If pessimism and optimism represent free choices, then I would endorse always taking an optimistic view. My wife's cousin was visiting this summer. I'd never met her before so she was telling me a bit about herself and she said, "I'm a bit of a pessimist." I said, "Interesting. Is that by choice?" Made an immediate impact. She said she'd never thought of that.

I think some people are pessimistic by habit, but optimism I believe is overall a healthier frame of mind and probably does equip us to make better choices.

A realistic assessment of the global warming crisis ought to result in feelings ranging from pessimism to despair, with a side trip to include rage

Ahhh, but here is where things get confusing for both of us I feel. I’ve been through these states already (just ask my fiancé I’ve been damn right miserable and pessimistic about this for the past few years.) So, why am I optimistic now? What has changed for me? I’m gonna need to think about this. Thank you, your responses are really helpful :)

I think everything should be approached with optimism, but I'm an "irrational optimist." :grin: - -in other words, I have optimism even when it's not really warranted.

I think a lot more will be done, in a coordinated political way, about climate control, but I don't think that much will be done until climate change starts costing big corporations a lot more money. When that happens, though, you'll see relatively quick action.

Simply by virtue of believing in and being open to better choices I feel.

There might or might not be a way, so we must try for the best and neither give up nor rest assured, as either of those leads to inaction and so guaranteed failure.

Thank you for pointing this out, bit of implied virtue theory. Look for the golden mean between optimism and Pessimism. I like this :)

"Climate is a matter of faith and ideology," is vague. — uncanni

How ironic of you to be suggesting my sarcasm alert is more properly an irony alert, and then questioning the precision of my comment. Let me be entirely straightforward therefore to avoid any misunderstanding.

The climate is relatively unaffected by what people think about it. Be optimistic or pessimistic about it as you wish; the climate nor I could give a fart. It is what folks do that matters. And what most people will do is die trying to migrate, or trying to prevent others migrating.

It is what folks do that matters

I agree. So it’s what Optimism makes people do vs what Pessimism makes people do.

I think it’s ironic that even though this is man made climate change, people think there is nothing man can do to stop it. That may or may not be true but you can rest assured it’s mans job to try and fix mans own mistakes whether it is possible or not and the only way to have a fighting chance is to be optimistic.

I feel there is a difference here between unrealistic optimism and optimism coupled with realism. — Mark Dennis

Did you read the linked papers? The positive scenarios were perfectly realistic. It just seems that people who are optimistic seem to be less strongly driven to act. The more you imagine the rosy future, the more real it becomes. The more real it becomes the less of a concern it is to skip doing stuff to bring it about.

This is especially true with futurism where, for most, the stuff which needs doing is in someone else's hands.

I wasn’t describing this as things as a list of successes, but only as a list of things which previous generations would have thought impossible. Which they would have. — Mark Dennis

Fair enough, but to use them to support a "well find a way" kind of optimism, you'd have to show solutions we'd never thought possible. Just things we'd never thought possible isn't what we're looking for.

The survival of our morals, culture and diversity is up for debate though. — Mark Dennis

I don't think any of those three things has survived intact from 50 years ago, so definitely not going to survive another 50,climate change or not.

The climate is relatively unaffected by what people think about it. ... It is what folks do that matters. — unenlightened

I assumed that everyone participating in the discussion understood this, but you chose to chastise the discussion as if it should not have taken place. That seems inappropriate to me.

That seems inappropriate to me. — uncanni

It seems appropriate to me to chastise the discussion of irrelevancies, especially if everyone is assumed to understand the irrelevance already. But there you go, it's a matter of taste.

I think the only rational thing to do is adopt an optimistic attitude. Here's my calculation:

If we're pessimistic about it, then we won't do anything, and if we don't do anything the chance of averting climate change or dealing with it successfully =0%.

If we're optimistic about it, then we'll do something, and if we do something the chance of success is >0%.

especially if everyone is assumed to understand the irrelevance already — unenlightened

Nobody assumed the irrelevance but you.

research has shown that positive thinking, in the form of fantasies about an idealized future, predicts low effort and poor performance.

Charity solicitations often encourage people to imagine a positive future of crisis resolution. The present studies shed light on how such positive fantasies are likely to affect giving,
depending on the amount of resources required. Idealized pos- itive fantasies about future crisis resolution lead people to per- ceive demanding requests (i.e., requests for relatively much money, effort, or time) as too demanding. Accordingly, such fantasies dampen helping when many resources are required to resolve a crisis.

Positive thinking in the form of fantasies specifically. However much can be said here about these papers. I agree with the conclusions already, however they aren’t really the full components of the Optimism argument. Optimism that we as an individual can act and contribute to effect change is not the same as positive thinking about a idealised fantasy about the future.

Maybe this is where we see the need for both optimism and Pessimism but should be clear on what we are being pessimistic about and what we are being optimistic about. We should absolutely be pessimistic about the future because realistically it is absolutely terrifying when you use futurism to determine potential outcomes based on how things appear to be going. However, unless you are bound, gagged and chained up permanently you can always be optimistic that you as an individual have the power to act and effect a magnitude of positive change that is at least better than 0%.

When we start to think about modality and utility in ethics in regards to studies in futurism; we should be broaching questions of what is and isn’t possible for ethics to achieve and even what is and isn’t possible for ethics to fail.

With so many probabilistic factors at play, any single positing of one possible outcome be it negative or positive is going to ultimately be misleading. Therefore any complete philosophy of futurism, must come with a multitude of predictions of potential outcomes and all of these predictions must come with their own pros and cons. No future is going to be either all positive or all negative, at least from a biocentrist perspective. At the point when no life is possible in the universe due to big freeze or crunch etc (whichever is the correct end theory) There will be no one around to say it is either positive or negative. While the universe holds life however; there is always the chance someone will be able to find both the good and the bad in every realistic potential outcome. Any form of life that claims it is only one or the other is probably wrong though.

Example number 1: We have a great economy, we are the strongest we’ve ever been, we’ve made America great again.

Vs

Example number 2: Sure not everything is great, but you can make it better.

Paraphrasing Trumps ramblings, and Obama’s “Make it better speech”.

I’m going with optimism on this one. We are in an interglacial period and we need the Holocene period to last, or else slip into another ice age. But the pessimism at least serves to remind us to clean up after ourselves and conserve our environments.

Are you familiar with Chaos theory in predicting weather patterns?

We cannot change.

The social protest is but a mere contradiction - we indulge and waste what we have and at the same time demand change to our own behaviour. Because we are not capable of effecting change, nor do we desire it.

All humans ever truly do is change, every day. That’s all life does; Obstacle, adapt, fail, adapt, succeed, obstacle, adapt etc. This is the basis for evolution. If you are trying to suggest we can’t evolve, that’s not to as evolution is happening with every single birth.

Now, social evolution is even more chaotic than physiological evolution because it involves so many abstract factors.

If you can honestly look back at how drastically our society has changed in just the last few decades let alone the last few centuries and still say that “we can’t change” them I’m sorry but it’s just wrong.

I think, if we stop categorically stating that “we can’t change” and instead ask ourselves “how do we change?” at least our mind is open to realistic possibilities and opportunities as opposed to disbelieving and missing them all. Once we have an answer to that question, we need to act on it and enter a conflict with ourselves for change. Sometimes you will fail, but you can always adapt both your tactics and strategy until you succeed.

People that say they can’t change are only correct until they stop believing that, at the point they stop believing that it becomes much more open for debate at the very least.

Chin up my friend. Outcomes might look grim but unless we are bound, chained and gagged we can always be optimistic in our ability to act in some way. Even speaking is an action, as is writing.

Realism says that the situation should be assessed as dispassionately as possible in order to weigh up the options. It also says that we should face the very real possibility that nothing will be done due to human denial and complacency.

“Realism says that the situation should be assessed as dispassionately as possible in order to weigh up the options. It also says that we should face the very real possibility that nothing will be done due to human denial and complacency.”

Agreed. So if realism dictates after a dispassionate assessment; Optimism in the face of adversity. And, if we are also asking what the options are. Aren’t we already engaging in realism if we ask and discuss which is the better of the two options? So long as we are willing to periodically repeat our dispassionate assessments?

Optimism in the face of adversity. And, if we are also asking what the options are. Aren’t we already engaging in realism if we ask and discuss which is the better of the two options? So long as we are willing to periodically repeat our dispassionate assessments? — Mark Dennis

Yes, but optimism that we can do what? Keep on growing the population? Keep on with industrial agriculture? Keep on driving cars and taking international (or even national) flights? Inordinate optimism or pessimism would seem to be a problem. Realism would dictate that we face the situation dispassionately and assess as honestly as possible what we are justified in being optimistic about ,and what we are justified in being pessimistic about.

So there are not just "two options", but countless options, when it comes to optimism or pessimism. The only two options are as to whether we face the situation honestly or remain in denial.

optimism I believe is overall a healthier frame of mind and probably does equip us to make better choices. — Pantagruel

:clap: :up:

Can anyone think of good terms for the “rest assured, success is guaranteed” kind of optimism and the “give up, success is impossible” kind of pessimism, in contrast to the more pragmatic “try your best because success is possible” optimism and “try your best because success is not guaranteed” pessimism?

But which of the two is more pragmatic? — Mark Dennis

Neither pessimism nor optimism plays a role in pragmatism. Your personal opinion on the future of a physical phenomenon is completely negligible. It is null and void. It is immaterial, it is totally irrelevant.

optimism I believe is overall a healthier frame of mind and probably does equip us to make better choices. — Pantagruel

What if optimism tells us, "hey, God will save us all, don't worry, we are made in his image, just forget it."

Good luck then to you.

Optimism alone or pessimism alone are ridiculous measures when it comes to fighting a physical phenomenon that threatens mankind.

Agreed. So if realism dictates after a dispassionate assessment; Optimism in the face of adversity. — Mark Dennis

Aside from the quote not making any grammatical / semantic sense, it is nonsense to think that optimism is a help or a hindrance in the face of adversity, and it is a nonsense to think that pessimism is a help or a hindrance in the face of adversity. They both, optimims and pessimims, play no role in dispassionate assessments. Remember, optimism and pessimism are both reflections of passions; dispassionate excludes the role of passion; therefore it excludes optimism and pessimism.

Because we are not capable of effecting change, nor do we desire it.

I think, if we stop categorically stating that “we can’t change” and instead ask ourselves “how do we change?” at least our mind is open to realistic possibilities and opportunities as opposed to disbelieving and missing them all. Once we have an answer to that question, we need to act on it and enter a conflict with ourselves for change. Sometimes you will fail, but you can always adapt both your tactics and strategy until you succeed.

People that say they can’t change are only correct until they stop believing that, at the point they stop believing that it becomes much more open for debate at the very least.

Chin up my friend. Outcomes might look grim but unless we are bound, chained and gagged we can always be optimistic in our ability to act in some way. Even speaking is an action, as is writing. — Mark Dennis

You can change people's behaviour to recycle paper and plastic bottles, and to even eat less, or to breathe and exhale carbon dioxide only 17 times every minute.

But you can't change them to not having children, to not nurturing their children, to not bringing their children to maturity.

I say that when somebody says "we are not capable of effecting change" he may only mean change that brings on sufficiently satisfactory results toward our aim.

If we keep on having children, then no change you make will make a materially satisfactory change.

optimism I believe is overall a healthier frame of mind and probably does equip us to make better choices. — Pantagruel

Pessimism just means preparation in short. Optimism prohibits, if not severely reduces being prepared. How does "optimism" prepare or equipped you for the realism of dire situations? It is a false hope.

If optimism is quenched; it is luck. If pessimism fails, it is no harm done. Nothing about pessimism restricts foresight, examination, or effective judgment. It prepares you for all possible obstacles; it is not optimism that makes you overcome challenges. It is preparation, strategy, unclouded judgment, cost/benefit analysis, fitness, willpower, among other things.

In my experience, Optimists are terrible at cost/benefit analysis and seem largely (emotion>luck>blind>rationality) driven. They are a lot like the totalitarian color-blinds in at other sub.

HOW MANY MARBLES are you going to lose in the "luck game"? Do you think professional gamblers are a table full of optimists, or a table full of pessimistic strategists? There is a reason no one smiles at the tables.

Do you think Greta Thunberg, is an OPTIMIST? The only optimists are climate change deniers. Pessimism at it's best, is JOKER - with many tricks up the sleeve. Optimism at IT'S best is DENIAL.

Also, please stop confusing pessimism with chronic/untreated mental disorders (e.g. depression).

Aside from the quote not making any grammatical / semantic sense, it is nonsense to think that optimism is a help or a hindrance in the face of adversity, and it is a nonsense to think that pessimism is a help or a hindrance in the face of adversity. They both, optimims and pessimims, play no role in dispassionate assessments. Remember, optimism and pessimism are both reflections of passions; dispassionate excludes the role of passion; therefore it excludes optimism and pessimism.

If it didn’t make sense then how did you understand what I meant? If you’re having a problem with the language used that’s fine but if you understand my meaning then it clearly made sense. Also, if you’re best objection is grammatical in nature then it kind of just highlights that you don’t have a strong counter argument. Particularly as it pays no mind to theories describing utility in different emotional states.

What if optimism tells us, "hey, God will save us all, don't worry, we are made in his image, just forget it."

Then I’d say this is unjustified optimism about the future and apathy to ones own ability to act in the present for the lazy purposes of appealing to a higher authority to excuse oneself of responsibility.

Neither pessimism nor optimism plays a role in pragmatism. Your personal opinion on the future of a physical phenomenon is completely negligible. It is null and void. It is immaterial, it is totally irrelevant.

In the event happening it is completely null and void. In surviving said event however..

Optimism alone or pessimism alone are ridiculous measures when it comes to fighting a physical phenomenon that threatens mankind.

By yours and others answers this is becoming apparent. Any measure employed alone is ridiculous. Luckily I never suggested that Optimism or Pessimism alone would be all that was needed. That’s no better than the theory of attraction nonsense peddled by self help con artists.

Outlook is still going to be one of the many many contributing factors but that doesn’t subtract from the importance of discussing that factor.

Overall you are correct though and I’ve rethought my position.

In conclusion I feel with everyone involved this has been a very fruitful conversation.

My stance has shifted somewhat; We should absolutely feel pessimistic about the future, but should be optimistic in our ability to act now in the present to at least mitigate the damage climate change will invariably cause even if we figure out how to start reversing it within the next decade or two.

I think maybe the next thing to move on to once you and others have the chance to reply to my conclusion and offer your criticisms. Would be to open up a new discussion along the lines of asking what or who should we be prioritising in our efforts to increase the survival chances of some of the human race?

I think we can probably most of us agree that it shouldn’t just be the rich elite?

Anyway, keep an eye out for a new discussion.

Can anyone think of good terms for the “rest assured, success is guaranteed” kind of optimism and the “give up, success is impossible” kind of pessimism, in contrast to the more pragmatic “try your best because success is possible” optimism and “try your best because success is not guaranteed” pessimism?

Unjustified optimism/pessimism vs justified seems to me the best option for now, or just making it clear that we are optimistic about the fact that we can act now to lessen a pessimistic future outlook.

If it didn’t make sense then how did you understand what I meant? — Mark Dennis

I did not claim I understood what you meant. I said what makes sense and what does not make sense. I even gave all the qualifiers, and stated my opinion, independently of your nonsensical quote. Read my response, and you will see.

Then I’d say this is unjustified optimism — Mark Dennis

You made no distinction between unjustified optimism and general optimism. You are moving the goal posts now.OPTIMISM encompasses all optimism. That's what you have been talking about for two days.

If you want to single out "unjustified optimism" and drop all other optimism in this thread, say so now.

Optimism alone or pessimism alone are ridiculous measures when it comes to fighting a physical phenomenon that threatens mankind.

By yours and others answers this is becoming apparent. Any measure employed alone is ridiculous. — Mark Dennis

No, no, no. You are throwing out the baby with the bath water. You said, "any" and meaning all, "measuers are ridiculous." You show impoverished thought by equating "optimism or pessimism" to all.

Optimism and pessimism are not all.

You ignorantly dismiss all scientific, techological and social influences. Because they are also part of all, but you include them in "pessimism and optimism" as to you pessimism and optimism are all.