A community of futurology enthusiasts
https://www.futuretimeline.net/forum/
https://www.futuretimeline.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2380
"Bit of an oxymoron when you mention "rational pessimism," pessimism by nature requires you to be negative and to assume that things will get worse with time; even when there is no basis for it."MythOfProgress wrote: ↑Mon Mar 28, 2022 6:59 pm Bit of an oxymoron when you mention "rational optimism", optimism by nature requires you to be positive and to assume that things will get better with time; even when there is no basis for it.
the fact that pandemics and wars are a part of our history doesn't really help to ease anxieties here, there's always the fact that we possess relatively new technologies, nukes are the first that come to mind, although people genuinely believe the MAD principle will mean a nuclear exchange will never occur because to engage in a war like that would mean "all sides lose", its done so under the assumption that the perpetrators are thinking rationally(looking at Russia/Putin mostly) and that if their back met a wall they wouldn't commit to it just to screw over everyone else. If you haven't read the latest IPCC report, i'd say you'd change your thoughts on climate change not being as serious and realize it is already happening with many events that have been predicted occurring faster than expected. don't count on those famines not happening to you, most people(not referring to you specifically) tend to normalize these situations as mostly occurring in developing/third world countries, but never really take a deeper look at what it means to have food in a society like ours, where we pretty much have everything on-demand and ready to go.TrueAnimationFan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 28, 2022 11:46 pm I honestly think you're panicking a little too much here. Pandemics and times of increased war are two frequently recurring tropes in human history that have been going on for thousands of years, so it was probably only a matter of time before there would be an instance of overlap. Yes, there's now the new threat of global warming, but it's not like half the land of the world will be underwater in 20 years and half the forests of the world will be deserts. Also, even if there wasn't the threat of climate change, there would still be famines happening every now and then - deadly weather never fully goes away, after all.
Am I saying that you need to believe that we will have warp drive and flying cars in 50 years? No, of course not - because such a time frame for stuff like that is unrealistically short. Wars will surely continue for decades or even centuries to come. But I don't think it's healthy either to only focus on the evil and destruction happening on this planet, as extreme pessimism like that has been known to cause some people to spiral into depression, and I wouldn't wish that on even the meanest people I've met in my life, let alone you.
It's not an oxymoron. An analysis of the long-term and even medium-term trends to the human condition shows that thing have tended to consistently improve over time. As just one example, consider how the share of humanity that lives in extreme poverty has declined:MythOfProgress wrote: ↑Mon Mar 28, 2022 6:59 pm Bit of an oxymoron when you mention "rational optimism", optimism by nature requires you to be positive and to assume that things will get better with time; even when there is no basis for it. Rationality is looking at the big picture, putting aside your feelings and taking a look at the facts. Considering the past few years have shown me that this is a very deluded way of thinking, anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers are a prominent example of this, often refusing to wear a mask or take the vaccine(s) in their attempts to find and maintain normality even in spite of what's going on and the death toll that continuously increases- day after day.
That's false. How does the decline in global extreme poverty square with your statement?I think we should disabuse people of the notion that things are fine, or worse that they are getting better because there is no evidence for this to be found(in the general picture, can't speak for certain individuals).
Now you've moved on to a different idea: Regardless of what the actual trends are, we should make everyone believe that all the trends are negative because people are naturally complacent, and without a sense of impending doom, they will not agree to make sacrifices to fix problems. I agree to a point with this assessment of human nature, but also believe that the actions you support to overcome it are dishonest.Furthermore you set people up for failure and leave them unprepared for crises(such as climate change, rising food prices, famines, wars, diseases, extreme weather events and natural disasters. While we can take on a few issues at a time, these do not exist in a vacuum and heavily correlate with each other, often reinforcing another and making things worse- which makes taking on these issues a whole lot more difficult) by letting them believe that everything will be fine.
By reinforcing this notion that "everything is ok" you run the risk of other people becoming complacent to certain issues because after all, with enough time, problems will be solved regardless of their interference.
It is not a fact that everything is getting worse. Look at my data on the decline of extreme global poverty. For all the talk about how the "middle class is dying" in rich countries over the last generation, a much larger number of humans living in poor countries have vastly increased their own wealth and opportunities over the same period, and in many cases, they escaped the sort of day-to-day miseries that 99% of people in rich countries still never experience.I don't know if humanity truly is doomed, but it is a fact that everything is getting worse. So to that end, i hope you can convince me that everything is not getting worse, because i want to believe the same thing and believe that a brighter future exists.
At the risk of getting off-topic, I agree with your points here. I shake my head at people who fuss over how expensive and stressful it is to live in their city, but never consider moving somewhere cheaper and less hectic. It's lazy, and I also suspect some of them derive a perverse satisfaction from complaining. It's only a problem for the people who are genuinely trapped in one place due to extreme poverty or maybe other factors.Most feelings of "everything is getting worse" come from the economic aspect of things (just like most marriages that end in divorce are because of lack of money). If one is able to keep his earnings on pair with inflation most things are actually getting better day by day, specially if you aren't in a big city and are able to save. A well paid home office working from a small city with a low cost of living is probably the best place one could be nowadays as an average joe/jane for enjoying a peaceful and clean neighborhood plus all the improvements of society in general like modern tech and amenities.
I'd say staying away from big cities is one of the biggest mood improver one could do at the moment. Learning economics and understanding why "everything is getting expensive" and doing something to personally mitigate it probably a close second. It feels good when you understand society (or at least feel like you understand) and are able to control one's own future, at least money-wise.
I haven't yet read it but judging by the wiki page it seems to be a very interesting book and publishing style (pamphlet-style ebook), although I am not convinced he points to the right direction and causes of what we perceive as "stagnation" while laying his claims in the book. I will read it tonight to see what to clearly think out of it. One of my biggest criticism would be to use GDP to conclude anything meaningful long term due to several flaws in its current definition, although the author clearly highlights some of the concerns I have about this in the wiki as well so that seems somehow covered. Additional interesting debate/criticism rabbit-hole to follow after the book (on reddit, also see the comments).funkervogt wrote: ↑Tue Mar 29, 2022 9:24 pmAt the risk of getting off-topic, I agree with your points here. I shake my head at people who fuss over how expensive and stressful it is to live in their city, but never consider moving somewhere cheaper and less hectic. It's lazy, and I also suspect some of them derive a perverse satisfaction from complaining. It's only a problem for the people who are genuinely trapped in one place due to extreme poverty or maybe other factors.Most feelings of "everything is getting worse" come from the economic aspect of things (just like most marriages that end in divorce are because of lack of money). If one is able to keep his earnings on pair with inflation most things are actually getting better day by day, specially if you aren't in a big city and are able to save. A well paid home office working from a small city with a low cost of living is probably the best place one could be nowadays as an average joe/jane for enjoying a peaceful and clean neighborhood plus all the improvements of society in general like modern tech and amenities.
I'd say staying away from big cities is one of the biggest mood improver one could do at the moment. Learning economics and understanding why "everything is getting expensive" and doing something to personally mitigate it probably a close second. It feels good when you understand society (or at least feel like you understand) and are able to control one's own future, at least money-wise.
Have you read The Great Stagnation? It goes into great depth exploring why some key areas of progress have slowed down since midcentury.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Stagnation
It's also useful to remember whenever you debate pessimists who are confusing a slowdown in progress in some area with a decline in that area.To get one misconception out of the way first: “stagnation” does not mean zero progress. No one is claiming that. There wasn’t zero progress even before the Industrial Revolution (or the civilizations of Europe and Asia would have looked no different in 1700 than they did in the days of nomadic hunter-gatherers, tens of thousands of years ago).
Stagnation just means slower progress. And not even slower than that pre-industrial era, but slower than, roughly, the late 1800s to mid-1900s, when growth rates are said to have peaked.
Nah, this is precisely why i came here, as someone who's lurked here for a while, i used to believe that things were fine and the notion of linear progress especially when it came to technology, unfortunately i suffered a drastic misunderstanding in how some ancient civilizations were complex similarly to ours(not in technology obviously, but the point is they still collapsed. we are different in that we've been able to rely on fossil fuels and other inventions to keep us afloat, but how long are non-renewable energy sources are going to last at this rate?) and a limited perspective, living in a developed country(at least for me) tends to skew your perception of what normal life might be like for people who might not have the luxury of living in one. guess i came here to be the opposing worldview to the general idea that "we're fine", and to initiate some discussion as to why people believe this idea. that being said, im not really sure i'd be able to convince anyone(for the reasons i mentioned previously) but i could try.TrueAnimationFan wrote: ↑Tue Mar 29, 2022 3:05 pm "Considering flying cars are impractical, and warp drives are still a theoretical technology, i don't really think we'll be finding any solutions for a pretty long time lol."
...That's literally what I just said. Believing that the techno-utopia sort of world seen in Star Trek will exist within a few decades is just too generous based off the speed of current advancement. But if you give us hundreds of years or even thousands, the notion of something at least partially similar existing becomes not entirely out of the question due to the fact that scientific knowledge may exist by then that allows us to understand how to make previously impractical tech much easier to design. Could the ancient Greeks have easily built a Ford Model T? Could someone in late 1800s have spotted the Stingray Nebula using only binoculars?
You know dude, if this forum strikes you as far too optimistic and you feel that we're all "living in a different reality" just because we have the slightest faith in humanity's future, then maybe this place isn't for you. I highly doubt that you're going to be able to convince most people here that "We are dying, our civilization is finished. Collapse is near. Only thing you can do is look on as everything inevitably falls apart." I'm sure there are tons of places on the internet where everyone else would be willing to constantly weep with you about all of that stuff...but this almost certainly isn't one of them. And that's not to mention, you literally came to a thread centered on optimism and then complained about not finding the opposite......???
coincidentally there's actually a pretty good video by fellow YouTuber Unlearning Economics(will call him U.E for short) who actually goes into detail regarding this piece of data you mentioned(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo2gwS4VpHc), Jason Hickel(an economic anthropologist) explains it better than I can in this article(https://newint.org/features/2019/07/01/ ... iscontents) , though for brevity purposes his more important take is when he talks about the GDP graph being intrinsically flawed stating that "It’s a compelling narrative, but it suffers from a number of crippling flaws. For one, the good-news story relies on an extremely low poverty line of $1.90 per day. This might not seem a problem at first glance; we’re used to hearing this figure, as it’s been normalized over the past few decades by the World Bank and the United Nations. But, remarkably, there is no empirical basis for the $1.90 line in terms of its ability to satisfy basic human needs. It is arbitrary and meaningless as a measure of global poverty. In fact, we have mountains of evidence showing that people who live just above this line remain crushingly poor in every respect, with terribly high levels of malnutrition, infant mortality, and low life expectancy."It's not an oxymoron. An analysis of the long-term and even medium-term trends to the human condition shows that thing have tended to consistently improve over time. As just one example, consider how the share of humanity that lives in extreme poverty has declined:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/worl ... y-absolute
admittedly i'm pretty bad when it comes to explaining myself, but i suppose what i meant when it came to them is that covid denialists are a pretty good example of how we'd react when it comes to climate change, our general response for climate change as is has been one of downplaying, misinformation by fossil fuel companies and little to no action by most governments. i appreciate the scientists who developed the covid vaccine as much as you, but the truth is we can't exactly ignore the amount of people who refuse to get the vaccine or wear a mask, you can call them a minority(but they are a loud, sizeable one) and yet these same people are government officials, politicians, influential figures and celebrities(joe rogan comes to mind), don't make the mistake of underestimating these folk or the damage they can do- their existence means there's always a chance for the virus to mutate into becoming vaccine-resistant or worse.I also disapprove of anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers, but I don't see how their stupid behavior and the damage it causes compares to the much stronger trends towards improvement of the human condition. Since the start of the pandemic, COVID denialists might have caused hundreds of thousands of needless deaths (mostly their own), but the scientists who developed the COVID vaccine and the agencies that disseminated it prevented tens of millions of deaths. The actions and ideas of the stupid few should not loom larger than those of the smart and responsible many when gauging how the pandemic bodes for human progress.
can't say too much considering i haven't read it yet, but if you want my general opinion on the violence part most of what i'm saying isn't exactly a case of mean-world syndrome i'm suffering from, these are actual events/processes ongoing in civilization, and when a widespread number of people(including us) are experiencing anomie, breakdown of the social ties to other folks and communities, alongside a resurgence in the far-right reactionary element(white supremacists, nationalists, fascists and the like) as a result of life becoming a lot more difficult in the coming years and people wanting something to blame(as January 6th has demonstrated), i'd say he's not looking at the big picture.Also, what do you think about Steven Pinker's writings about the positive trends in the human condition, particularly those about the reduction in violence levels?
how so?but also believe that the actions you support to overcome it are dishonest.
im not fearmongering here, i'm trying to warn people, this article(https://time.com/6138650/violent-crime- ... hat-to-do/) talks a little about how we could take certain steps to alleviate the crime problem, noting the herculean task in getting people to work together and commit to various strategies in spite of our politics. that said, i don't disagree with you in that news outlets, especially conservative types like Fox news or sky news australia have a tendency for fearmongering, their ability to manipulate the truth is almost unprecedented(as their unfortunate success at turning CRT as something to be afraid of and in some cases angry against has shown).Moreover, I challenge whether keeping the population is a state of exaggerated fear has been leading to productive solutions to real problems. For example, Americans are awash in news reports of violent crimes, and to such and extent that they tend to grossly overestimate crime rates. This has been the case for many years, yet no changes have been made to the educational, social services, policing, or criminal justice systems that have substantially reduced crime rates. There seems to be no value-add to exaggerating the scope of the crime problem.
apologies for the misunderstanding, so what would your general overview of the world be described as?Also, you misquoted something I said. You summed up my argument with the phrase "everything is ok," when in fact, I wrote "Everything is not getting worse." It might look like a small mistake, but the statements have very different meanings. For the record, I actually don't think that "everything is ok."
already responded with the video and article, though there is another article critiquing pinker's ideas.It is not a fact that everything is getting worse. Look at my data on the decline of extreme global poverty. For all the talk about how the "middle class is dying" in rich countries over the last generation, a much larger number of humans living in poor countries have vastly increased their own wealth and opportunities over the same period, and in many cases, they escaped the sort of day-to-day miseries that 99% of people in rich countries still never experience.
lol, im not gonna give false hope to make someone else feel better, that being said my motto is more of a warning then it is an attempt to spread needless fear. the staying safe and sensible part is the attempt to survive and persevere in spite of what's going on around us. this video gets the same idea.(https://www.youtube.com/shorts/BVueEr6GnHI)TrueAnimationFan wrote: ↑Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:50 pm By the way, the average person staying "sensible and sane" is going to be VERY hard if we all convince ourselves that we're headed for a global dystopia and can't do anything to stop it. If anything, THAT is an oxymoron.
Careful there man, the cold pursuit of science comes second to humans; not the other way around- i understand these people(anti-vaxx) probably wouldn't care if i died or you died but the utilitarian thinking you have can lead to the dehumanization of people in general and make for some horrifying cyberpunk scenarios.so we're all good and science goes forward. We had some impressive advancements in this area these last few years thanks to these people and the trend isn't looking like it is stopping.
I know some might disagree those two points above are good things, but I think they are, that is... for society in general.
you're not wrong in terms of economic collapse/decline being responsible for some people feeling this way, but it's not just that, it's the social, political and environmental collapse we are undergoing that is responsible for this, if you're able to keep up with inflation then good for you but i dont think that means your life in general is gonna be getting any better, just means you're not letting anything slip. for now. when it comes to most modern tech, i'd say our lives have been made more convenient, they haven't necessarily gotten better though.Most feelings of "everything is getting worse" come from the economic aspect of things (just like most marriages that end in divorce are because of lack of money). If one is able to keep his earnings on pair with inflation most things are actually getting better day by day, specially if you aren't in a big city and are able to save. A well paid home office working from a small city with a low cost of living is probably the best place one could be nowadays as an average joe/jane for enjoying a peaceful and clean neighborhood plus all the improvements of society in general like modern tech and amenities.
is there any peer-reviewed scholarly source that indicates artificial intelligence is somehow going to revert 260+ years worth of polluting the environment or how it's going to revert the process of over-consumption that is almost certainly going to rear its ugly head in the near future? i'm genuinely trying to wonder how something like that(AGI) would come about, what the plans would be when it comes to solving the climate crisis and if it would be any different than what most de-growth advocates are saying. buying green is not gonna save the planet considering it misses the entire point of climate change existing, which is the general belief that economic growth is constant and should be strived for even at the cost of the environment, most advertisers have caught on to how people feel about this and by marketing "solutions" such as buying green you're still engaging in a form of consumerism and affecting the environment. your best bet is to buy less, though even then still isn't gonna do much of anything when this is more of a corporate issue than it is a general public one.so if not for us now an AGI will probably solve it in the future (with a high degree of certainty). Just buying the green labelled products for now and moving on is a great alternative.
bruh, do you know how hard it is to find and buy an affordable house nowadays? it's like finding a needle in a haystick, moving somewhere in general is a process that takes time, effort and money to scrounge up, and for some people moving means leaving someone/something behind. its not that easy and more people suffer from poverty than you realize. certainly doesn't help that our corporate overlords are driving up house prices as we speak.At the risk of getting off-topic, I agree with your points here. I shake my head at people who fuss over how expensive and stressful it is to live in their city, but never consider moving somewhere cheaper and less hectic. It's lazy, and I also suspect some of them derive a perverse satisfaction from complaining. It's only a problem for the people who are genuinely trapped in one place due to extreme poverty or maybe other factors.