4 ms·
I would think that any pessimistic prediction from 1918 about the year 2000 would be just as inaccurate about our own pessimistic predictions for 2100.
by eej71 8y ago
I would think that any pessimistic prediction from 1918 about the year 2000 would be just as inaccurate about our own pessimistic predictions for 2100.
- richpimp 8y agoIt's not so much that I believe that the earth will be in utter ruin by 2100, or that I'm a super green environmentalist (I'm not). My pessimism comes from seeing intentional ignorance and utter stupidity every day. Of course, these aren't new problems in the due course of our civilization. I'm just inclined to think that if the proverbial shit ever does hit the fan on a global scale, we'll be reactive instead of proactive, and may find ourselves unable to deal with the problem. I want to be wrong.
- TheOtherHobbes 8y agoWhy would you think that? I see no reason for thinking that beyond blind optimism and wishful thinking. It's not as if climate change is a surprise. E.g. there's this prediction from 1912: https://www.livescience.com/63334-coal-affecting-climate-century-ago.html https://www.livescience.com/63334-coal-affecting-climate-cen... Vested-interest attempts at FUD aside, contemporary evidence for change should be well known now, and history has a lot to say about the destructive effects of natural climate change on previous civilisations.
- eej71 8y agoThe belief is rooted in the overall success of the industrial revolution and our post industrial world. We have fewer wars. healthier lives, longer lives, a larger educated class of people, and a level of wealth that is slowly but surely becoming available to everyone. I certainly don't expect you to agree with the optimism - but to describe it as blind (as though its not rooted in recent success) or wishful (as if its a magic trick that will end soon) is a bit off base.