Iâll also add that I didnât like the subtitle of the video: âA case for optimismâ.
A lot of popular takes on futurism topics seem to me to focus on being optimistic or pessimistic, but whether one is optimistic or pessimistic about something doesnât seem like the sort of thing one should argue for. It seems a little like writing the bottom line first.
Rather, people should attempt to figure out what the actual probabilities of different futures are and how we are able to influence the future to make certain futures more or less probable. From there itâs just a semantic question whether having a certain credence in a certain kind of future makes one an optimistic or a pessimist.
If one sets out to argue for being an optimist or pessimist, that seems like it would just introduce a bias into oneâs thinking, where once one identifies as e.g. an optimist, theyâll have trouble updating their beliefs about the probability that the future will be good or bad to various degrees. Paul Graham says Keep Your Identity Small, which seems very relevant.
Agreed. In a pinned comment of his he elaborates on why he went for the optimistic tone:
honestly, when I began this project, I was preparing to make a doomer-style âfinal warningâ video for humanity. but over the last two years of research and editing, my mindset has flipped. it will take a truly apocalyptic event to stop us, and we are more than capable of avoiding those scenarios and eventually reaching transcendent futures. pessimism is everywhere, and to some degree it is understandable. but the case for being optimistic is strong⌠and being optimistic puts us on the right footing for the upcoming centuries. what say the people??
It seems melodysheep went for a more passive âitâs plausible the future will be amazing, so letâs hope for thatâ framing over a more active âboth a great, terrible or nonexistent are possible, so letâs do what we can to avoid the latter twoâ framing. A bit of a shame, since itâs this call to action where the impact is to be found.
Iâll also add that I didnât like the subtitle of the video: âA case for optimismâ.
A lot of popular takes on futurism topics seem to me to focus on being optimistic or pessimistic, but whether one is optimistic or pessimistic about something doesnât seem like the sort of thing one should argue for. It seems a little like writing the bottom line first.
Rather, people should attempt to figure out what the actual probabilities of different futures are and how we are able to influence the future to make certain futures more or less probable. From there itâs just a semantic question whether having a certain credence in a certain kind of future makes one an optimistic or a pessimist.
If one sets out to argue for being an optimist or pessimist, that seems like it would just introduce a bias into oneâs thinking, where once one identifies as e.g. an optimist, theyâll have trouble updating their beliefs about the probability that the future will be good or bad to various degrees. Paul Graham says Keep Your Identity Small, which seems very relevant.
Agreed. In a pinned comment of his he elaborates on why he went for the optimistic tone:
It seems melodysheep went for a more passive âitâs plausible the future will be amazing, so letâs hope for thatâ framing over a more active âboth a great, terrible or nonexistent are possible, so letâs do what we can to avoid the latter twoâ framing. A bit of a shame, since itâs this call to action where the impact is to be found.