Comments
[deleted] t1_j2t4772 wrote
I have to agree with most of what you wrote, but i respectfully disagree with your point that
> But even a small amount of pessimism leads to fatalism.
Although it being an understandable point of view on the matter, Fatalism doesn't necessarily go hand-in-hand with pessimism. My great grandmother is from the Silent Generation, with a very strong fatalism oriented view, and she is far from pessimistic in her views of the world. In fact, she is the total opposite. Same goes for every family member i know are pessimistic and show the opposite of fatalism in their beliefs about the world, they do not hold the belief that a higher force drives their destiny.
monkeylogic42 t1_j2t4ebn wrote
Until someone shows a metric that is grounds for optimism, we've drained that well. No one has done shit with the hopeful messages of working for a brighter tomorrow! that have been pushed for decades. It's just hijacked to sell you more shit. We're not gonna even slow global warming and you think optimism still has merit or that people will change if you talk nicer to them? There are 8 billion people now, and to have to babystep any percentage of that to motivate them positively is an impossible task. We saw exactly how the world is going to react to collective action with COVID. There's not a single drop of hope for anything changing even if it's going to only mildly inconvenience the average person. Always look on the bright side, but it's hard to have a bright side with an ever dimming bulb.
gahblahblah t1_j2tn8w3 wrote
Your comment is a good example of lack of optimism leading to complete blinding fatalism.
>No one has done shit
You casually dismiss every good thing as being non-existent. I would need only a single example to prove you wrong - like the trend of investment in renewable energy.
>to motivate them positively is an impossible task
Pure fatalism. When you claim people are so indecent as to not tolerate minor inconvenience, I suppose I wonder how you are unable to perceive whole societies where they wear masks routinely.
>There's not a single drop of hope for anything changing even if it's going to only mildly inconvenience the average person.
Pure fatalism to its very core.
Technologies are advancing rapidly. AI will automate many jobs. The world cannot not change. You perspective makes you blind to the bulk of reality.
Old_Personality3136 t1_j2w2xu0 wrote
His points have vastly more evidence behind them than yours. Positive, negative, or otherwise, the argument with the most evidence is usually the best one.
gahblahblah t1_j2w6ihf wrote
My points? My points were mostly only that his points were false. He made definitive statements that can be proven false by providing a single counter example to them, although there are many.
Do you too believe there isn't 'a single drop of hope' and that 'no one is doing anything' and that it is 'impossible to motivate people if they will even be slightly inconvenienced'? Are you sure these are valid statements that I can't easily prove false?
Final question - are you yourself the kind of person who wouldn't bother to act in the world's best interest if it slightly inconvenienced you?
monkeylogic42 t1_j2to0fr wrote
Lol, you assume this change is going to be so much betterment that it fixes the permanent damage we've done? Ok... And you call me irrational.
gahblahblah t1_j2ttozl wrote
No, I dont assume. But, unlike you, I am not blind to possibilities, and the positive things that have happened and are happening.
>the permanent damage
You assume. Here is one example, but there are many.
>And you call me irrational
No, I didn't. I explained that your fatalism makes you unable to see the countless counter examples that definitively prove your statements false. In order to continue to not see reality, you are now required to invent a way to represent me as someone to ignore entirely - as is the nature of continued fatalism.
paanvaannd t1_j2u8yj5 wrote
Well-said!
> fatalism makes you unable to see the countless counter examples that definitively prove your statements false
Some of my loved ones have given in to such thinking as well. The most frustrating thing about it is that they rant about a lot of issues but don’t do anything about them: no advocacy, no protesting, no changing their own actions—nothing! When confronted with examples contrary to their woes, they fall back upon cynicism of the solutions or outright dismissal of the contrary evidence.
I’m not going to assume that all fatalists are similar, but from what I’ve seen in my friends/family and others online, I haven’t seen any of them work towards ending the problems they point out, mainly just lashing out at those who don’t think similarly. It seems like an extremely tiring way of existing.
monkeylogic42 t1_j2ujl2n wrote
What are the countless counter examples to the current extinction event we are the direct cause of? You know we are linked to that chain and biodiversity loss on top of irreversibly polluting the world with plastics and forever chemicals? What is the example I'm missing that counters those factual things??
gahblahblah t1_j2uu6v8 wrote
My reference to counter examples is to your claims that:
-
'no one is doing anything' to which I only need to offer a single counter example to prove false, which I have already done in referencing the growth in solar planel investment and renweable energy dependence. But I can provide many examples - such as drone based forrest planting, where thousands of seedlings can be planted efficiently. Or the organisation Ocean Cleanup that is developing and using plastic trapping technology.
-
your claim that people will not tolerate minor inconvenience- which I have already proved false by pointing out that there are whole cultures wearing face masks. But for which there are many examples- such as the proliferation of constructing wheelchair accessible ramps to buildings, the organisations that survive off donations, and the organisations that survive off people volunteering their time and energy - being examples of inclusivity, generosity and patience.
>You know we are linked to that chain and biodiversity loss
Yes, I know.
>irreversibly polluting the world
Your strong claim here is suspect, given that I have proved false many of your other claims and that you clearly exhibit fatalism. The burden of proof is upon you to show how you know it is literally impossible to succeed - not for me to show what the solutions are.
monkeylogic42 t1_j2v5n1i wrote
-
What is being done faster than the rate of destruction? You have to stop the destruction first and we know this isn't happening. We can't even talk people into having less kids.
-
Lol that some cultures can do things and others refuse. I think the reason is bare as to why global cooperation isn't going to happen just in your own point alone.
>Your strong claim here is suspect, given that I have proved false many of your other claims
Go do some basic Google research on forever chemicals and get back to me. I really think you just suffer from not knowing enough about how bad of a spot we are in.
gahblahblah t1_j2vsact wrote
>1. What is being done faster than the rate of destruction?
This is just shifting the goal posts - as I knew you would. Before you claimed 'nothing is being done' but now you want me to prove that the rate at which things are being done is 'fast enough'. No. I already showed you were wrong. But in order to not change your fatalism in any way, and to never learn, all you need to do in these moments is to keep trying to pretend you were claiming something else and shift the goal post, shift the burden of proof, and never acknowledge that your hyper exaggerations are false. Never.
>2. Lol that some cultures can do things and others refuse.
But that is exactly enough to prove your initial claim was wrong - that it is 'impossible to motivate people to do the right thing if it slightly inconveniences them'. You are proven wrong. You laugh, because of course when this moment happens, you just attempt to shift the goal post again, or invent other new falsehoods and exaggerations. Anything to distract from acknowledging you were wrong.
I asked you to prove why progress is impossible, as the burden of proof is upon you. Your reply was 'look up forever chemicals'. Your answer is insufficient, but I won't expect a better response.
NoTagBacks t1_j2xtcua wrote
Can I just say that your use of good philosophy here is just... chef's kiss. Masterful use of epistemology. You love to see it.
oramirite t1_j2vhvap wrote
These were the actions of a select few people. The human race at large can absolutely outpace these efforts, that's not even up for debate. It's a cultural problem and as soon as we solve that, everything will improve. However, you seem to preclude this as being impossible, which is illogical given the numbers.
monkeylogic42 t1_j2vi4nn wrote
Let's talk numbers! How bout the numbers that suggest 70% of all wildlife has been eliminated since 1970. We definitely got this!! Just believe!!!
oramirite t1_j2vm647 wrote
You seem to be operating under the guise of being more realistic, but you are in fact centralized in offering no-solution arguments. Even if there were no solution, it's illogical not to try one because we can't predict the future, and not trying is literally the only way to ENSURE failure. Trying is not the road to failure. Cynicism is a complete dive into voluntary failure.
monkeylogic42 t1_j2vnop2 wrote
No, by all means come up with a solution... But recognize the solution isn't worth dick when we refuse to cease the behavior causing the problem. I'm not presenting solutions because I don't have any. Just stop making shit worse and eat the billionaires. That's about as good as we can do at this point. Stuff labeled forever chemicals are because they're here forever in this snow globe we inhabit. It's just a really big globe, so humanity has a hard time grasping how bad things really are, none the less effectively process more than one crisis at a time. The best I can do is not have kids and win the lottery to have enough money to even have my voice heard. Our optimistic 'make a difference' campaigns haven't made a dent yet. These do: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7856827/
oramirite t1_j2vup1n wrote
Any billionaire and millionaire stopping these things would be offset by the efforts of the rest of us. They can inflict more damage. It's pretty simple, pretty obvious, and blaming the general public when a change in their behavior wouldn't matter compared to a change in behavior from a gigantic entity is absurd.
Your example is like ...... missing the point by a million miles.
[deleted] t1_j2ur94w wrote
[deleted]
Emotional_Penalty t1_j2uqc4a wrote
In addition, its very clear that the economy will continue going to shit, causing further social distress and the war in Ukraine will only continue to escalate, potentially threatening the world with a global conflict using weapons of mass destruction. People have practically zero advocacy in these issues.
oramirite t1_j2vhznr wrote
YOU have zero advocacy on these issues, and you're projecting it. I can't go a single day without seeing someone take concrete action related to that conflict. The reality that a world leader is the other side of that conflict, and that it's taking a little bit of time, doesn't mean progress is eternally impossible.
Rethious t1_j2t9pmg wrote
This attitude is why pessimism leads nowhere but the grave. Every day, tens of millions of people are working to apply existing solutions to mitigate climate change or to develop new ones. You’re even hyperfocusing on certain elements of society to paint covid as a loss, and not as the tremendous achievement of medical science it was to develop safe, effective, and mass produceable vaccines with ground breaking technology.
To say that there is no hope is a self-fulfilling prophecy and does not match the evidence we have.
ShalmaneserIII t1_j2ucv60 wrote
> This attitude is why pessimism leads nowhere but the grave.
I have some bad news about where optimism leads, too.
Rethious t1_j2uglbj wrote
You get to enjoy a more circuitous and fruitful route with optimism.
monkeylogic42 t1_j2v6mlh wrote
No, that's just living in denial. The world is quite literally dying in front of us. We've lost 70% of all wildlife since 1970. There's where your fruitful optimism has gotten us.
Rethious t1_j2vcir0 wrote
It is a fact that wildlife populations have declined. This is a problem to reckoned with, I’d argue more successfully with an optimistic attitude than a pessimistic one.
Evidence shows that people are more greedy than fearful. To convince people to combat climate change, it is more useful to appeal to what they have to gain than what they have to lose.
monkeylogic42 t1_j2vepym wrote
So, being more greedy then fearful, the billionaire class isn't going to change the system. There isn't any immediate gratification to be had in preservation. Everyone just wants to eat that tuna, bycatch be damned.
Rethious t1_j2vfj7r wrote
There doesn’t need to be immediate gratification. There are many ways for climate mitigation solutions to satisfy greed. You get much further selling people a solar-punk future than you do by trying to scare them. Doomsday predictions only convince people its futile to make an effort.
Old_Personality3136 t1_j2w2zns wrote
You misspelled delusional.
monkeylogic42 t1_j2tb82h wrote
Tens of millions in the face of billions and a century of pollution. Are you aware of us being the cause of the 6th mass extinction on earth currently?
Rethious t1_j2tcuhc wrote
Of course. But there’s no circumstance that could make striving to make tomorrow better than today not worthwhile. Regardless of what’s ahead, throwing up our hands benefits no one.
monkeylogic42 t1_j2tef23 wrote
I didn't say throw up your hands, I just said the world isn't going to get it's shit together to avoid the disastrous future that optimists tried to steer us from gently for the last 75 years. Everyone would need to cut most of their fossil fuel usage and plastics about 40 years ago. Since then it's been an exceleration with capitalists on the side dumping money in to 'optimism' for the masses so they can keep profiting. It's just like anytime someone tries to remind everyone we don't have free energy and carbon capture isn't going to save us in time, they get shouted down for being a buzzkill. Like the the global warming episode of always sunny- I don't want just one shot, I want seven! I don't wanna stop! I don't wanna slow down! The world is programmed by consumption and there are too many people. Look up the difference between a million seconds and a billion.
Rethious t1_j2ti12g wrote
Carbon capture and free energy won’t save us, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be invested in. It’s a fine line in that they’re both essential and deserve heavy investment, but shouldn’t be used as an excuse to neglect conservation efforts.
Optimism doesn’t mean being in denial about the challenges we face.
monkeylogic42 t1_j2tkv7t wrote
Where are the conservation efforts? There are so little it may as well be 0. As far as what optimism means, it kind of is denial:
op·ti·mism /ˈäptəˌmiz(ə)m/ noun 1. hopefulness and confidence about the future or the successful outcome of something.
PHILOSOPHY the doctrine, especially as set forth by Leibniz, that this world is the best of all possible worlds.
If we stopped all unnecessary consumption today and all efforts went to remediation of the damage already done, it still won't be enough to fix the world. We have finite resources and there isn't a global will to do anything differently. We've blown past every warning light and marker with thoughts and prayers.
Rethious t1_j2tmlfc wrote
>There mat be so little it may well be 0.
I’m sorry, but that’s a fundamentally unserious view.
monkeylogic42 t1_j2tngks wrote
How much of the rainforest is destroyed per day? Wetlands? How many wells of oil still spewing how much in to the environment? How many forever chemicals spills have been remedied? The ramifications of our actions have only begun, and the actions haven't stopped. None the less the underdeveloped areas that don't even have a clue or care to tally pollution accurately.
goes231even t1_j2uwec0 wrote
What is unserious is believing the fairytale that says any of our meager efforts toward conservation are making even the slightest dent in the problem as the rate of the destruction that got us here in the first place is not only not slowing down but is actually increasing.
Any efforts toward saving the environment are essentially a capitalistic dog and pony show at this point and has even reached the mainstream news outlets.
Rethious t1_j2vad9c wrote
This is the exact type of pessimistic fatalism that is antithetical to actually accomplishing anything.
yassenof t1_j2v2628 wrote
You're using some overly strong hyperbole here, and it undermines your point.
monkeylogic42 t1_j2v5gue wrote
Where, pray tell, is the hyperbole? Are you sure you're not just the one with their head in the sand??
yassenof t1_j2wouwq wrote
The numbers you used for your years. And yes I'm sure.
tree-molester t1_j2tayk3 wrote
Your comment is the first of any on this discussion that even scratches the surface of the ‘best’ attitude that is needed to move forward on the crises of climate change, political neo-fascism, the cult like thinking that leads to religious bigotry and the influence it has on morality, etc. I think we’re about at the stage of ‘what is needed is a 2x4 to the back of the head’ of our current capitalist/consumer society. The hedonistic me-me-me path we have followed for to long has brought us to a time in which we must decide if, as a species, we intend to go on. We have the resources and knowledge to turn things around, but we also can use these tools to continue on the path of crashing and burning as we have for far to long the past century or so.
monkeylogic42 t1_j2tbs9t wrote
We're gonna keep burning, thx.
- the world
Rychek_Four t1_j2tfy8g wrote
Bro of all the times to post this, maybe not while we are curing a new type cancer almost weekly.
monkeylogic42 t1_j2tlzze wrote
How fast are those going to make it to production? How cost prohibitive is it going to be? Is it going to cure the cancers caused by the ever increasing plastic/heavy metal/pfos content in our food chain? Like, yay, I hope there continues to be advances medically, as it's our only hope to ride out the hellscape, but our national lifespan continues to plummet downwards.
Rychek_Four t1_j2tn9ug wrote
It's easy and low effort to just list problems. Anyone can do that. It's different to talk about things in the context of where they have been and where they are going. Maybe if you pick a specific issue and dig down you will see what I mean.
monkeylogic42 t1_j2toakx wrote
Even easier to lie to yourself and assume things are going to just work out. I just asked you to clarify your specific issue you brought up, but check my comment history in the thread for more specifics and we can go from there if you wanna abandon your cancer cure argument.
Rychek_Four t1_j2u1e6h wrote
Clarify != Gish gallop the entire supply chain. It’s a dishonest approach to problem solving.
monkeylogic42 t1_j2ukazx wrote
Lol that you think it's a gishgallop when those are the direct challenges to your sunshine and rainbows cancer cure happy time.
Rychek_Four t1_j2unkq8 wrote
Gish gallop is a criticism of your conversation technique, not your pessimism point.
monkeylogic42 t1_j2uppg0 wrote
I know that's what you think it looks like, but no, all of those things are happening right now, simultaneously, while people sit here whining about being more optimistic. Our optimism fuels the fire without even thinking about it, but anyone saying stop or slow down, look at the results, gets labeled a pessimist. The idea that you change people's minds by giving them hope for a better future doesn't work. It would have already if that were the case. It's not. Optimism is profitable and easy to feed the masses.
[deleted] t1_j2urjqn wrote
[deleted]
Old_Personality3136 t1_j2w34g9 wrote
Once again, he has provided real world evidence and examples to support his argument. You have not. You seem to be assuming that people are just going to go along with your blind optimism because the default in your mind is to just accept toxic positivity. Nope.
Rychek_Four t1_j2wl7wa wrote
I’m suggesting that we cannot have civil discourse where we solve every issue of a complex problem on an Internet forum. We need to pick one topic, if he wants to drill down, and discuss it. Also he didn’t provide shit for evidence (neither did I). That wasn’t an issue in our discourse.
Wilddog73 t1_j2swsx9 wrote
I don't even disagree that blind faith/"toxic optimism" is an issue. I just don't think devolving into full-on pessimism has served anyone very well, especially judging by my experiences in social media over time.
As has been discussed elsewhere, pessimism has had good effects, but not in and of itself.
Optimism should be honed by skepticism/criticism. So we can identify and feel optimistic in a realistic path forward.
cowlinator t1_j2ubn3d wrote
> Pessimism will never be as motivating as telling people about the bright future ahead if they <xyz>
But this is a false dichotomy. There is no reason to tell people that they must do anything unless there is something to dread.
Example:
Assume that leading AI experts recommend halting advancement of super-human AI due to the danger of hostile AI.
"If you pass this law to prevent the further advancement of super-human AI, then the singularity will not reshape the world."
This does not mention any danger, and thus implies that if they do not prevent the advancement of super-human AI, there will likewise also be good consequences.
EmuChance4523 t1_j2w771a wrote
Let's take the example of climate change.
One of the lasts reports on climate change explained that we can't stop climate change while still using our capitalist approach, that revenue needs to drop and change our paradigm completely.
This is a realistic approach, one that reviews the data and explains what needs to be done in order to fix things. But, the persons that needs to do something are the ones taking advantage of the current system, and sell the optimistic position that we can fix things while keeping the same system, again, something that was proven completely incompatible.
So, the two realistic positions are:
a) people in power will not change in time, and humanity as we know is doomed.
b) we need to make radical changes and quick, making a lot of sacrifices in the process, in order to have a possibility of surviving.
None of this positions are optimistic, and both can be defined as pessimistic in different ways. Optimism never helped to change things, it only helps to keep the status quo, if the status quo is good, great, that is a good thing, but most of the times is not, so optimism in general is negative.
Of course, going to the extreme in pessimism is also not good, because extremes are bad, but the spectrum of options in pessimism are much more positive than the ones in optimism.
ExceptEuropa1 t1_j2t2yow wrote
I think some people are talking in the comments about the caricature of pessimism, instead of the "hopeful pessimism" that the article tries to advance.
Wilddog73 t1_j2t7tv0 wrote
Is there really a difference between hopeful pessimism and what I'd call realistic optimism?
If not, then I think we've been going over it already.
-FoeHammer t1_j2vcljo wrote
Well for starters, calling yourself a pessimist makes one feel more edgy and cool.
InspectorG-007 t1_j2w5j1u wrote
Edgelords are very welcome and accepted on the internet...
arcumnequi t1_j2wzdny wrote
Ok, that hit hard!
alicia-indigo t1_j2wt8wc wrote
Correct. This article is candyland pessimism.
jason_square t1_j2ux0qs wrote
I guess there is a danger in optimism. You might lose your edge, relax too much if you dont have a fire under you
oramirite t1_j2vhfag wrote
Kinda feels like that pales in comparison the the effect that cynicism has. When you lose your ability to trust others, you isolate, you gain less experiences, and ultimately you aren't a part of society anymore. Those folks shouldnt have the same effect on public policy that people who still have that ability to care have. In a community, the idea of "caring" becoming some sort of distorted lens is a very low risk. Checks and balances are prevalent.
Murky_Caterpillar874 t1_j2yzh57 wrote
Skeptical realism, or even merely not attempting to put a positive spin on almost everything, seems to look like dark pessimism to the frozen smile crowd, and that last is the stance the Big Corporate Media both fronts and encourages. That theirs is a command and control effort primarily is obvious. It is not pessimistic to observe that it is. It's objectively there.
oramirite t1_j2za2kc wrote
It absolutely isn't objective at all. Your post is filled with personal judgements. "Frozen smile crowd"? That implies a lot, and is a sort of "I'm better than you" mentality that overall just seems to lead to narcissism. Overall there should be a balance. I think that trying to apply any of these thoughts patterns wholistically is wrong though. Ultimately, skeptical realism is mostly helpful in situations of repeated issues. One cannot predict the future, and one cannot truly know what's in the heart of anyone else. This is why, as a whole, trust is so important to maintain, because without trust in other people there is no life. We need other humans to survive, and that resource becomes unavailable the more cynical you are.
jason_square t1_j2vk3mb wrote
And you will find it that once you become cynical, and say someone badly betrays you, you will have trouble going back to naive optimism
But you are right, and cynicism shouldnt have the last word
oramirite t1_j2vma7p wrote
This completely depends on the person, their collective situations, and their outlook.
EDIT: Sorry, I didn't mean to come in hot like this was a debate or anything. This can be very hard. But yes, ultimately you can't let cynicism take over, because it's the death knell. Cynicism is to solidify your expectations as nothing. You won't be able to authentically interact with any humans after that.
gtx670 t1_j3kf8tq wrote
How do you know, are you a cynic?
ddrcrono t1_j31cxrg wrote
I would say that in this case "pessimism" is a strange word choice meant more to get the reader's attention than to accurately describe what is just having a reasonable and balanced view based on the information before you. One could similarly argue for "cautious optimism" and come up with something that ends up sounding more or less the same.
When it comes to matters of optimism, pessimism and so on, I lean more on the virtue ethics angle, in that a balanced approach is what's most logical - you have to be able to see both positive and negative possibilities and realities to come to a realistic outlook. (That said, I find that in application, people who label themselves "realists" are usually closet pessimists, so I don't use that term).
Wilddog73 t1_j2spzlf wrote
I disagree with the kind of pessimism that has radical activist sorts assuming that there can be no reasoned discussion/wholesome argument between sides, and so never try to communicate their ideas.
I counter, it's time for optimism to take the scene.
JovialJayou1 t1_j2u4cm2 wrote
Agreed. Seems like there’s been nothing but pessimism for a while now. The 24hr news cycle is fueled by pessimism.
Wilddog73 t1_j2u4y8k wrote
Mhm.
monkeylogic42 t1_j2sqpya wrote
We've had toxic optimism taking us for a ride our entire species existence. We've known global warming due to human activity was a thing since the early 1900s, and we still have 'optimists' trying to run around and say everything is fine! We're not overpopulated and technology will save us! As we're ass deep in the anthropocene extinction. I don't know of a current metric that merits optimism.
WallyMetropolis t1_j2sxjmr wrote
Nonsense. Humans have been convinced they are living in the end times at every point in history. Doom and gloom has always been the popular stance.
If people don't believe progress is possible, they won't work towards it.
Wilddog73 t1_j2szijb wrote
Yes. Blind faith can be dumb, but optimism and a more positive headspace does wonders.
[deleted] t1_j2tjik7 wrote
[deleted]
WallyMetropolis t1_j2tmnqg wrote
It's pretty simple. There have always been optimists, and cynicism has always been popular.
[deleted] t1_j2tnlz0 wrote
[deleted]
WallyMetropolis t1_j2tpoz1 wrote
No, that would be a weird over-generalization. I'm just contesting the idea that history was defined by broad optimism, or that optimism has been a constantly, hugely popular position for people right up until the present moment. That's false.
And I'm also saying there's value in optimism.
[deleted] t1_j2tqf1h wrote
[deleted]
WallyMetropolis t1_j2tu5av wrote
You are reading my comment as saying that 100% of everyone thought it was the end times and also that 100% of all progress is made by optimists. That's not what I think and any person making any kind of attempt at a generous reading would never assume that's what I think.
I'm saying that the person claiming that all of human history was marked by prevalent, toxic optimism is incorrect. That's not the case. Historically, cynicism has always been extremely popular. I'm also claiming that optimists are generally more effective and bringing about progress.
[deleted] t1_j2tx80j wrote
[deleted]
WallyMetropolis t1_j2wt95s wrote
But it's only a contradiction if it's saying that extremist version. Unless I claimed that everyone was a pessimist, and only optimists can make progress, then noting that progress has been made isn't a contradiction.
Trumpfreeaccount t1_j2tosy8 wrote
He does and he realizes how dumb that sounds so he rephrased it cryptically.
jason_square t1_j2v5w66 wrote
You know, it gets really annoying when people hide in optimism. Optimism ends up being only denial
WallyMetropolis t1_j2wu5pt wrote
It's not remotely denialism and it's not at all hiding. Activists are by their nature optimists because they believe change is possible.
[deleted] t1_j2tkd9r wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j2tmzyp wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j2uklr4 wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Be Respectful
>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
InsideRec t1_j2t1x2q wrote
That is some solid "Monkey Logic".
monkeylogic42 t1_j2t2v85 wrote
If a stupid, pink, hairless monkey can figure it out, you can too!
Wilddog73 t1_j2sr846 wrote
Then surely you can tell me some examples of how pessimism has done well by society or the world?
NOLA_Tachyon t1_j2stsal wrote
Pessimism might not be a great cheerleader but every margin of error, every hedge, every tolerance, every conservation effort has roots in pessimism. It’s not sexy but it works, and it’s just what we need to counter the morons who believe in the myths of infinite growth and ever greater fools.
Wilddog73 t1_j2sum1f wrote
Pessimism is like salt. Pepper is like optimism.
It's pretty clear when you've used too much salt.
It's a lot harder to use too much pepper. There's a healthy balance.
100-Resolutions t1_j2tdyai wrote
Sorry this comes off as someone who’s never stepped foot in a kitchen. You can most certainly over season with pepper. Especially if the person can’t handle spice, example: the fine people of Great Britain.
Wilddog73 t1_j2tep0r wrote
I said a healthy balance, I didn't say it was guaranteed to sit well with the lightweights.
[deleted] t1_j2tjr4r wrote
[deleted]
monkeylogic42 t1_j2ss423 wrote
Doesn't matter what headspace, pessimism is necessary for seeing things as they are. The unbridled optimism peddled by capitalists to continue plundering resources has already doomed the world. Optimists are useful tools against science and progress more than benefits to society.
Wilddog73 t1_j2ssgoe wrote
Doesn't answer my initial question. Give me an example that supports your claim that it's necessary, by showing that it's effective.
Socksandcandy t1_j2szafv wrote
Pessimistic logic helps free people from the yoke of religion.
Example: Thoughts and prayers and magical thinking
SkamGnal t1_j2th3bl wrote
Martin Luther, I’d argue. The article argues that pessimism is often caricatured, but in reality it represents the ability to face the negative things in life.
Luther held a very bleak view of the Catholic Church. He challenged common opinions and brought the Church’s intentions and behaviors to light.
Wilddog73 t1_j2tlg6t wrote
That doesn't sound like pessimism, rather than the fruits of skepticism/criticism.
SkamGnal t1_j2uv7k1 wrote
And that criticism is a result of viewing the world for what it is - bleak. Those that represented God - even the Pope himself - were taking advantage of the common man. The Church, in its stark irony, made it harder for people to go to Heaven. That’s a pessimistic, yet grounded, perspective. It’s not sugar coated.
The author of the article does not divorce optimism and pessimism. Nor do they marry pessimism with fatalism - quite the opposite. They describe hopeful pessimism, which faces the negativity of the world head on while acknowledging things might get worse. I think Martins Luthers actions fit that description.
Wilddog73 t1_j2uyowz wrote
Personally, I think that contradicts with my definition of pessimism. Is pessimism not negativity to the point of not caring to try? To the point that it holds you back from facing that negativity?
I think "realistic optimism" is a better term for what you describe.
Trumpfreeaccount t1_j2toj6t wrote
You literally just call anything positive someone points out about pessimism skepticism, your not arguing in good faith my friend.
Wilddog73 t1_j2tpfo6 wrote
Why is it pessimism and not skepticism to you then?
Trumpfreeaccount t1_j2tqs3e wrote
Why would I have a discussion with someone I literally just told I don't believe is having a good faith discussion.
Wilddog73 t1_j2tro6x wrote
Leave it to a pessimist to make that assumption on so little.
Thank you for portraying my argument against encouraging pessimism for the rest of us.
Trumpfreeaccount t1_j2tttys wrote
When did I say I was a pessimist. Leave it to an optimist to just make shit up whole cloth and claim they are correct.
Trumpfreeaccount t1_j2tnu0r wrote
Did you read the article?
monkeylogic42 t1_j2sux8h wrote
Lol. I wasnt there for any major historical decisions where the pessimist in the room talked sense into the rest. I can point to numerous examples where optimism has failed us greatly though, we have great records on that. You demanding examples is just a demonstration that you have no argument really for your optimism, and instead would like to strawman something away from your poor philosophical stance. Especially your errant declaration that "it's time for more unbridled optimism!". Super shortsighted and childish.
Wilddog73 t1_j2svi8j wrote
Aren't you a textbook case of "unbridled/toxic optimism" when it comes to pessimism?
Blindly supporting it since you can't name a single historical instance when it did us any good?
monkeylogic42 t1_j2sx9za wrote
Nice, the strawman I predicted you would pull from your back pocket!
How about just admitting that optimism isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread and an acknowledgement that it's not the best way to go about dealing in the world? That's all you have to do, but nah, you look at where all the ambitious optimism has us and decide we need more! Lol....
Wilddog73 t1_j2syn8a wrote
Blind faith/"toxic optimism" is bad, but so is full-on pessimism.
Realistic optimism seems more like what we should push for, since we know that there's a level of optimism that does well by us before it gets to that point.
Since you think I'm strawmanning, then it's clear you believe I'm arguing in bad faith. I guess I should leave it at this then, unless you wanna try and explain how the heck I was strawmanning... I mean, would you buy a product on amazon with no or terrible reviews?
monkeylogic42 t1_j2t0tr3 wrote
I do not consult Amazon reviews at all, theyre not verifiable. Realistic optimism isn't a thing. It's just optimism. It's often used like faith, as belief that the best outcome will prevail without evidence. Demonstrate a reason for optimism and we can talk, but declaring now the time for optimism after optimism is what got us to this point is silly. Like I said in the beginning, general optimism is weaponizing you against your own self interest.
Wilddog73 t1_j2t5qvl wrote
>Demonstrate a reason for optimism and we can talk
Sure! When I've failed at something and then done some preparation to raise my chances at success, I feel optimistic that it'll work when I try again!
And it's a realistic optimism, tempered by the lessons of my failure! So it is a thing.
​
>I do not consult Amazon reviews at all, theyre not verifiable.
So you just don't consult any reviews on the internet? That's pretty pessimistic.
monkeylogic42 t1_j2tals7 wrote
>Sure! When I've failed at something and then done some preparation to raise my chances at success, I feel optimistic that it'll work when I try again!
We haven't even begun to try to change the system, and we have been told for a century that the world is going to choke to death if we keep doing what we're doing. The optimism of the world is just kicking the can down the road.
>So you just don't consult any reviews on the internet? That's pretty pessimistic.
Another demonstration of your bad faith argumentation. I said Amazon, cause reviews are bought and merchandise is fraudulent often. I don't buy anything of consequence from Amazon.
This is the best optimism has to offer? Deceit for the sake of feeling good for another short while until reality calls you back to the fact the world is dying?
Wilddog73 t1_j2tb25g wrote
You want bad faith argumentation, you didn't even really answer me.
Just as I said, full-on pessimism just leads to an excess of political activist/dismissive dunderhead types.
If you can't even tell the difference between real and fake reviews, you've got a lot of learning to do before you've earned the right to be pessimistic.
Goodbye.
monkeylogic42 t1_j2tbnww wrote
And lol that you think wasting time deciphering Amazon reviews makes you special.
Wilddog73 t1_j2tcetd wrote
This is so sad. No, I'm just experienced.
Get your head out of your ass and grow up, do some things with your life before you latch on to some weird ideology. You're just being a weird fanatic at this point.
Not meant to be an insult, just concerned advice.
monkeylogic42 t1_j2teq60 wrote
Lol. It's easier to con a man than to convince him he's been conned. Sounds like you've latched on to the weird ideology as you want to trust Amazon. It takes being a weird fanatic to bring change, keep being an experienced consumer tho. That's dope.
monkeylogic42 t1_j2tbi9u wrote
You asked a question that doesn't really have an answer. Like a believer saying well you don't know what caused the big bang so despite the evidence I believe the (insert specific God claim here) did it!
Trumpfreeaccount t1_j2tod1r wrote
Or maybe, hopeful pessimism? Really seems like you didn't read the article.
Wilddog73 t1_j2tpmqb wrote
If you've read it, then you could surely differentiate the article's hopeful pessimism from my "realistic optimism".
Well? What's the difference?
Trumpfreeaccount t1_j2tqnfp wrote
So you didn't read the article. Got it.
Wilddog73 t1_j2tqraz wrote
When did I say that?
painstream t1_j2t1yt1 wrote
> we still have 'optimists' trying to run around and say everything is fine!
I hesitate to assume it's optimists saying that, but rather self-interested financial elites that are distinctly invested in pushing pessimism to avoid necessary changes.
monkeylogic42 t1_j2t2npi wrote
It's optimists hijacked by their capitalist masters, yes. It's still the "wanting to believe without or against evidence" part that leaves optimists open for being taken advantage of. Like saying religion isn't bad, just extremists. The extremists wouldn't exist without the religion. Maybe they'd find something else to take to it's fullest extent, but it wouldn't be violent, morally questionable fairy tales.
DeFiDegen- t1_j2x9oqi wrote
There’s really not a reason to be pessimistic about anything you posted. Realistically we both live in the best time to be alive, with basically all of our needs taken care of.
You could read the news all day and decide we are doomed to death via any of the dozens of doomsday scenarios they spin, but is any of that actually valuable in your life?
I also always find it puzzling what the pessimists are complaining about. Right now they all complain about the climate and things like religion and capitalism. These things are all unlikely to cause an extinction event, humans are resilient creatures.
What is, in my opinion, a much more oppressive and pessimistic issue, is the erosion of privacy and the lust for digital control. We are at a point as a species where people in control can build systems to lock us down as a species. Evil people with inhuman ambitions are already working towards it but nobody seems to care. Great thinkers and writers tried to warn us 100 years ago but people somehow don’t bother to listen. If these systems where locked in place, you’d be wishing for a climate catastrophe.
SkamGnal t1_j2tftft wrote
Optimists have ground to stand on, considering this is most peaceful, progressive time in human history.
monkeylogic42 t1_j2tmety wrote
With some of the greatest wealth disparity the world has ever seen, with more people enslaved than ever and we're a minute and a half from doomsday, sounds like you make a compelling argument there.
SkamGnal t1_j2youfs wrote
The lower classes are better off than today than they were in the past, despite the disparity. So yeah the world is still better off. Not to mention horrible diseases we have found treatment for : malaria, polio, Black Death. Maybe you want to talk to a mother? Ask them if they’d rather have a child now or 100 years ago.
Yeah we can compare absolute numbers if you want, but when the global population is 10 times the size it was 150 years ago, it doesn’t make sense. Especially considering slavery has become a regional issue instead of a global one. Roll the dice today and you’re way better off.
Besides every generation from every era in human history thought the world was going to end lol
Your perspective is a result of the fatalist 24 hour news cycle. I saw the slavery headline too..
[deleted] t1_j2ypfe5 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j2ypojc wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j314p9q wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Argue your Position
>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
Old_Personality3136 t1_j2w3d6o wrote
Only if you use the narrowest definition of peace imaginable.
[deleted] t1_j2stm71 wrote
[deleted]
Old_Personality3136 t1_j2w37rz wrote
It isn't the activists saying that. It's the decades of evidence that no rational discourse can be had. Optimists severely lack evidence to support their arguments, and you all simply refuse to acknowledge that.
unassumingdink t1_j2tph2o wrote
Pretty sure they do communicate their ideas. The optimists simply don't listen because it threatens their optimism.
Wilddog73 t1_j2tq9nj wrote
I'm optimistic enough to try and communicate with a lot of pessimistic/political fellows, yet they're often too pessimistic to see communicating back as anything but a waste of time.
They assume failure without even really trying. We've had too much pessimism lately imo.
unassumingdink t1_j2ttofm wrote
It's a safe assumption to make when we can't even progress to the "trying" part because that might mess with some rich guy's bank account. Politicians are owned by the same rich guys. For decades, we've been trying to convince optimists that this bribery is an incomprehensibly huge issue that infects every other issue like a cancer, and that nothing truly positive can happen under those conditions. But the optimists just went ahead and assumed that the bribed politicians (at least the ones in their party) would fight for them anyway, despite the bribes.
Wilddog73 t1_j2tzvwe wrote
Not on the small scale. I would've listened.
But apparently I just wasn't worth the effort. Better to talk down to me and act like they've won the argument without even trying.
unassumingdink t1_j2u0oyr wrote
Small scale efforts are like trying to bail out a sinking ocean liner with a thimble. Worse, they make people complacent and satisfied that they've solved the problem when 99.9999% of the problem remains.
Wilddog73 t1_j2u16y9 wrote
Small scale efforts are showing the kind of compassion and good will you claim to have for world/societal issues to the common man around you.
It's integrity.
unassumingdink t1_j2u2th2 wrote
So it's basically a symbolic gesture, then. We've already been doing those for the last 50 years or so. They're not working. We recycled all our plastic bottles to help the environment, then we found out that we were being lied to the whole time, and 98% of them were ending up in landfills! You'd think that would disturb even the most fervent optimist, but nope. They just kept right on trucking, same strategies, same viewpoints, steady on into the void.
Wilddog73 t1_j2u4mvx wrote
I'm not talking about that right now, I'm talking about how they treat their fellow man when they ask what's going on.
The pessimism that leads them to brush off their curiosity and escalate conflict.
unassumingdink t1_j2u88i5 wrote
The pessimism is what comes after decades of optimism didn't work. And from decades of being on the receiving end of bad faith arguments engineered by oil industry propagandists, tested on focus groups for maximum impact, and disseminated among purportedly well-meaning optimists. Yeah, some people are gonna get snippy with you after dealing with that. And anyway, there comes a point when optimism is indistinguishable from delusion. The eternally optimistic make it a point of pride not to be convinced of anything that threatens their optimism, and thus their worldview. Convincing people like that feels about as achievable as trying to talk a devout religious person out of their religion.
Wilddog73 t1_j2uehb2 wrote
Blind faith/optimism as you describe is bad, but full-on pessimism is if anything, blowing up in their faces at the moment.
It isn't proving to be anymore of a viable solution as "eternal optimism" is.
Rychek_Four t1_j2tfnni wrote
The article does a bad job of define terms before using ones that no average reader would use. The article isn’t unhelpful but it’s a bad jumping off point.
interestme1 t1_j2tlkvd wrote
Pessimism and optimism are both just a more specific way to describe delusion or fallible predictions. Neither are a virtue, and once one becomes aware they are exhibiting either the only rational action is to course correct towards a more accurate model of reality.
RomanAntics t1_j2txuld wrote
I feel as pessimism is a view for investigation and optimism is a view for hope. Both things are just a perception on a topic that are necessary to find all knowledge we can understand to bring us closer to the truth. The belief I have on this is perceptions cannot by itself be truthful and are just a tool instead of an identity.
Wilddog73 t1_j2ufezi wrote
Isn't that skepticism, not pessimism?
RomanAntics t1_j2upu3o wrote
Could you elaborate for me.
Wilddog73 t1_j2uytxb wrote
I think pessimism is negativity to the point of holding someone back from trying.
That would include investigation, which I think is far more commonly a result of skepticism.
RomanAntics t1_j2v2k9p wrote
I see your point, I agree investigation would fall more in line with skepticism.
I do think however that pessimism is not inherently negative to the point of not trying or acting.
I believe from what you have said that pessimism is a projection of a negative out come for some thing or event into its future state. This separates the choices from the view and from your perception onto the future. you then can decide weather or not to act.
What word would you use for pessimism instead of investigation?
alchemist1248 t1_j2u8sto wrote
The reason I have rejected optimism is the same reason that I have rejected Christianity. Both seem to say that righteous, wrathful rage should never be the appropriate response. And that whenever something good does happen, then that is the natural way of the world, or God's plan, instead of a violent departure from the normal state of many of our lives. Neither of these paired attitudes offer a realistic or useful view of reality as it is. They are only marginally useful as a view of how reality ought to be.
Wilddog73 t1_j2ufthc wrote
And pessimism?
alchemist1248 t1_j2ug2b5 wrote
Pessimism acknowledges, as the piece said, that sometimes it is OK not to be OK. And that we don't gave to pretend that we are or will be in order for our worldview to make sense
Wilddog73 t1_j2uj1ga wrote
Hmm. But the piece wasn't encouraging regular old pessimism, but "hopeful pessimism", no?
alchemist1248 t1_j2ujlt8 wrote
I would argue that any pessimism that doesn't fall into nihilism must be inherently hopeful
Wilddog73 t1_j2um3ur wrote
That certainly doesn't fit my caricature of it. I guess we really will have to consider the difference between pessimism and skepticism/criticism more closely!
[deleted] t1_j2thaku wrote
[deleted]
Talosian_cagecleaner t1_j2u759m wrote
Hey why not!
Schopenhauer said the most terrible noise is that of the whip, the horse whip. It speaks of the utter carelessness of human beings, and of how bleak we never cease to be.
I could make the counterargument, human beings deeply need symbiotic contact of some sort with other species, but horse labor and horse transport was replaced by machines. Net result: potentially quite a serious loss all around, if my premise is correct.
Pessimism relies on you agreeing to limiting your outlook just so. But why would one do that? Is there any self-evidence for pessimism? I think it's histrionic. A previous post was about absurdist writers. Kinda same deal. History moves forward, and the passions some thoughts require of us, sometimes just don't work the same way. Thrill is gone, thrill is gone.
Anything that wants to keep a flame alive makes me also suspect, something needs burned down. Why pessimism? Don't tell me about stuff like horse whips. That's rhetoric, not theory.
_far-seeker_ t1_j2ta02i wrote
I hope we're not expecting thousands of up votes for this post, but somehow I suspect you didn't.😉
EdHerzriesig t1_j2u2jzs wrote
If we ultimately have little to no control of the endogenous and exogenous factors of our lives then to what extent is it helpful being pessimistic. Is not optimism the only sane choice we have? I like to believe so 🍀
Fearless-Temporary29 t1_j2uc5dq wrote
Relax nothing is under control. - Guy McPherson.
[deleted] t1_j2v11jk wrote
[removed]
WNEW t1_j2v0pje wrote
>sees aeon article
Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd it goes right to the pay no mind list. I refuse to entertain VICE for philistines with the personality of a drying waiting room
Lahm0123 t1_j2v3oes wrote
Even a monumentally difficult problem can be solved.
You can describe the badness still. Thats ok. It’s hope that needs to drive action.
Luke90210 t1_j2v48m4 wrote
Being cynical is good and not the same as pessimistic.
Ultramontrax t1_j2v8w2v wrote
Optimism for a better future. Be VERY careful into NOT mixing optimism with complacency tho.
RedOrchestra137 t1_j2vd8tp wrote
Oh, don't worry, ive got it covered, the stuff that comes up in my most personal moments couldn't be any more bleak and hopeless 🤣👍
Square-Car1626 t1_j2vgfzk wrote
This article reminds me of Pixar’s Inside Out movie 😊 I like the empathy that this article portrays in hopeful pessimism, but like it says, I’d imagine it’s important to have a balance of both.
CraazzyCatCommander t1_j2vlg7h wrote
Without reading the article, if things really are worse then you think, it’s not pessimism to say they are worse. It’s pessimism to expect the worst without complete data or to expect the worst based on ambiguous or incomplete information.
Felicia_Bastian t1_j2vw7io wrote
Suppress the populus! Drs gme book and hodl
[deleted] t1_j2wzi0i wrote
[removed]
bread93096 t1_j2xf19e wrote
The article attempts to reckon with pessimism, but ultimately just bends it back towards optimism, as usually happens. The unstated, unanswered question which this essay begs is: “is human existence so worthwhile that we must will ourselves to assume an optimistic viewpoint against all rationality, because it will encourage us to ensure the continued existence of our species?”. I say no.
sngNvnRb t1_j2xqseo wrote
I'm in favor of chucking all "-isms" into the dust bin, and then examining existence (and this means one's own individual existence, not the "our/we" existence) without reference to a naive self (one that is the helpless object of fortune). At least for me, the results of such examination have been astounding, especially in regard to the hitherto buried memories of my formative childhood, recently accessed.
lolderplife t1_j2zlmfw wrote
The "Naive self" as we may call it is a very important concept that needs to be dealt with. If we do not understand ourselves, what we want, and how the world is constructed around us, how can we ever attempt to move forward in a way that is reasonable to our personal wants and needs?
Wonderful suggestion friend.
sngNvnRb t1_j34555l wrote
"...we ever attempt...? You must be DAFT!. I just told you. It's not about the our/we existence! C'mon, pal, get with IT!!
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j5fn42p wrote
Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:
> Read the Post Before You Reply
> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
VapidAir t1_j2um81w wrote
Maybe fuck all of that
RedOrchestra137 t1_j2ve49j wrote
Humans: "OH BUT MAYBE IT COULD BE BETTER LIKE BLAHBLAHBLAH, BLAH BLA XYZ BLAH I REALLY DO THINK IT BLA BLAH BLAH"
Reality:
neonspectraltoast t1_j2tm5rj wrote
Agree utterly and hope you fathom the weight of your words. Positivity is the trap of the maniacal.
Wilddog73 t1_j2ufq0t wrote
A little mania does a society wonders.
JohnJubinsky t1_j2txxhq wrote
That doesn't sound like a mentally healthy perspective to me. One would be much more prone to fall into a state of depression with that viewpoint.
Wilddog73 t1_j2uflb0 wrote
My thoughts exactly. I think realistic optimism would be a better term for what they describe.
JohnJubinsky t1_j2uscjr wrote
Agreed.
[deleted] t1_j2tykap wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j2u059a wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j2ued35 wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Be Respectful
>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
Rethious t1_j2sru7v wrote
If Thunberg is to be taken as the “arch-pessimist” of this article, then that is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the approach. Thunberg is a high profile activist figure, but her pessimism leaves her vulnerable to attack by her opponents who may offer a brighter, or at least less alarmist version of the future. It also weakens her impact on the sympathetic, those most directly pressured. They call her and have her castigate them for ruining the world as a secular penance.
Climate change calls for a specific action to address it. Objectively speaking, there is a lot that can still be done. The only ethically correct message when it comes to climate change is a specific, effective one.
Pessimism will never be as motivating as telling people about the bright future ahead if they invest in climate mitigation now.
Over optimism can become carelessness. But even a small amount of pessimism leads to fatalism.