4 ms·

Pessimism, in the article, is used to mean predicting a future state, given present trends. Optimism, in the article, is used to mean disbelieving that predict

Pessimism, in the article, is used to mean predicting a future state, given present trends. Optimism, in the article, is used to mean disbelieving that predicted future. Given the author framed them this way, of course "pessimism" sounds smarter. "Optimism" is counterfactual. The meanings of common terms have been mutated to be able to make this point. It's effectively circular reasoning via redefinition.

lazide 5y ago
Which if someone is that definition of ‘optimistic’ despite repeated problems is the definition of delusional.
- jhbadger 5y ago
  Except that while, say, predicting new advances in agriculture would sound delusional to Malthus in the late 1700s, thus avoiding the massive famines he predicted in the Western world, that's exactly what happened. He would have been right had nothing changed. But things do. The same thing with Ehrlich's "Population Bomb" in the 1960s. He didn't predict that in many Western nations (and even China) that the number of children would soon go the other way -- below the number needed for replacement, leading to a smaller, older population. Which causes problems of its own of course. but based on history one that is unlikely to be insolvable. So ultimately it's the pessimists that are delusional because they don't see that pessimism has rarely been right.
  - popcube 5y ago
    same prediction used to against global warming, they trust just waiting for new technology... but so many people fighting for preventing these crisis happening, and rich can say this is not true/new technology will work and get their money
  - lazide 5y ago
    It is important to recognize that sounding delusional and BEING delusional are vastly different things. The fundamental nature of someone having delusions is they believe things which are not true, and when faced when evidence of what is actually true, they refuse to believe it. Like a rock not physically being where that rock is, or that 2+2=5, or their favorite politician loves them. Fundamentally, any evaluation of a prediction has to be projecting the current world views onto something fundamentally unpredictable, the future. Any high variance future prediction will sound delusional. Since high variance also means high spread among possible futures, of which only one is actually possible, that also means high odds of a bad prediction. But someone making, evaluating, or the predictions themselves aren’t delusional yet, because there is no fact yet to compare them against.
jdavis703 5y ago
I’m not sure. We’re on a hedonistic treadmill. Yesterday’s inventions are todays problems. It’s easy to look at polluting transportation, addictive social media or unhealthy processed foods and extrapolate that the future will be worse. But I believe someone in the 19th century would see a F-150; near real time, global news; and tasty, semi-nutritious food that’s shelf stable for years as amazing!
woojoo666 5y ago
The author addresses this. > The possibility of sustained progress is a consequence of the view of humans as “universal explainers” (cf. David Deutsch), and of progress as driven fundamentally by human choice and effort—that is, by human agency. > The opposite view is that progress is a matter of luck. If the progress of the last few centuries was a random windfall, then pessimism is logical: our luck is bound to run out. So it's[1] not about predicting trends based on present conditions. In fact almost the opposite. An optimist would predict that hard unsolved problems will be solved in the future, because that has been the trend. [1] by "it" I meant to say "pessimism" here
- nonrandomstring 5y ago
  > The possibility of sustained progress is a consequence of the view of humans as "universal explainers" (cf. David Deutsch), and of progress as driven fundamentally by human choice and effort - that is, by human agency. As a humanist, I too am very optimistic about the ultimate triumph of human agency. What gives me cause for pessimism is the emergence of technologies that act against it. Biology, intelligence and evolution, on a long enough timeline tend toward unbridled possibility. We can overcome anything. I reject Malthusian doom-saying. The greatest challenge may not be energy or food, but how we overcome our own technologies that cultivate dependency, weakness, and ignorance. How do we avoid abandoning intelligence amplification in favour of artificial intelligence, reality in favour of a "virtual metaverse"? I think the subtle danger in late modernity is the creation of technologies that optimise for pessimism, thrive on discord, reward laziness, and learn from our worst vices in order to amplify them and offer us more.
  - dale_glass 5y ago
    Nothing wrong with metaverses IMO. It's a fuzzy term that mostly works out to some sort of often collaborative social environment. Not much different than HN or IRC in many ways, just with a different way of interacting.
- ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
  That's if you define optimism to be belief in sustained human progress, and redefine pessimism as realism (reality is a mixed bag) If you go with someone else's definition, pessimism could be belief in ubiquitous, sustained human failure, while optimism is recognizing that failure may come, but won't indefinitely or all the time (reality is a mixed bag)

lazide 5y ago

Which if someone is that definition of ‘optimistic’ despite repeated problems is the definition of delusional.

jhbadger 5y ago
Except that while, say, predicting new advances in agriculture would sound delusional to Malthus in the late 1700s, thus avoiding the massive famines he predicted in the Western world, that's exactly what happened. He would have been right had nothing changed. But things do. The same thing with Ehrlich's "Population Bomb" in the 1960s. He didn't predict that in many Western nations (and even China) that the number of children would soon go the other way -- below the number needed for replacement, leading to a smaller, older population. Which causes problems of its own of course. but based on history one that is unlikely to be insolvable. So ultimately it's the pessimists that are delusional because they don't see that pessimism has rarely been right.
- popcube 5y ago
  same prediction used to against global warming, they trust just waiting for new technology... but so many people fighting for preventing these crisis happening, and rich can say this is not true/new technology will work and get their money
- lazide 5y ago
  It is important to recognize that sounding delusional and BEING delusional are vastly different things. The fundamental nature of someone having delusions is they believe things which are not true, and when faced when evidence of what is actually true, they refuse to believe it. Like a rock not physically being where that rock is, or that 2+2=5, or their favorite politician loves them. Fundamentally, any evaluation of a prediction has to be projecting the current world views onto something fundamentally unpredictable, the future. Any high variance future prediction will sound delusional. Since high variance also means high spread among possible futures, of which only one is actually possible, that also means high odds of a bad prediction. But someone making, evaluating, or the predictions themselves aren’t delusional yet, because there is no fact yet to compare them against.

jdavis703 5y ago

I’m not sure. We’re on a hedonistic treadmill. Yesterday’s inventions are todays problems. It’s easy to look at polluting transportation, addictive social media or unhealthy processed foods and extrapolate that the future will be worse. But I believe someone in the 19th century would see a F-150; near real time, global news; and tasty, semi-nutritious food that’s shelf stable for years as amazing!

woojoo666 5y ago

The author addresses this. > The possibility of sustained progress is a consequence of the view of humans as “universal explainers” (cf. David Deutsch), and of progress as driven fundamentally by human choice and effort—that is, by human agency. > The opposite view is that progress is a matter of luck. If the progress of the last few centuries was a random windfall, then pessimism is logical: our luck is bound to run out. So it's[1] not about predicting trends based on present conditions. In fact almost the opposite. An optimist would predict that hard unsolved problems will be solved in the future, because that has been the trend. [1] by "it" I meant to say "pessimism" here

nonrandomstring 5y ago
> The possibility of sustained progress is a consequence of the view of humans as "universal explainers" (cf. David Deutsch), and of progress as driven fundamentally by human choice and effort - that is, by human agency. As a humanist, I too am very optimistic about the ultimate triumph of human agency. What gives me cause for pessimism is the emergence of technologies that act against it. Biology, intelligence and evolution, on a long enough timeline tend toward unbridled possibility. We can overcome anything. I reject Malthusian doom-saying. The greatest challenge may not be energy or food, but how we overcome our own technologies that cultivate dependency, weakness, and ignorance. How do we avoid abandoning intelligence amplification in favour of artificial intelligence, reality in favour of a "virtual metaverse"? I think the subtle danger in late modernity is the creation of technologies that optimise for pessimism, thrive on discord, reward laziness, and learn from our worst vices in order to amplify them and offer us more.
- dale_glass 5y ago
  Nothing wrong with metaverses IMO. It's a fuzzy term that mostly works out to some sort of often collaborative social environment. Not much different than HN or IRC in many ways, just with a different way of interacting.
ImPostingOnHN 5y ago
That's if you define optimism to be belief in sustained human progress, and redefine pessimism as realism (reality is a mixed bag) If you go with someone else's definition, pessimism could be belief in ubiquitous, sustained human failure, while optimism is recognizing that failure may come, but won't indefinitely or all the time (reality is a mixed bag)