per person apartment? 100sq ft? Prius or RAV4? Commercial flight to visit family, once per year or twice? How many kids?
I don’t have a problem with the dairy and egg products I use because I personally know the people that I get them from. I won’t purchase anything containing dairy and eggs. If someone prepares food for me containing them I may eat it to be polite but I wouldn’t eat meat. I also don’t have an issue with the honey I get from my friends hives. However, many of my activist friends and other people see all of these things as hypocrisy that perpetuate animal abuse. I still protest and we get along fine. Because to your point, there’s room for nuance.
Do as you preach, and others will follow. Flying your private jet to a conference, and tell Johnny Average that he shouldn't use his car to drive to his workplace is a shitty thing to do.
It is still logically consistent to play the game as everyone else, but still advocate for changes to rules that affect everyone. For example, flying in private jets while also supporting laws/regulations/taxes that would make that amount of pollution per person per unit time unaffordable.
It is not hypocritical, because I do not expect others to behave in a way I do not.
For example, I want fossil fuels to be drastically costlier to force everyone to use smaller vehicles and live in denser communities enabling public transit.
But I do not want other individuals to have to do that while I do not. I am willing to make the sacrifices if everyone will, but if everyone is not going to, then I have a hard time seeing why I should.
Does anyone know if he actually buys carbon offsets for his footprint? I mean that would be one way to negate the impact of flying around. I imagine he does.
Are they twats because they're upper middle class, or because they want to go on vacation to Bali? Or maybe both?
Edit: the point that I'm driving at (if it wasn't clear) is that we seem to all want upward mobility to be a thing, but boy do we hate those that actually experience it. That seems almost like it's own kind of pessimism to me.
Similarly the vocal and rich advocates for climate change policy buying beachfront property on Martha's Vinyard. To say that these people are merely hypocrites is being too generous. They don't believe what they're saying at all.
Which advocates in particular?
Why do you think buying a beach homes implies they don't believe what they are saying?
Are you arriving at the most convenient conclusion for yourself, rather than the most likely one?
Former president Obama stands out. Why would you spend a considerable amount of your wealth on a home that is about to be swallowed up by the ocean on account of us barreling headlong into imminent climate catastrophe? You wouldn't.
Climate catastrophe will not visit Martha's Vineyard within Barack Obama's lifetime. No one says it will.
Living on MV does not contribute to the climate problem, so his actions are not hypocritical.
If he was looking for a 100-year property investment, perhaps he should have chosen a different part of New England (elevation > X meters), the Pacific Northwest, or the Great Lakes region.
If he's looking for a nice, private, place to live for the next 30 years, MV has a lot going for it. He won't live there for 30 years of course, and maybe "leaving it to the kids" isn't high on his priority list, and maybe he even has a lingering hope that mitigation efforts will happen and succeed. He didn't get famous by being a pessimist (ObOnTopic).
And, sure is a good thing he didn't move to Florida or the desert West, where he'd be both more endangered and more contributive to the danger.
I really can't imagine any plausible explanation for how any person arrives at the "Obama says climate change is a problem, but buys house near beach, must be hypocrite and bad person" narrative, unless of course you started at the end and worked backwards.
(edit) ... which, I see from other comments, seems to be the case. You believe Obama is lying about climate change and that buying a house on MV is proof? OK. Amazing.
What is the definition of imminent? Maybe Obama thinks that he and his family will still get sufficient utility out of before the home is swallowed up by the ocean? Perhaps he feels he has enough set aside for his descendants and is comfortable blowing the rest on personal comforts for their remainder years?
Perhaps Obama is optimistic that we'll pull our heads out of the sand and do what we need to do to prevent his home from being swallowed up by the ocean.
What you or I, or even Gates do in our personal lives has absolutely no effect on climate change.
Solutions or failures happen in other contexts. Gates does some real work in those.
The whole "I must recycle all my plastic bags or the planet will die" mentality is, to me, a weird form of delusion of grandeur. Seeing past that can be both freeing and depressing :)
Yes, we saw this over covid lockdowns where the massively reduced number of cars on the road resulted in a dramatic improvement in air quality around cities. If enough individuals start taking the bus or cycling in we can definitely improve our local environment, regardless of the minuscule effect on a global scale.
Why do you think plastics recycling was originally campaigned for by big oil? It’s a pacifying non-solution that gets people to focus on their neighbors behaviors instead of anyone with power
No, big oil has always opposed plastic recycling, because it reduces their sales of gas feedstock.
They have always pushed "blaming the consumer for trash", and disparaged "producer responsibility" and "plastic recycling" (except in blaming the consumer for not recycling, but that's just a variant of blaming them for trash).
It's weird to now see people pointing to the same organisations that opposed these things, and claiming they campaigned for them.
In countries/states with functional governments that aren't owned by fossil fuels, plastic recycling has happened as just one of a suite of measures and has always been successful. Every academic study of it has agreed it's the best thing for the economy and planet.
In others states, the ones that are in thrall to big oil, it didn't really happen, and then the people who don't want it to happen appear to have recently started claiming "hah, we (i.e. the big evil oil corps) wanted you to recycle, so now you shouldn't do it, that'll teach us".
This is the kind of reverse psychology that works really well on toddlers.
you’re sorely missing what my point could be if you think it’s nihilism / hah fine to be wasteful, another spin on the individualist solution making I attacked in my comment
> Despite this, three former top officials, who have never spoken publicly before, said the industry promoted recycling as a way to beat back a growing tide of antipathy toward plastic.
And in doing so they get to repeat their "plastic recycling doesn't work" rhetoric.
As soon as you force the producers to pay for disposal and let them figure out how best to do it, recycling suddenly, magically becomes the cheapest option.
You had a problem with me saying that big oil campaigned for recycling which is exactly what the article says
> Recycling, the former officials told NPR and Frontline, became a way to preempt the bans and sell more plastic
> "The feeling was the plastics industry was under fire, we got to do what it takes to take the heat off, because we want to continue to make plastic products," Thomas says.
I think you miss that one persons effort if collective done has an impact. So if everyone recycles or lowers their energy use it has impact. However if one person doesn't, that in and of itself won't change the trajectory, however if everyone did it would.
Trying to shame people into using less never solves this problem. It just means there is more available for the shameless. The solution as are either to regulate the commons, or find a better way to meet our needs.
That's true. So take that thought a little further.
How does it happen that everyone, on average, recycles or uses less energy?
In general, by making non recycling or energy use more expensive. This can come from regulation, taxes, social pressure. Technical innovation can also sidestep whole issues by using less energy/materials and/or producing more. Maybe there are a few other paths.
Those things actually make a difference. Focus on them.
This is amazing and really goes to show the dude, no matter how good his intentions may be, is a hypocrite. One rule for him, different rules for everyone else.
I dislike Gates for the old reasons, and some of the new ones as well.
But this basic argument from hypocrisy is applied to a lot of people, and it's a weak case.
If someone is using an appreciable fraction of their fortune to decarbonize the grid, and otherwise make industrial civilization sustainable, they can fly private jets as much as they like. Ultimately, carbon in the atmosphere is a simple game of addition. If Gates Brand nuclear plants take 100GW of coal and natural gas offline, I don't care if the man lives on an airplane with a whole second fleet for in-flight refueling, because it doesn't matter.
The reason the hypocrisy argument sucks is that, by definition, you can only apply it to rich people who see a problem with climate change and are doing something about it.
The many wealthy private-jet owners who are invested in fuel extraction don't even get mentioned. They get wealthy when carbon emissions get worse, and then spend their wealth jetting around.
Can you link me to the page which tracks Mohamed bin Sultan's jet travel? No? I believe I've made my point.
You are now comparing Gates to a dictator in a country that brutally murders reporters for publishing critical pieces. Amongst other atrocities. I wouldn't give Bill G the time of day if on the street, but this is a pointless comparison.
> Mohamed bin Sultan's jet travel? No? I believe I've made my point.
Mohamed bin Sultan did not claim that polar bears might be dead by 2020 and that Florida will be under water by 2030, hence he can't be a hypocrite.
Yes, hypocrisy can only be be applied to someone who claims something, argues for a certain something. The fact that everyone does not beleive in apocalyptic global warming destroying mankind by 2020 still means that the people who do can be hypocrites.
Mohammed bin Salman’s public position is that global warming is real and dangerous and he has pledged that Saudi Arabia will be carbon neutral by 2060. I think if you wanted to make a case that he’s a hypocrite, there’s ample evidence out there.
But then the real question is why hypocrisy is so bad. All of us are hypocrites in different ways, on different things. Why is being a hypocrite on climate change worse than being wilfully ignorant?
This is the dumbest take on Climate Change and I can't believe the HN crowd falls for it.
Thought Experiment:
Say, Bill Gates (and other VIPs) is respected enough that he can convert 5 Skeptics out a 100 Climate Deniers. So, In order for the successful climate actions Bill Gates has to change the minds of say 10,000 leaders in various positions across the world. That means he effectively has to meet 200,000 people across the globe.
If Climate Change is important, and you want quick action, do you want Bill Gates (and others) to
a) jet around the globe and try to convince 200,000 people in 5 years
or
b) Bicycle around the globe and try to convince 200,000 people in 50 years
Only a moron would suggest (b). I expect TikTokers and Redditors to pick option (b) as they are easily swayed by "Hurr Durr, Bill Gates Jets" arguments.
How is he going to "convince 200,000 people in 5 years" if he isn't even willing to fly first class instead of private? He obviously doesn't care, so he's not going to convince anyone.
That and he only tried to join in on climate change way after it was politically convenient and he was trying to build his image. As well he has said some poor ideas about climate change solutions when he was first stepping his toes in the water. Which is fine if people don't hold onto your words - as someone with a fair bit of power its detrimental to other initiatives.
Since then I still don't know which of his initiatives have shown a high probability of success.
I agree that it seems empty, since it's more about a person than the methods.
I think that pessimism and optimism are human traits, and have more to do with our own fallible irrational view of the world, which can easily be changed depending on the current cultural perception of our future. It's so easy to bias.
When it comes to predictions, it should revolve around the scientific method. Statistics derived from data, and that probability which itself does not know the concept of optimism or pessimism, is what should be a guide for further research or decisions.
The problem is that we ourselves also decide what to investigate to begin with. Thus our tools will only ever be as good as we are ourselves. Willingness to learn, change opinions, let go of ego and prejudice, the path forward really starts with giving everyone, children and adults, time to learn. But we are in such a society where our values are often placed differently and we are in such a rush.
So I think it really starts with, how do we cultivate a good environment now? And not whether the future is pessimistic or optimistic.
Optimism and Pessimism are viewed very differently in different Countries (Germany vs USA) and even Regions (Silicon Valley vs idk Utah).
Apart from that I think the article is mostly wrong. To make progress you need agency and self-confidence. The effects of Optimism and Pessimism are very context-dependent.
Just one example: A very driven and confident pessimist might be much more motivated to find a solution for Climate Change, because he knows for sure otherwise Earth is Doomed.
While a very driven and confident optimist in Politics might reduce Carbon Tax, because he knows for sure that Technology Companies will find solutions for Climate Change and they'll find it faster if they have more money.
The article talks not about "personal" optimism/pessimism, but about a social one. It compares an optimistic society with a pessimistic one. What this choice brings to a society?
> A very driven and confident pessimist might be much more motivated to find a solution for Climate Change, because he knows for sure otherwise Earth is Doomed.
Not so driven pessimists might tell that it is a waste of time, because Earth is Doomed.
Yes. There is a but we must try anyway and try as hard as we can type of pessimist that refuses to give into nihilism. I used to be this type of pessimist about the future of technologic warfare before I found reasons for hope.
My own personal experience is that every single time I try to be positive about changing anything for the better in any way, the vast majority of humans I voice any "optimism" to are hell-bent on beating that "naïvety" out of me. The problem I see is that humanity as a whole has much of what we need to build a Utopia for all, but almost nobody actually wants a better world for anyone let alone for everyone. All the technology in the world does only harm if the only thing people want to do with it is "weaponize" it in the service of greed and power-lust. There's nothing "amazing" or "transformative" about repeating the same old mistakes humanity's been guilty of since pretty much the dawn of "civilization".
Perhaps instead of actively trying to find excuses to dissuade "optimists" from even trying, society might be better off trying to teach that supporting good ideas that benefit everyone is a good thing, not bad…
I am low energy person (at least for now - its a medical thing that perhaps will be fixed some day). When I hear "positive" people that force a change for the sake of change I know that this will probably mean that I will have to spend the last of my depleted energy resources on this naive persons dummy ideas that are not backed up by experience and insight. And this instantly changes me into pesimist that tries to test the other person if he thought it out, did due dilligence and spend his own energy first before he tries to use my. This is simply a defense mechanism that protects me from people that have aboundance of energy and do no understands that other are not like them. And most good ideas is shit - in real world only execution and timing matters.
> My own personal experience is that every single time I try to be positive about changing anything for the better in any way, the vast majority of humans I voice any "optimism" to are hell-bent on beating that "naïvety" out of me.
An optimist who insists on driving ahead without understanding the challenge he's taking on will almost always end up being a big problem for everyone.
> The problem I see is that humanity as a whole has much of what we need to build a Utopia for all...
> Perhaps instead of actively trying to find excuses to dissuade "optimists" from even trying, society might be better off trying to teach that supporting good ideas that benefit everyone is a good thing, not bad…
Lenin was an optimist who thought he and his comrades could build a "Utopia for all."
> ...but almost nobody actually wants a better world for anyone let alone for everyone....
> Perhaps instead of actively trying to find excuses to dissuade "optimists" from even trying, society might be better off trying to teach that supporting good ideas that benefit everyone is a good thing, not bad…
Come on. Pretty much everyone wants a better world for everyone, they just want different ones, and that's a difficult problem.
>The problem I see is that humanity as a whole has much of what we need to build a Utopia for all, but almost nobody actually wants a better world for anyone let alone for everyone
Care to expand about what this Utopia would look like and how it would work? Where does the resources come from to bring everyone to a first world standard of living?
My experience has definitely been the other way. Being optimistic about the future is definitely an Unpopular Opinion in my experience. To the point where I've been called a "denier" for expressing any hope at all that we can solve the problems we're facing.
My experience (possibly biased by my model) has been that it's a generational difference. Based on the fourth turning model Boomers are 'Prophets' while Millennials are 'Heroes'. No one cares if a prophet correctly predicts seven weeks of great weather if they miss the one hurricane that wipes everything out. And no one wants to hear a hero (which, let's face it, is a polite synonym for 'cannon fodder') give a realistic assessment of the odds. So this model would predict Boomers are culturally pessimistic while Millennials are culturally optimistic (both to an irrational degree at times).
Which has been my actual observation - has anyone here had corroborating or counterfactual experiences?
It's like the caricature roles in a football team.
Offense is optimists, they run to good shooting positions in case the ball comes there. Most of their running is in vain, yet they have to do it every time. They get praise if they make a goal, and if the opponent scores, it doesn't make a difference to them personally or affect their career.
Defense is pessimists, they try to prevent the opponent from scoring. They for example have to sometimes commit a tactical fault in order to prevent the opponent from getting to a dangerous position where they could score a goal. They have to guard opponent offense players, even if the ball never comes near. They are criticized if the opponent makes a goal and they don't get credit for their team's offense scoring goals.
So, one thinks a good thing might happen and tries to seize the opportunity. The other one thinks a bad thing might happen and tries to make sure it is prevented. Both are estimating an uncertain future and a lot of their work goes to waste - but only in hindsight.
Both are needed for a team to win the championships.
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." -- Roosevelt
I am suprised the author has such a low opinion of optimism. After internalising Roosevelt I have actively tried to temper cynical thought when interacting with others. It's easy to throw stones and find fault but its much more powerful to be in the driving seat of change (which innately requires optimism)
(Verbatim re-posting a past comment[+] of mine that seemed to have resonated with HN folks.)
Hans Rosling[1] used to call himself a "very serious possibilist":
People often call me an optimist, because I show them the enormous progress they didn't know about. That makes me angry. I'm not an optimist. That makes me sound naive. I'm a very serious “possibilist”. That's something I made up. It means someone who neither hopes without reason, nor fears without reason, someone who constantly resists the overdramatic worldview. As a possibilist, I see all this progress, and it fills me with conviction and hope that further progress is possible. This is not optimistic. It is having a clear and reasonable idea about how things are. It is having a worldview that is constructive and useful.
• • •
In his book 'Factfulness' (definitely read it), he talks about "bad and better":
Think of the world as a premature baby in an incubator. The baby’s health status is extremely bad and her breathing, heart rate, and other important signs are tracked constantly so that changes for better or worse can quickly be seen. After a week, she is getting a lot better. On all the main measures, she is improving, but she still has to stay in the incubator because her health is still critical.
Does it make sense to say that the infant’s situation is improving? Yes. Absolutely. Does it make sense to say it is bad? Yes, absolutely. Does saying “things are improving” imply that everything is fine, and we should all relax and not worry? No, not at all. Is it helpful to have to choose between bad and improving? Definitely not. It’s both. It’s both bad and better. Better, and bad, at the same time. That is how we must think about the current state of the world.
I've considered myself an optimist for most of my life. But, starting in about 2014 I started to find myself being more of a pessimist more of the time. It got to the point in 2020 where I found myself pessimistic about pretty much everything.
You know what I noticed? It takes a lot of energy to be pessimistic and pissed off all the time.
So, instead, I'm trying to remain focused and motivated by the wrongs I would like to see made right. I'm picking problems which I think I can positively impact. And while I'm not optimistic about much of it, neither am I succumbing to a pessimistic view which leads to not taking action.
"People mistakenly see optimism as an excuse for inaction. They think that it’s pessimism that drives change, and optimism that keeps us where we are. The opposite is true. Optimists are the ones that move us forward"
Exactly, it's not binary. Some pessimism is healthy, "the ones that speak truth to power". However, complaining without offering solutions is pointless. Good on you for following up, and trying to be optimistic about some of your solutions.
Can I ask you how old you were when that happened. I think a lot of that happen organically for everyone, it just happened to you in 2014. I'd guess 25-30y old ?
Yeah, I was in the 30 -35 range in 2014. I think age had something to do with it.
But I think 2014 was when it started to become apparent that the idealist global mixing and digital revolution it was tied to, something I had pinned my optimism on, might be going in a more evil direction.
Paul Graham wrote about this, that we need to understand our current period in the context of a much longer historical timeline http://www.paulgraham.com/re.html
I'm a bit younger than you (I was in my mid 20s during this time) and I would agree that about then is when I started to be like 'wait a minute'. I'd had small crises of optimism in the 90s and 00s as a kid where things weren't adding up, but I dismissed them because surely the adults knew what they were doing.
2013 was the year I'd pinpoint where my optimism ended. I was in grad school studying filter bubbles and what we'd eventually start calling 'misinformation' and 'disinformation' and discovering Eli Pariser coined the concept and then used it to create a corporation using that to influence people into thinking certain ideas were important was a major black pill moment, as was Tristan Harris's Google memo.
A lot of the rot was in evidence before then, but that was the year when I couldn't pretend not to see it anymore.
I'd say age has a lot to do with it in that my renewed sense of optimism is very tied into being more comfortable in my own agency, and that comfort only came into being because I saw the generation behind me and that updated my brain. "Oh, I'm not the 7 year old in the room of adults anymore. I'm the adult now. Interesting."
I've turned to optimism this year as well, after being a lifelong pessimist. I realised the same - it takes up way too much energy and I end up doing nothing.
Either not stressing all the time will make me do more, or at least I'll feel better. That's still a win for my mental health if nothing else. I'm still well aware of all the problems around me, and try to help where I can, but beyond that point I maintain some personal distance.
Just the opposite, I see empathetic, gushing, ridiculous cotton candy optimisim all over places like LinkedIn and the corporate world. Everybody Smile!
There isn't nearly enough contention, questioning, satire (notice how SNL never really goes for that) etc..
Marc Benioff spends the entirety of his time virtue signalling about how he is saving LGBT refugees from this or that, while superficially that's nice, it's ultra narcissistic PR and self aggrandization to use those people as tools for corporate branding. Nobody calls him out.
On the contrary, I see a lot of dour young people, with kind of a 'lack of faith' in the general sense, which is really odd, and I suggest maybe a new concept in the west.
When I was very young we had the 'Cold War' with nukes starring right at us and we were full of ... gumption, positivity, pride, goodwill, hope etc..
Finally - I don't think positivity/pessimism matters that that much - you have to be a 'strong believer' in some capacity to innovate, the rest is head games.
>Marc Benioff spends the entirety of his time virtue signalling about how he is saving LGBT refugees from this or that, while superficially that's nice, it's ultra narcissistic PR and self aggrandization to use those people as tools for corporate branding. Nobody calls him out.
I don't think this sort of cynicism about LGBT rights activism is helpful. If we want to make progress in this area, we need support from all sectors of society. That definitely includes people who aren't saints and who don't act from wholly disinterested and pure motives. Whatever his motives (and I can't read his mind – can you?), Marc Benioff did something substantial to support LGBT rights when many other CEOs did not.
There's no objective content to the accusation of "virtue signalling". It's a zero-effort means of objecting to whatever kind of activism someone doesn't like. Instead of making a substantive criticism of the activism itself, just jump to uncharitable conclusions about the person's inner motivations.
Hollow and performative support for an issues that services only to engender the supporter with social points.
Supporting Ukraine doesn't bring anyone brownie points because it's not so much a moral position.
Corporations 'supporting' BLM, especially with donations, which is a totally corrupt charity - this is a problem. Corporations even throwing up the word 'equity' is a bit of a start, but not really there. Corporations making money off of it (Nike) is evil. Corporations doing something thoughtful and material about it, now that's not 'virtue signalling'. If they want to humble-brag about it in some non aggrandising way, then that's fine but it should not be part of company branding.
It would certainly be unfair to accuse Benioff of merely 'hollow and performative' activism, given that his activism achieved actual results:
> Benioff led an effort of business leaders fighting back against [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act], leading to a revised version of the bill being signed into law that prohibited businesses from denying services to someone based on sexual orientation or gender identity
The accusation of virtue signaling is a convenient rhetorical move. It makes it possible to rail against things that no-one likes (hypocrisy and insincerity) rather than against the changes that activists are attempting to bring about – which many people may support.
In reality it doesn't much matter whether someone is an activist out of selfish motives or altruistic ones. That's between them and their conscience. What matters is what they're an activist for, and whether it's a good thing or not.
But perhaps you can clarify this point. Do you really object only to Marc Benioff's (supposed) underlying motives in opposing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Or is it not that you support the Act, and therefore oppose activism against it?
What is the matter with the pessimist? I think it can be stated by saying that he is the cosmic anti-patriot. And what is the matter with the anti-patriot? I think it can be stated, without undue bitterness, by saying that he is the candid friend. And what is the matter with the candid friend? There we strike the rock of real life and immutable human nature.
I venture to say that what is bad in the candid friend is simply that he is not candid. He is keeping something back— his own gloomy pleasure in saying unpleasant things. He has a secret desire to hurt, not merely to help. This is certainly, I think, what makes a certain sort of anti-patriot irritating to healthy citizens. I do not speak (of course) of the anti-patriotism which only irritates feverish stockbrokers and gushing actresses; that is only patriotism speaking plainly. A man who says that no patriot should attack the Boer War until it is over is not worth answering intelligently; he is saying that no good son should warn his mother off a cliff until she has fallen over it.
But there is an anti-patriot who honestly angers honest men, and the explanation of him is, I think, what I have suggested: he is the uncandid candid friend; the man who says, "I am sorry to say we are ruined," and is not sorry at all.
Conversely optimism can waste resources on unworkable progress which could have been applied to workable progress. Reality is way more nuanced than single perspectives.
That's survivorship bias right there. We mostly hear of successful stories, where grinding, blood and tears paid off and have an amazing story to tell. For each one of those there are countless others that didn't work out because the conditions were not there and there is no pride/gain in sharing that to the same extent.
Reminds me of a version Pandora's Box story. Pandora opens a box of furies on the world, closes it too late in a panic, then hears a little voice in the box, pleading to be let out. In one version, Pandora lets out Hope, who acts as a balm to the pain and trouble caused by the furies. In another version, false Hope is the worst fury of all - a niggling voice that drives you on when there is no possibility of success.
Traversing nuance can be debilitating for many people. I think over-optimism and going gung-ho can be a good strategy. Not a strategy that comes naturally to me of course, I've wasted many hours/days/weeks trying to figure out the optimal way to do something taking into consideration all of the nuances at play.
Maybe it's both? Say, for some potential project, you rate it X on the pessimism/optimism scale. If you're too pessimistic, you won't attempt it, even though it would have worked out nicely! But if you're too optimistic, you'll waste time attempting it even though it has no chance of success. Perhaps the ideal is to be able to correctly assess the chance of success of projects, and then you can make an accurate allocation of effort :)
It’s funny. I tend to take a practical, skeptical approach to Making Things Happen.
My work is always colored with thoughts like “What happens when the user does this…” or “The last time I tried that, my toenails fell off,” etc.
People call that “pessimism,” and I’m often attacked as a “negative naysayer.”
Nothing could be further from the truth. I have a long, long record of Getting Things Done.
I ship; regularly and consistently. I do that, by anticipating problems, and architecting designs that are high Quality, secure, localizable, accessible, well-documented, performant, flexible, robust, long-lasting, maintainable, and complete (in a pretty short, predictable, timeframe).
I’m also a good problem-solver. Roadblocks don’t tend to last long, when I roll up my sleeves.
If you want pie-in-the-sky, shoot-for-the-moon dreams, I may not be the correct person to talk to; mostly because I’m admittedly fairly well-grounded, and less likely to come up with these ideas.
But if you’d like to actually make your dream into a reality, then someone like me is a good bet.
Optimists and pessimists are both unrealistic, for different reasons.
Optimism is unrealistic because it wants everyone on the happy clappy hype train, and people who aren't on will be resented. Collectively it's quite tribal, even culty.
Pessimism is unrealistic because it misses opportunities that have a realistic chance of success.
But they're only two broad kinds of unrealism out of many others. For example:
Working obsessively on a project that interests you without doing any market testing.
Using the latest tech stack just because everyone else is using it.
Believing that customers will definitely sign up if you add that one feature they want.
It's lack of realism that kills you, not two specific subtypes of it.
I think in order to found a startup one needs to be an optimist. The risks are high, chances of success are low, it's a lot of work and a ton of stress.
But in order for that startup to achieve anything, it needs realists (optimists call them pessimists, or can't tell the difference) to figure out what might go wrong and and keep it all on track.
>People mistakenly see optimism as an excuse for inaction. They think that it’s pessimism that drives change, and optimism that keeps us where we are. The opposite is true. Optimists are the ones that move us forward.
Wait, what? Who thinks that way? This part is even highlighted in the article. Even blind optimism is seen as something that gives results. Sure it fails 99% of the time and a pessimist would think he will be part of the 99% but throwing things at the wall to see what sticks is a valid strategy for progress.
I can't be the only pessimist who thinks that most successful people are just lucky idiots who went along with their foolishly risky idea and somehow managed to make it work. Isn't that the most common coping strategy for the average Joe? I can't be a black sheep, right? Optimists get all the chicks, and pessimists are bitter about it.
Pessimism and optimism imply nothing about action or inaction, active or passive. The entire article is based on a straw man of pessimism that is exactly like the one he's defending optimism from:
> people mistake optimism for “blind optimism” — the blinkered faith that things will always get better. Problems will fix themselves. If we just hope things turn out well, they will. [...] If we sit back and do nothing, we will not make progress. That’s not the kind of optimism that I’m talking about
> Pessimism blocks solutions. If we always believe that the worst will happen, then what’s the point in starting? If any action will fail, we should stick with the status quo. Follow the pessimists if you want the world to stagnate or regress.
You've had enough of people equating passivity with optimism so you decide to equate it to pessimism instead. BIG THINK.
This is why I worry about the doomerism, especially by young people, I see online so often. Thankfully, stepping out of the bubbles that are Twitter and Reddit, it's not nearly as common to see in the real world. Just one more reason not to (unproductively) use these platforms.
But muh perfectly predictable catastrophe a moderately intelligent twelve year old could see coming and that we could avoid by just not doing that, that we're blundering into because our short-term and long-term incentives are not well aligned, that will destroy the world without a shadow of a doubt!
For real. So much of their thought process is predicated on wanting to tear down entirely the system and build something new, without even considering why it's like that in the first place. It leads me to think they don't have much real world experience, which, being young people, is accurate. It's the societal version of Chesterton's fence.
About a month ago back I saw an HN submission titled "Just What Is It That Makes Today’s Homes So Different, So Appealing?"
And it made me do a double-take, because the positivity of it was so unexpected, almost shocking. And indeed it wasn't made recently, rather it was from 1956.
I occasionally struggle with issues around optimism/pessimism.
Working in a start-up I'm surrounded by others who are overwhelmingly optimistic (which is such a powerful bulwark against the brutal struggle, especially in the early days).
I try my best to be as positive as I can, but on reflection I'm probably a slight optimist, or neutral in my overall outlook.
I can't help feeling like some other team members see me as constantly dragging things down when I point out issues etc. I guess I can sometimes feel like a total pessimist when contrasted against individuals who are overwhelmingly optimistic, despite not in-fact having a tendency toward pessimism.
Maybe I'm a barrier to progress :)
It's a strange relativism that I only encounter in my work environment. In everyday life, I definitely don't feel pessimistic.
I wonder if, relatively speaking, the extreme blind optimist can make the more rational, reserved optimist seem negative by comparison. Gaining a good overall perspective is key I guess, although never easy.
We're an emotionally obsessed culture. You see this in management culture too. Everything is thought to hang on people having the right attitude and the right emotional state.
I suspect that on a large scale these emotional states don't make much difference to anything (although of course they're very important on the level of individual people).
Wow, there's a lot of labeling and stereotyping going on in the article and comments. I think there's too much absolutism going on about pessimists and optimists - it's really a continuous range that shouldn't be applied as absolutes.
The discussion here is interesting. In general, I don't think either optimism or pessimism are the issue. Letting your feelings overwhelm data is the issue. It's fine to be optimistic so long as you can realistically assess when the idea isn't panning out. Same about pessimism -- it's fine, so long as you are willing to investigate and get some data.
There are lots of bad ideas, so undue optimism needs pruning. There are also lots of good ideas we haven't tried yet -- that is the evidence of history.
The big problem I see in life -- including my own life -- is attachment to positions when the data is not in accord with that attachment. In science, it's why you often have to wait for a new generation of scientists who can fully integrate newer results (data) into their thinking. In life, it's why people like me get stuck in the past: it's the lens we understand.
What you hear is:
- the planet is getting worse
- US centered News about how they banning something means the end of the world.
- education is getting worse
And everything negative, because negativety gets you clicks, its an endless cycle because of algorithmic timelines.
While in reality education has massively improved and people are getting out of poverty faster.
A huge exception is the current news.
Because of the Ukraine War, its obviously why is everyone is negative now, you hear about nuclear war risk, millions facing risk of famine because of wheat and food shortage, and many other things happening currently.
So I would say its understandable why everyone is so negative currently, but the negativity that existed before Covid is for sure, caused by News, which caused the divide in America which is unfortunately now spreading to other countries.
Where one sits on the pessimism-to-optimism scale does likely affect one's personal response to difficulties - the optimist might have a survival advantage over the pessimist, who we suspect would be more likely to give up and wait passively for the end. A related notion is that the devout religious believer will do better in dire straits than the cynical atheist would, which is an example of the 'utilitarian' argument for religion.
I don't know whether this is actually true in practice. Some people get along through sheer cussedness (which some might interpret as pessimism). I suppose the pessimist more often than not finds reality to be more rewarding than expected - i.e. if you expect the worst, anything even moderately better comes as a pleasant surprise. A similar view is "expect nothing from people, then you'll never be disappointed".
Regardless, reality is what it is. The optimist who leaps off a cliff flapping their arms like a bird, visualizing flight, will come to a splattering end. This is called realism, which should probably take precedence over either optimism or pessimism. Here we can answer the question "how do you know it won't work if you don't at least try?" with a one-liner: math and physics, thank you very much.
As far as fossil-fueled global warming over the next few centuries, I imagine human beings will survive it, but historic disruptions are steadily coming on, and the tipping point has come and gone - there's no going back to the relatively stable, very-gradually-cooling regime of the past few thousand years. We'll see a steadily warming planet for the next 100 years at the very least, there's just no way out of it. A rapid transition to renewable energy is being blocked by entrenched fossil fuel interests (and has been for the past 40 years), and the only countries ahead of the curve are the net fossil fuel importers (China in particular), but even they are nowhere near anything like a meaningful reduction in fossil emissions.
Result? Climate outcomes are heading towards the most extreme of the IPCC predictions. All the bubbling optimism in the world won't change that - it's already here.
That's not the best level of analysis.
Everybody is pessimistic and optimistic at the same time in different perspectives that can be dialectically changed in regard to what you define as "progress".
Progress in terms of what agenda?
You have a lot of them, and many are conflicting ones with varying degrees of potential conciliation (dialogue is possible) and some fundamentally irreconciliable (dialogue broken in a culture war, cold civil war, cultic war, hyperwar [1]).
This seems like a lot of words and a lot of word games to say something that could have been said in a much simplified form by recognizing that optimism directs effort and pessimism quashes effort and you need a healthy dose of both to be effective because pessimism used correctly (what the other labelled criticism in this piece) cuts off effort on what the person thinks are the worst solutions and focuses it on the best possible solutions.
Instead this gets into a lot of words about kinds of optimism and redefining pessimism as criticism if it is used effectly
My problem with pessimists is that they usually have nothing to offer. There is only so much awareness you can bring to problems while having no solutions. The optimists in society seem like the doers.
Optimists can too easily ignore the potential consequences of their actions chasing success at all costs. We're still in a society where a balance is best. Having a pessimist is great if you don't let them completely stop you.
In comparing my personal baseline optimism to others, I’m definitely on the “dreamer” side of the spectrum. Most people around me? Pessimistic by default. Some are wired that way, some seem to have been molded by education, family, and/or work.
It led me to this tongue in cheek thought:
Pessimists definitely played important roles in the early US space program, but it was optimists who suited up and believed they could make it there and back.
Pretty sure optimism dominates the headlines because actual pessimism says things are way worse than people are willing to even realize. That's what makes someone pessimistic. "We've tried everything and a few more things and we confirmed that most people are actively trying to destroy themselves and there's a trend of increasing causes of destruction"
For the tech industry, "progress" is mostly defined in cost cutting, automation, market concentration, and increased profit margins.
Yes I can now take a photo with my phone but my job is less secure, my environment is more polluted, housing is more expensive, and my retirement is less attainable then it was 50 years ago. What happened in between then and now? Progress.
Plenty here talking about the definitions of optimism/pessimism and noone mentioning the definition of progress.
Blind optimism leads to blind progress. The purpose of pessimism isn't just to stop progress but to question its direction, and the metrics ("kpis" if you will) that define it.
Or, blind optimism leads to effort expended on dead ends. We're sure this will work, no negativity in the dojo, everyone charge ahead! And then it goes nowhere, because warnings were suppressed or ignored.
>Pessimism sounds smart. Optimism sounds dumb. [...] There is an “optimism stigma” that is pervasive throughout society.
Does it? Is there? I am thinking you associate with and consume from the wrong circles.
To me this is not the case. I find full pessimism (nihilism?) disappointing, and often not thinking situations through. I have yet to find a situation where I had not been able to find some optimism (, and yes I had my share of horrors).
If I had a choice between a full pessimist and a full optimist, I would always take the optimist. I think the movie "What Dreams May Come" by Richard Matheson is fitting.
That is all about me. As for society (people I come in contact with), most, despite sometimes horrific situations (e.g. cancer, war, torture, starvation, near-death) they mostly have optimistic outlook from small to big pictures, their life situation, to getting that next meal. Even when they get into a pessimist thought, they abandon it.
I also do not think it is a binary choice, and realism is on this scale somewhere.
I like your take, we need to use proper words for each situation. I agree that full pessimism is a form of nihilism. And for full optimism I think the word is naiveness. Both are extremes that should be avoided. And in any good discussion, you want to hear both the optimist and pessimist takes (the reasonable ones), and plan accordingly.
Pessimism can be just aversion to risk. Those that can afford to fail can be more optimistic - because they can try again. You will be more pessimistic if failure means losing everything, no?
The author can differentiate between different types of optimism. I don’t understand why he can’t do the same for pessimism. Just like with optimism, not everything is blind.
Because anyone who does can basically no longer innovate anything at all as there is probably a patent about some aspect of you innovation (which should never have been issued). Patents on the level of patenting trivial things like automatically shutting down unneeded resources.
In a caring about (such) patents is for innovation like endless pessimism for your live, okay maybe more like being depressed or having an anxiety disorder.
You might want to click through a few times on this. Basically this is WEF propaganda saying how billionaires are good for the world, and urge you not to get in their way with criticism or be labeled a doomsayer, negative Andy or 'pessimist'.
I'm definitely on the left side of the political spectrum. But I am very frustrated by how leftism seems so often be so centred on critique (a negative trait) rather than building ideas/stuff.
"Speaking truth to power" is not really working because power doesn't care. Organizing seldom leads anywhere because it's just interpreted as more of "speaking truth to power" through protest. More critique. If a power structure is bad and it doesn't listen to you yelling louder doesn't really work. Complaining doesn't work. There needs to be something positive. Something that creates an alternative. But somehow the right owns the idea of entrepreneurship and unions are out of fashion and have maybe stagnated as a concept so the left is stuck protesting.
I want to make something that tries to solve the problem. I want to be part of a movement of creators that create the solution. I don't want to discourage protest but I don't really believe in it as a method for solving the big problems we are having. There are times for protest but protests aren't providing a solution that people believe or care about. That solution needs to be created first. (To be clear: I'm not talking about "Protest against autocrats" I'm specifically talking about "Protest against our unsustainable society".)
Revolutions of the past (or against autocrats) succeed because they presented a solution that people genuinely believed in and want. If degrowth is to convince anyone outside a small niche it needs to be reframed/restructured/remade into a vision that people want. Not a solution that people are guilt-tripped into while believing they have to give up every comfort while others can still keep doing what they do.
I think there are seeds of this vision scattered about here and there. But it needs to be turned into a robust ideology that can stand the scrutiny of social media 2022+.
And in this lies the problem that ideology is kind of dead. Or it needs to get some kind of rebirth. Social media eat modernist ideologies for breakfast and poops out a mess that people so far has only been able to build messy populism or very niche movements from.
So we might need a way to go past modernist ideology. Maybe we need to reinvent democracy. The closest idea I have found so far is the idea of the "Third Attractor" - Creating collectivist truth through some kind of well thought out method for structured discourse, negotiation and decision making. Making something that scales here seems to me like one of the defining issues of our time.
I'm probably still naive about what seeds are out there though because there is just sooo much. And I'm just a software engineer so what the hell do I know. But I don't see anyone else connecting the dots enough to create something that people in general can agree on so I suppose I can allow myself to speculate.
Protest needs to be the very beginning, not the end. Someone being grumpy or complaining on sosh meeds is not protesting, they are fueling the machine.
> Social media eat modernist ideologies
I agree, but I believe that is the intended effect.
Social media is a void that people scream into. Unless your organizing on social media has any direct action in the physical world, it is functioning as intended.
If it's progress towards having constant news pieces about a potential nuclear attack any day now then I'd say the pessimists were right and we should have sticked to less progress.
I would like to emphasize the importance of fiction on this. We enact the narratives we like. If we all are set into Soylent Green and Blade runner, then this is the world we'll make.
I'm more of a Star Trek person - I hope we all become great people, competent, professional, curious, and generous, and that we can create a post-scarcity society that's fair to everyone after taking on our problems in a rational way.
Is it possible we'll fail to prevent a major climate crisis? Yes. Is denying climate change, the effectiveness of vaccines, or the results of elections the thing we need to do right now, and does it help? Absolutely not.
Do you not have enough progress? We need like five centuries of stagnation just to consolidate the runaway train of progress in the last ~200 years alone.
Like, Bill Gates accepts climate change is happening, that we should do something to avert the problems, and thinks that we can do that as a species. He thinks that renewables and EVs etc. will all help, but aren't enough and we should look for newer solutions. He has invested in multiple different solutions, presumably because he thinks some will be needed but not all will work.
So he's a pessimist, pessimist, optimist, optimist, pessimist, optimist, optimist/pessimist. And that's one person on one idea.
I agree with some of his opinions and methods, but disagree with others. I don't mind him investing in nuclear things, I just wish he'd tone down his 'pessimism' about renewables when pitching them because overall I think that is unhelpful, untrue and unnecessary.
He gets many of his downer talking points from Vaclav Smil, who is a grumpy pessimist about both the science and politics of climate change and I think personifies the "Pessimism sounds smart. Optimism sounds dumb" idea.
But does that mean "pessimism" is bad in the abstract? I don't think so.