I'm reminded of a tweet by Elon Musk, which struck me as the ultimate in explicit, unapologetic reality denial: "Better to be optimistic and wrong, than pessimistic and right!" https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1633208268238757888
But the context of Elon's tweet actually makes more sense than I was expecting from a tweet from Elon. If everyone's pessimistic about the future and doesn't even try then we'll never accomplish anything.
There's nuance to this topic - we shouldn't strip it out.
But if optimists are wrong and pessimists are right, then you won't accomplish anything.
> There's nuance to this topic - we shouldn't strip it out.
Musk was responding to and agreeing with a tweet, "The biggest problem in the West right now is many people no longer believe the future will be better than the past."
With regard to, say, global warming, I would say it's rationally undeniable the future will be worse than the past, and the biggest problem isn't a lack of optimism in the present but rather a lack of pessmism in the past. We've known about global warming for many many decades but have done almost nothing to stop it. And a luxury car brand hasn't even made a dent in the problem, a much bigger problem than one person can solve, no matter how wealthy, and it certainly doesn't help that this one person is using any political influence he might have to support people who are in denial of climate change.
One might also wonder, by the way, whether the optimism-fueled and rocket-fueled pollution of the upper atmosphere in pursuit of "Mars" is offsetting any small environmental benefit of the luxury car brand. There are consequences of "trying" things. Oh, and the optimist also wants to try increasing the Earth's human population. More "consciousness". (Not to mention more consumption.)
> With regard to, say, global warming, I would say it's rationally undeniable the future will be worse than the past, and the biggest problem isn't a lack of optimism in the present but rather a lack of pessmism in the past.
From a quantified perspective, the world is improving over time. There is less suffering now than in the past. This progress is driven by optimists who put in the effort to make the world better.
We constantly face problems to solve, both on a personal and global scale. Even as the world improves, there will always be significant challenges to address.
Despite your passive-aggressive swipes at Elon, he has done much more than you or I for the betterment of the planets. He's made EVs and renewable energy mainstream.
> We've known about global warming for many many decades but have done almost nothing to stop it.
- Paris Agreement
- Kyoto Protocol
- Significant investments in wind, solar, and hydro-electric.
- Drastically improved energy efficiency standards and regulations for buildings, vehicles, appliances, and industrial.
- Increased focus on large-scale reforestation and conservation.
- Development of carbon capture technologies.
- EV advances
- Public awareness programs and grassroots movements.
- Carbon and energy taxes
PS: I assume you are "lapcatsoftware" Jeff? Because your pessimism is so signature? I encourage you to try and look at the bright side of things, if only for your own benefit.
How are you quantifying that exactly?
> This progress is driven by optimists
Citation needed.
> What are you talking about? The world has done a lot to combat global warming. Just a few things:
> - Paris Agreement
> - Kyoto Protocol
Mostly fluff for politicians to preen.
> - Significant investments in wind, solar, and hydro-electric.
"Significant" is questionable.
> - Increased focus on large-scale reforestation and conservation.
"focus" is not action.
> - Public awareness programs and grassroots movements.
"awareness" is not action. We've already been aware.
You've listed mostly minor steps.
If the world has done a lot, then why have we failed to stop global warming? Why are we continuing to blow through the temperature thresholds that scientists warned about?
Putting band aids on problems may be optimistic, but such optimisim is not a solution to problems.
> PS: I assume you are "lapcatsoftware" Jeff? Because your pessimism is so signature? I encourage you to try and look at the bright side of things, if only for your own benefit.
This kind of personal comment is totally out of line here. You've never met me and know absolutely nothing about me. Moreover, I have zero interest in or use for unsolicited, oversimplistic advice from random anonymous internet commenters.
FWIW, I do have no ill will towards you, I still pay (and will continue to, on its merit) for your excellent software, and wish you the best, whether you choose to believe it or not.
Are you referring to suffering? I wasn't so much disputing your claim as suggesting that it was far too vague to make an intelligent comment either way. Surely, though, you must admit that some things sometimes get worse? That our earthly existence is not a magical uniform stairway to heaven but rather, to use a different analogy, like a series of peaks and valleys, punctuated by the occasional pieces of rock falling from the sky?
> FWIW, I do have no ill will towards you, I still pay (and will continue to, on its merit) for your excellent software, and wish you the best, whether you choose to believe it or not.
I believe that you wish me the best. I have no objection to that. However, I don't believe that you know what's best for me, and in general I strongly object to unsolicited advice, especially from strangers. It should also be noted that my online writing is just one small portion of myself.
The optimists in this context are people who don't believe in problems like climate change or the fall of democracy, and therefore do nothing to prevent them. Their optimism is what will destroy society.
Historically people can and do rise to the occasion in face of impending tragedies (eg wars, famines, genocide) and try to mitigate and cope with the disaster. Sometimes more, sometimes less, but generally a bad outlook is not enough to render people passive.
"clearly"
> It's not reality denial in that case, it's a call to try things.
But he didn't just say "try things, even if the odds are bad". That would be unremarkable, though also bad advice in general, like a lottery winner telling everyone to buy lottery tickets. I feel that you're in denial of the reality of what he said, which explicitly mentions being right or wrong, not just trying things.
I would say that it's better to know the truth in any case, whether the truth happens to be pleasant or unpleasant.
He started a rocket company when everyone said it was super hard.
He made that rocket company land the first stages, when everyone thought it was impossible.
He's an ass, but you can't argue with the results. Twisting some of his words out of context might feel good because you can bash on the outgroup, but it also makes you look silly and makes your group (MY GROUP!) look bad. Please stop.
I wasn't. None of your reply is even relevant to mine.
I'm just opposed to the idea pushed by the "positivity cult" that one's personal attitude is more important than the truth, and it's better to be wrong than right if wrongness comes with optimism.
I actually suspect that Musk is not consistent in his stated views, and he doesn't allow his subordinate engineers to be consistently wrong but overly optimistic. At least I hope not.
You seem to want to talk about his accomplishments. But wouldn't that make him optimistic and right? The tweet, on the other hand, is talking about being optimistic and wrong. You have clearly misunderstood the concept... Perhaps you're under the misapprehension that what he does outside of social media justifies the stuff he says on social media? That isn't true.
Incidentally, "everyone said"/"everyone thought" is almost always an exaggeration/falsehood.
Yea, context is everything. You should watch the interview he did with Everyday Astronaut where the interviewer made him redesign Starship with a question. There are tons of good lessons and self reflection in there.