> The possibility of sustained progress is a consequence of the view of humans as “universal explainers” (cf. David Deutsch), and of progress as driven fundamentally by human choice and effort—that is, by human agency.
> The opposite view is that progress is a matter of luck. If the progress of the last few centuries was a random windfall, then pessimism is logical: our luck is bound to run out.
So it's[1] not about predicting trends based on present conditions. In fact almost the opposite. An optimist would predict that hard unsolved problems will be solved in the future, because that has been the trend.
That's if you define optimism to be belief in sustained human progress, and redefine pessimism as realism (reality is a mixed bag)
If you go with someone else's definition, pessimism could be belief in ubiquitous, sustained human failure, while optimism is recognizing that failure may come, but won't indefinitely or all the time (reality is a mixed bag)
> The possibility of sustained progress is a consequence of the view
of humans as "universal explainers" (cf. David Deutsch), and of
progress as driven fundamentally by human choice and effort - that
is, by human agency.
As a humanist, I too am very optimistic about the ultimate triumph of
human agency. What gives me cause for pessimism is the emergence of
technologies that act against it.
Biology, intelligence and evolution, on a long enough timeline tend
toward unbridled possibility. We can overcome anything. I reject
Malthusian doom-saying.
The greatest challenge may not be energy or food, but how we overcome
our own technologies that cultivate dependency, weakness, and
ignorance. How do we avoid abandoning intelligence amplification in
favour of artificial intelligence, reality in favour of a "virtual
metaverse"?
I think the subtle danger in late modernity is the creation of
technologies that optimise for pessimism, thrive on discord, reward
laziness, and learn from our worst vices in order to amplify them and
offer us more.
It's a fuzzy term that mostly works out to some sort of often collaborative social environment. Not much different than HN or IRC in many ways, just with a different way of interacting.
> The possibility of sustained progress is a consequence of the view of humans as “universal explainers” (cf. David Deutsch), and of progress as driven fundamentally by human choice and effort—that is, by human agency.
> The opposite view is that progress is a matter of luck. If the progress of the last few centuries was a random windfall, then pessimism is logical: our luck is bound to run out.
So it's[1] not about predicting trends based on present conditions. In fact almost the opposite. An optimist would predict that hard unsolved problems will be solved in the future, because that has been the trend.
[1] by "it" I meant to say "pessimism" here