 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (3)recycle -crazone dariusgriffin ...and 307 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2613457 Today 3 Topics 127500 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
vs |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The optimist is correct. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yes, the optimist. Great talk. Will definitly fav+ it! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The optimist is a much better speaker and he's much better prepared. But both these guys are narrativists. They look at what's happening in the world and shoehorn it into their preferred stories. This is what people do and it's how we make sense of the world and our lives, BUT this is not the kind of thinking I turn to when I want informed projections. I wish the optimist had talked more about energy - what he said about the amount of energy falling on the earth and the steadily decreasing price of capturing it was fascinating. I was recently trying to tell a friend who's a fission / fusion enthusiast that we're already orbiting a fusion reactor 100 times the earth's diameter but he just gave me a sour look. And the pessimist, jesus, he might as well have just put on a Nine Inch Nails album and stood there crying and cutting his arm with a razor. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
There's a fairly common school of thought that which view is "right" in terms of more accurate/balanced isn't relevant. The majority of human beings pick the optimistic view because we have evolved to be naturally optimistic. Optimism causes us to achieve more than being pessimistic would (even if we don't meet all the goals our optimism sets us). This results in us surviving more effectively and, let's not under-estimate the importance of this, be happier. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
can we be sure that overpopulation, energy and oil crisis will be solved. I believe that both are wrong. Peter Diamandis talks about bright future, but his arguments supported by only hypothetical technologies. Meanwhile Paul Gilding is stating hypothetical problems like overpopulation, no one rly knows what technologies we will have in 50 years and what will be our possibilities to solve this problem. Those projections however is mathematically probable, but also technological advancement and Moores law states that technology will grow exponentially and in fact it is growing exponentially. Those presentations when taken separately reflecting only one side of coin thats I say they are wrong, but together they complement each other. >to Ceri JC I think you are right. Thats why ancient Greeks philosophers lold at those who presented and cried about obvious problems. If you state problem this is pessimistic view, if you state problem and hypothetical solution this is optimism. Problem is that to be pessimistic it is much easier than optimistic, and pessimism is more viral, I think we need to be more mentally prepared for confronting pessimism. We need to recognize pessimism and turn off pessimistic subconscious thoughts. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
This is epic :D lol |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That's true. Optimism is adaptive, absolutely. But knowing that we see the world through rose colored glasses - or at leas we do if we're not suffering from - we need to take that bias into account when evaluating the actual state of affairs. I like the Nietzschean stance of accepting the shit state of things but saying yes to it anyways. (which is not to say that I have an unproblematically positive view of Nietzsche - hardly) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
