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. — Mark Dennis

What about "doing everything in our power, to avoid catastrophy and at the same time not make an impossible pre-judgement whether our efforts will be fruitful and work, or not, by being pessimistic or optimistic."

Okay unlike you I do actually read the comments, yours, others and people who aren’t even replying to me. If you had read the other comments you would know that I have actually made the distinction to others raising similar issues as yourself. I you read the reply I made to you properly you would also read that I agree with the overall premise that pessimism or optimism alone and even outlook alone is insufficient. So overall this has been a successful discussion really. Was I somewhat wrong in my opening statements and perspective? A little bit. Yet I am not struck down as if by lightning? I don’t care if I’m wrong, what I care about is knowing I’m willing to admit it and alter my perspective. It’s called intellectual honesty.

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?

I just checked with others and they say that although compact, it’s understandable and correct.

What about "doing everything in our power, to avoid catastrophy and at the same time not make an impossible pre-judgement whether our efforts will be fruitful and work, or not, by being pessimistic or optimistic."

I never made an impossible prejudgment, I asked a question of the community? How is it possible to make an impossible prejudgment? That makes no sense.

You really need to calm down and learn what discussion is all about instead of making it a competition.

Where am I dismissing anything you arrogant fool?

other comments you would know that I have actually made the distinction to others raising similar issues as yourself. — Mark Dennis

Other comments in this thread or elsewhere?

I never read all your other comments in this thread but the general ones, the ones directed at me, and some (but not all) of the comments directed at others.

I plead quilty to that charge.

Is it a site rule, or just your unnamed requirement by you which you spring on me now?

I you read the reply I made to you properly you would also read that I agree with the overall premise that pessimism or optimism alone and even outlook alone is insufficient. — Mark Dennis

I read that, in a paraphrase form, and I think not only are they insufficient, but superfluous and immaterial. That also includes insufficient, but insufficient can mean also that it is necessary. I say optimism and pessimism are neither sufficient, nor necessary in this instance.

I never made an impossible prejudgment, I asked a question of the community? — Mark Dennis

You're pushing your own blunder's onus on the community? Pfuy.

Where am I dismissing anything you arrogant fool? — Mark Dennis

Here, you haughty "better than thou":

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

“You're pushing your own blunder's onus on the community? Pfuy.” Oh yes because you are 100% perfect and right in everything that you say or do in this community. I’m taking the onus for my mistakes if you’d learn how to read. You however jumped into the conversation late with a watered down and copier response that you mirrored from someone else far more up to the task of raising it than you.

Even Kant and many many other philosophers admitted to mistakes later in life from Socrates to the modern day.

If you go around looking for things to be 100% right before you listen to them then you are going to be eternally disappointed and I feel very sorry for you because you’re going to miss so many things. I hope you grow up soon and figure out what debate and discussion is all about but it would help if you learned some humility in the long run.

In reality, all philosophers are on the same team in the pursuit of knowledge even if they identify in different ways. We are all here for the same reasons. If you’re angry at me for knowing that I can change and improve my understanding by accepting the wisdom of others (including yourself by the way) then that’s your prerogative.

I never read all your other comments in this thread but the general ones, the ones directed at me, and some (but not all) of the comments directed at others.

then don’t claim I never made a distinction if you can’t even figure out which comments where the distinction is evident. Can’t exactly accuse anyone of lying about what they wrote when you didn’t read It.

I read that, in a paraphrase form, and I think not only are they insufficient, but superfluous and immaterial. That also includes insufficient, but insufficient can mean also that it is necessary. I say optimism and pessimism are neither sufficient, nor necessary in this instance.

Yet you think you can make fun of my grammar and semantics? Wow. Go away and rethink how you’re approaching education because it’s pretty much a patch job.

:fire:

↪180 Proof About our chances of making safe our biosphere for us and as much within it as we can within the next 50 years. Should we as individuals be optimistic? — Mark Dennis

Hell no. Optimism is why we're in this "global warming" mess to begin with: not just cynical sociopathic elites but the masses - all have neglected the environmental costs of extractive, industrial, technocapitalism for centuries; now too many still neglect the autistic "climate science" Cassandras and carping green-fundies because they're optimistic that their g/G-of-choice is "on their side" or optimistic that the climate science must be wrong (i e. Who needs a precautionary principle?) or optimistic because the propaganda pushed by pro-corporate hegemons and their state-ish mass media reassures them 24/7/365 that "global warming is only a radical leftist, anti-capitalist, anti-American/Western, anti-globalism HOAX" even as the frequency of catastrophic sea-level rise from glacier-loss, 100 year storms, 500 year floods, wildfires, mudslides, extended droughts, etc grows asymptotically bringing many urban metrozones in many rich developed nations to the brink of uninsurability (& public infrastructure insolvency) etc.

Opportunity in disaster. ("Shock Doctrine" rehearsals.)

Living in interesting times. ( 寧爲太平犬，莫做亂離人 )

Gigacide is coming. (Jon Stark knew that much!)

Cold warriors & banksters have gamed this out for decades, even better now with AlphaGo-enabled big data-populated simulations. Preppers' grands & great-grands are just as fucked as their obliviously smug & climate-change denier neighbors' descendents will be UNLESS they have deep roots or resourceful stakes in places where currently NOBODY wants to live or industrially exploit. Crowded planet and plastic oceans are on their way to much needed malthusian respite within a century, give or take a few decades, as the Anthropocene die-off irreversibly crashes the human population back to below a billion.

:death:

As a species we're wired to deny that we're ever fucked - especially by our own wishful negligence. Except for fringe types, homo insapiens refuses to be pessimistic enough to grapple en mass with the hazards trending (above) and so they'll go on 'amusing themselves to death' until they're begging to die rather than watch each other's babies starve or slowly waste away from thirst in briny drowned cityscapes. The optimistic cunts who wage wars feeding masses of other optimistic cunts down abattoirs of convenience, profit or ruin always do so again because THIS TIME IT WILL BE DIFFERENT; the latest and greatest war to come: surviving the "climate change" (near?)extinction event. AND THIS TIME, FOR US, IT WILL BE DIFFERENT ... for fuck's sake.

:flower:

This was what I was saying last year, and now a few more people are barely catching on. These days I'm more bothered that the people shouting this stuff about the Earth's apocalypse and the need to act, are so unwilling to bear the cost of stuffing a football field's worth of contained nuclear waste into the ground.

We’re naturally optimistic. We’re literally wired to believe in what suits us. It does seem that although this is an irrefutable neurological fact we do seem to operate on a different level when it comes to group reactions rather than our innate optimistic ‘wiring’.

How we ‘should’ react is neither here nor there. We don’t know how to react, but maybe we’re more inclined to jump on the pessimistic bandwagon due to our current social environment?

The true horror of human existence is quietly clawing its way out of the abyss. We’re effectively deconstructing ‘morality’ which is quite interesting given that most of the people doing so think they’re the vanguard of ‘morality’. Comedy precedes the Tragedy? I just hope we learn to embrace heaven and hell without delusional biases.

How we ‘should’ react is neither here nor there. We don’t know how to react, but maybe we’re more inclined to jump on the pessimistic bandwagon due to our current social environment? — I like sushi

Pessimism is an aspect of apocalyticism. Al Gore was John. His video was Revelations.

But now that google has a quantum computer, we should be seeing some modeling breakthroughs.

The true horror of human existence is quietly clawing its way out of the abyss. We’re effectively deconstructing ‘morality’ which is quite interesting given that most of the people doing so think they’re the vanguard of ‘morality’. — I like sushi

Could you explain this a little more?

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. — Swan

Optimism is not gambling, it is a fundamental attitude that underlies a perspective in which one is positively motivated. Likewise, pessimism is not caution or care, it is a fundamentally negative attitude, an orientation.

I would never presume to argue with someone who feels pessimism is more productive than optimism. I think the juxtaposition of the two terms speaks for itself. I know if I had to choose between being stuck in a situation with a pessimist or an optimist which I would prefer.

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

If the difference between success and failure is a healthy attitude then perhaps that is enough. We are speaking in generalities, after all.

The true horror of human existence is quietly clawing its way out of the abyss. We’re effectively deconstructing ‘morality’ which is quite interesting given that most of the people doing so think they’re the vanguard of ‘morality’.
— I like sushi

Could you explain this a little more? — frank

I can try ...

I mean that we’ve been stuck in a world (humanity), for a long time, where ethical ideas and law have taken away human choice and responsive social activity. We’re bare under the glaring sun of authority, we’ve become instant upon ideals of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ so as to ignore our inner horror.

We’re neither angels nor demons, yet we’ve simplified the world into this dull polarity. We’re waking up. Some are clinging onto ideas of ‘utopia’ and ‘happiness’, but I guess they’re just speeding the inevitable realisation along.

Quantum computers? They don’t do anything yet. It will probably be a decade or two before someone actually makes any practical use of them ... by then you’ll probably have attempts to hand of human choice to emotionless unfeeling algorithms. People tend to go to great strides to avoid responsibility.

I guess you could call my position akin to Dionysian inclinations. I don’t think many people today have even the slightest appreciation of the power of ‘entertainment’ or how the interact with ‘feelings’. People prefer to be passengers (myself included) because the existential abyss is hard to look at - so we pretend it’s irrelevant whilst staring right into it.

That is a ‘little more’ of an explanation. I understand it’s wanting, but hey, I’m watching TV :D

I mean that we’ve been stuck in a world (humanity), for a long time, where ethical ideas and law have taken away human choice and responsive social activity. We’re bare under the glaring sun of authority, we’ve become instant upon ideals of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ so as to ignore our inner horror. — I like sushi

As I frequently find to be the case, our perspectives are closely aligned. In a way, morality is the true nihilism because to be wholly dependent on laws and condemnations is to become the shell of a person: psychically hollowed out.

It's when you step into the truly godless world that your own being comes into view. You realize then that you actually do love other people as you love yourself. Looking back to that hollowed out self, there's nothing to love. It's just a clunking computer trying and failing to follow an algorithm without any feeling other than a drone of fearful guilt that occasionally crescendos into a flash of rage, and then back to the drone. There is no love of self. There is no recognition of the fragility of life. Eyes are fixed on eternal phantom rules. These rules are the defense against the void, and they're made of nothing but sounds and marks.

Quantum computers? They don’t do anything yet. — I like sushi

But google has one. Why couldn't they start making them to replace super-computers?

That is a ‘little more’ of an explanation. I understand it’s wanting, but hey, I’m watching TV — I like sushi

I'm drinking morning coffee. Trying to wake up.

To relate this to the OP: if you're hollow, you'll just look for rules to follow. If you face the abyss, you'll act out of love.

you can't recycle pizza boxes?? Is that the state/country you're in or in general?

Well, technically, you can recycle pizza boxes where I am from. They just do not actually get recycled, because they are unable to reuse/process if you throw them in the bin. Very few items are actually being recycled properly.

I would never presume to argue with someone who feels pessimism is more productive than optimism. I think the juxtaposition of the two terms speaks for itself. I know if I had to choose between being stuck in a situation with a pessimist or an optimist which I would prefer. — Pantagruel

Alright, Sir Righteous. Seems you know exactly what you're talking about. /s

I think a lot of the disagreement here is getting mired in different senses of the words "optimism" and "pessimism", which is why I was looking for some extended terminology earlier.

I think there not two possibilities here but four, getting falsely lumped together as two:

"Broad Optimism" in the sense that a solution is possible, the negation of narrow pessimism.
"Narrow Optimism" in the sense that a solution is guaranteed, a subset of broad optimism.
"Broad Pessimism" in the sense that a solution is not guaranteed, the negation of narrow optimism.
"Narrow Pessimism in the sense that a solution is impossible, a subset of broad pessimism.

These are just the four basic logical modalities (possibility, necessity, contingency, and impossibility) applied to the solvability of the problem.

It seems to me that some people are arguing against narrow pessimism and so in favor of broad optimism (but not necessarily in favor of narrow optimism), while other people are arguing against narrow optimism and so in favor of broad pessimism (but not necessarily in favor of narrow pessimism). Those two arguments are compatible with each other, and if both are right (as I agree) then [the right attitude is to assume that] a solution is what I like to call merely possible: possible but contingent.

Because either narrow optimism or narrow pessimism is an excuse not to act, and only if we act might a solution be possible, though even if we act it is still not guaranteed.

I have to say Pfhorrest, this is an impressive and formidable piece of writing!

It makes a lot of sense to me. I’m gonna have to cite you in my work! Some really strong arguments here.

Thanks! That’s actually the underlying principle of my entire philosophical system.

I don't see it as being a problem of "different senses"; optimism is optimism and pessimism is pessimism.

What you call "broad" optimism and pessimism seem to refer more to overall dispositions which are not relative to any actual situations. It is only if you believe that an overall optimistic disposition will be a greater motivator to effective action than an overall pessimistic disposition will be. I don't believe that is a given at all. The willingness of people to act regardless of their assessments of the likelihood that their actions will achieve the desired result would vary with individual psychology, I would say.

What you refer to as "narrow" optimism and pessimism I would say best relates to assessments of the likelihood of achieving some desired result in particular situations (although that does not seem to be what you mean by the terms).

So, imagine that on a comprehensive assessment we come to believe we are justified in thinking that a proposed course of action will not be effective in attaining some desired result. We will rightly be pessimistic as to the chances of success of that course of action. There may be other, better, courses of action.

If, however we cannot imagine any other course of action, and there is a dire need to achieve the desired result would, or should, our pessimistic (say it's realistic for the sake of argument) assessment of the likelihood of failure necessarily stop us from trying the course of action? If we don't try we will have zero chance of achieving our ends, if we act at least there may be some chance of success or even of just improving our situation without realizing the full goal we might have in mind.

Perhaps one might want to say that blind (unjustified) optimism would justifiably be thought to be better than crippling pessimism, since at least the former might give us some chance of success. However, can we ever be sure that not acting at all can never lead, despite ourselves, to a better outcome than forging ahead in a state of blind optimism?

So, it seems futile to try to assess which is better between optimism and pessimism as such; because the question is inevitably complexly context-dependent.

Yes my stance is entirely about what to assume when you don’t actually know for sure whether anything will work. However I hold that since we never know any empirical truths with absolute certainty, that is always at least somewhat the case, with particular evidence about particular actions in particular circumstances just distorting the distribution of odds this way or that. We can be more or less confident that a particular action will or will not lead to a particular successful outcome, but we can never be completely certain that success is either completely guaranteed or completely impossible, so it always remains prudent to remember that success is possible but not guaranteed.

However, can we ever be sure that not acting at all can never lead, despite ourselves, to a better outcome than forging ahead in a state of blind optimism?

So, it seems futile to try to assess which is better between optimism and pessimism as such; because the question is inevitably complexly context-dependent.

I think waiting patiently is an excellent thing to bring up as an example of when not acting may lead to a better outcome. Although I think the potential use of Pfhorrests terms still comes in handy to describe something here. Broad pessimism can involve waiting to act, narrow pessimism is just going to be waiting.

Also, while the question is context dependant; these terms provide a useful tool to take with us into future context analyses.

One thing needs to be said of thinking time though. One could make an argument that most situations that demand action would be best carried out with a well thought out plan, strategy, mindset etc. However, we won’t always be given the time that might be required to do this in every context. In these situations it may be best to go in with the right default position if that makes sense? So upon entering any situation that requires action or becoming aware of a situation that will require action, we should be asking ourselves how much time do we have to think about how we want to act? If we don’t know how long, how long do we give ourselves to think in any situation?

I agree with what you say here. I would only add that likelihoods of success, although as you say they are never absolutely certain, can be more or less accurately assessed in various situations, and that it is those assessments which should determine our degrees of optimism or pessimism regarding any course of action.

For example, in relation to the risk of global warming, it seems to me to be highly unlikely that we will be able to continue driving private cars (whether electric or fossil fuel-powered), taking international, or even national flights, trading globally to a significant extent, and continuing to grow the economy and the human and livestock populations, without precipitating conditions which will devastate animal and human populations and the natural environment generally, in the most unpleasant ways in the next few decades.

So, if we just forge ahead with business as usual on account of optimistically believing that we can do so, for example, simply by substituting electric vehicles for fossil fuel driven vehicles, and switching to renewable for power generation, then I would count that as foolish optimism because it does not take account of the complexities involved.

So upon entering any situation that requires action or becoming aware of a situation that will require action, is to ask ourselves how much time do we have to think about how we want to act? If we don’t know how long, how long do we give ourselves to think in any situation? — Mark Dennis

I think that's a good point you bring up. We may not have enough time to think exhaustively about options before making a decision to act, and must follow our "gut" sometimes and hope for the best. This "hoping for the best" could be thought to be optimism, but if the situation is dire we may still act, despite our pessimism, because we see that no action would likely be worse or even be fatal, and that any action might turn out to be better. Also feeling paralyzed is very bad for morale, so the aim of boosting morale alone may be a good motivation for acting even in situations of extreme uncertainty.

So, if we just forge ahead with business as usual on account of optimistically believing that we can do so, for example,simply by substituting electric vehicles for fossil fuel driven vehicles, and switching to renewable for power generation, then I would count that as foolish optimism because it does not take account of the complexities involved.

I agree. Materialism got us here in the first place. I’d be happy living in a society with just the running water and small amounts of renewable energy for heating in the winter. I could get much more reading done and could tend my own little polyculture fruit forest... I’m optimistic about my ability to do this but pessimistic of others to give up the “comfort and ease”. Then you have something else strangling the planet right now besides climate change. Red Tape! Damn bureaucrats.

I’d need to come back on here one last time to get some of your mailing addresses though ^_^ can’t miss out on these conversations too much.

I’m optimistic about my ability to do this but pessimistic of others to give up the “comfort and ease”. — Mark Dennis

Me too!

Then you have something else strangling the planet right now besides climate change. Red Tape! Damn bureaucrats. — Mark Dennis

And the fucking plutocrats too!

I’d need to come back on here one last time to get some of your mailing addresses though ^_^ can’t miss out on these conversations too much. — Mark Dennis

Philosophical conversations by snail mail, eh? Hasn't that been done before? :joke: