Not sure if this is relevant, but I wonder what you make of this quote from Gramsci:
"You must realize that I am far from feeling beaten…it seems to me that…a man ought to be deeply convinced that the source of his own moral force is in himself—his very energy and will, the iron coherence of ends and means—that he never falls into those vulgar, banal moods, pessimism and optimism. My own state of mind synthesises these two feelings and transcends them: my mind is pessimistic, but my will is optimistic. Whatever the situation, I imagine the worst that could happen in order to summon up all my reserves and will power to overcome every obstacle."
Thanks for commenting! I’m happy to check this out, but before I even do there seems to be a logical point that’s important to make.
If hopeful people are wrong, what’s the cost?
If doomers are wrong, then—for obvious reasons that one shouldn’t have to explain—aren’t they arguably the most immoral people in human history?
I’m sure that you tackle this asymmetry in terms of costs, but I just wanted to raise this asymmetry, since it’s the most obvious rejoinder that comes to my mind.
To be clear about something, I regard a "doomer" as someone who has a weird religious certainty that avoidance of collapse is impossible; if you tell me there's a 90% chance that we're doomed, then I wouldn't argue against that at all, but it's the weird religious certainty that makes you a "doomer" in my vocabulary.
Thanks! I prefer text to video, so I appreciate the link to the text.
Why is it that the IPCC reports, which are utterly terrifying, never say anything to the effect of "It's too late to save ourselves and we're all 100% screwed so it's delusional to cling to hope of averting collapse"?
How many serious scientists would agree with your assessment of things and what have their comments been about your assessment of things?
I think we all are.
Not sure if this is relevant, but I wonder what you make of this quote from Gramsci:
"You must realize that I am far from feeling beaten…it seems to me that…a man ought to be deeply convinced that the source of his own moral force is in himself—his very energy and will, the iron coherence of ends and means—that he never falls into those vulgar, banal moods, pessimism and optimism. My own state of mind synthesises these two feelings and transcends them: my mind is pessimistic, but my will is optimistic. Whatever the situation, I imagine the worst that could happen in order to summon up all my reserves and will power to overcome every obstacle."
Thanks for commenting! I’m happy to check this out, but before I even do there seems to be a logical point that’s important to make.
If hopeful people are wrong, what’s the cost?
If doomers are wrong, then—for obvious reasons that one shouldn’t have to explain—aren’t they arguably the most immoral people in human history?
I’m sure that you tackle this asymmetry in terms of costs, but I just wanted to raise this asymmetry, since it’s the most obvious rejoinder that comes to my mind.
To be clear about something, I regard a "doomer" as someone who has a weird religious certainty that avoidance of collapse is impossible; if you tell me there's a 90% chance that we're doomed, then I wouldn't argue against that at all, but it's the weird religious certainty that makes you a "doomer" in my vocabulary.
Thanks! I prefer text to video, so I appreciate the link to the text.
Why is it that the IPCC reports, which are utterly terrifying, never say anything to the effect of "It's too late to save ourselves and we're all 100% screwed so it's delusional to cling to hope of averting collapse"?
How many serious scientists would agree with your assessment of things and what have their comments been about your assessment of things?