3 ms·

I don't know if that is strictly pessimism. It is probably self defeating though. Sally has been on a diet for two weeks. Already, she looks visibly better. He

I don't know if that is strictly pessimism. It is probably self defeating though. Sally has been on a diet for two weeks. Already, she looks visibly better. Her face is less puffy, complection has improved, etc. She feels more energetic. "You see! I told you. Diet is not that hard. You look so much better. It's such a pity that you spent your twenties being a fat slob." A pat on the back is productive. The above is counterproductive.

bmitc 5y ago
I feel the analogy isn't quite accurate. What you've described is almost strictly a personal matter. Building structures that decimate animal populations and ecosystems is an entirely different matter. It's just at some point, we gotta question our ability and willingness to double down on narcissism. We build structures and technology that do horrible things to the environment for our own "good" or preference, and then we pat ourselves on the back when we do something about reducing the effects, usually decades later (and usually when it starts to affect us). The lesson learned is that we have got to start asking ourselves about downstream effects of our technology, rather than simply stopping once technology solves the narrow problem it was designed for. As I mentioned, I do think it's great that these natural bridges are becoming more popular. I sincerely feel the separation we've done to animal populations every time I drive on highways and roads, especially when I see animals that have been killed by cars. The fact that some animals have been able to survive amongst destruction of their habitat is quite amazing. Obviously, many were not able to adapt due to their evolutionary path.
- dalbasal 5y ago
  No analogy is perfect. That said. I think there's a pseudo-principle in here someplace. Behind that bridge are people, and work those people did. Someone fought for budgets. Someone did wildlife research. Someone overcame planning difficulties. Politicians, scientists, activists, etc. The sentiments you expressed are negative reinforcers. If enough voices sound like yours, that leads to doing less. I do think that it's a self defeating pattern in personal, social and public realms. Do something good = trivialise it; shoulda done more, earlier. You sick. We suck. Negative reinforcement. Do something bad = comfortable, instinctive negativity. Of course we did bad. We suck. All is as it should be. It's a pattern of thought and communication that promotes and enables stagnation, and wallowing in bad places.
  - bmitc 5y ago
    But some analogies aren't relevant. :) Taking a retrospective look could in fact be argued to be optimistic. It means we can learn from our past mistakes and do better in the future. In other words, take the idea that we have the capacity to change for the better and not the capacity to get worse. I view the "whelp, this is the best we could do" approach to be pessimistic. A retrospective isn't trivializing anything. It should be: we did something bad, we've corrected for it, don't over congratulate and act like our hands are fully clean, ask ourselves how we can prevent this in the future in other endeavors. We will never be proactive problem solvers of downstream problems created by our immediate solutions as a species if we don't address these ideas and perspectives. We'll just keep rinsing and repeating. Do you view team retrospectives in industry as "negative reinforcers"? > If enough voices sound like yours, that leads to doing less. I highly disagree because you seem to continue to be misinterpreting the "voicing". It isn't about being negative. It's about being honest. Anyway, this is gone down a diversion. Just trying to provide a perspective of reframing in that we have the capacity, at least I hope we do, to prevent the need for these scrambles in the future. For the third time, it's really great this is being done and hopefully propagates to other areas that likely desperately need them. Edit: It should be clear, but I'm referring to we as a collective. And it's almost always more expensive and difficult to retroactively fix things. I'm saying take this good development, which it is, and proactively apply its ideas to new projects.
    - kortilla 5y ago
      Your whole analysis is based on the false premise that the “we” who did the shitty thing is the same “we” who built the bridge. You’re just some person on the side shitting on people who didn’t do things in the first place without encouraging the people who are actually doing good. You’re not helpful, you’re just dumping negativity around the actual good going on. This article, “look at this cool solar farm Sally built that made her community net negative on carbon.” You, “not to be pessimistic, but this is just fixing shit that was done before.”

bmitc 5y ago

I feel the analogy isn't quite accurate. What you've described is almost strictly a personal matter. Building structures that decimate animal populations and ecosystems is an entirely different matter. It's just at some point, we gotta question our ability and willingness to double down on narcissism. We build structures and technology that do horrible things to the environment for our own "good" or preference, and then we pat ourselves on the back when we do something about reducing the effects, usually decades later (and usually when it starts to affect us). The lesson learned is that we have got to start asking ourselves about downstream effects of our technology, rather than simply stopping once technology solves the narrow problem it was designed for. As I mentioned, I do think it's great that these natural bridges are becoming more popular. I sincerely feel the separation we've done to animal populations every time I drive on highways and roads, especially when I see animals that have been killed by cars. The fact that some animals have been able to survive amongst destruction of their habitat is quite amazing. Obviously, many were not able to adapt due to their evolutionary path.

dalbasal 5y ago
No analogy is perfect. That said. I think there's a pseudo-principle in here someplace. Behind that bridge are people, and work those people did. Someone fought for budgets. Someone did wildlife research. Someone overcame planning difficulties. Politicians, scientists, activists, etc. The sentiments you expressed are negative reinforcers. If enough voices sound like yours, that leads to doing less. I do think that it's a self defeating pattern in personal, social and public realms. Do something good = trivialise it; shoulda done more, earlier. You sick. We suck. Negative reinforcement. Do something bad = comfortable, instinctive negativity. Of course we did bad. We suck. All is as it should be. It's a pattern of thought and communication that promotes and enables stagnation, and wallowing in bad places.
- bmitc 5y ago
  But some analogies aren't relevant. :) Taking a retrospective look could in fact be argued to be optimistic. It means we can learn from our past mistakes and do better in the future. In other words, take the idea that we have the capacity to change for the better and not the capacity to get worse. I view the "whelp, this is the best we could do" approach to be pessimistic. A retrospective isn't trivializing anything. It should be: we did something bad, we've corrected for it, don't over congratulate and act like our hands are fully clean, ask ourselves how we can prevent this in the future in other endeavors. We will never be proactive problem solvers of downstream problems created by our immediate solutions as a species if we don't address these ideas and perspectives. We'll just keep rinsing and repeating. Do you view team retrospectives in industry as "negative reinforcers"? > If enough voices sound like yours, that leads to doing less. I highly disagree because you seem to continue to be misinterpreting the "voicing". It isn't about being negative. It's about being honest. Anyway, this is gone down a diversion. Just trying to provide a perspective of reframing in that we have the capacity, at least I hope we do, to prevent the need for these scrambles in the future. For the third time, it's really great this is being done and hopefully propagates to other areas that likely desperately need them. Edit: It should be clear, but I'm referring to we as a collective. And it's almost always more expensive and difficult to retroactively fix things. I'm saying take this good development, which it is, and proactively apply its ideas to new projects.
  - kortilla 5y ago
    Your whole analysis is based on the false premise that the “we” who did the shitty thing is the same “we” who built the bridge. You’re just some person on the side shitting on people who didn’t do things in the first place without encouraging the people who are actually doing good. You’re not helpful, you’re just dumping negativity around the actual good going on. This article, “look at this cool solar farm Sally built that made her community net negative on carbon.” You, “not to be pessimistic, but this is just fixing shit that was done before.”