This article reminds me of Pixar’s Inside Out movie 😊 I like the empathy that this article portrays in hopeful pessimism, but like it says, I’d imagine it’s important to have a balance of both.

There doesn’t need to be immediate gratification. There are many ways for climate mitigation solutions to satisfy greed. You get much further selling people a solar-punk future than you do by trying to scare them. Doomsday predictions only convince people its futile to make an effort.

So, being more greedy then fearful, the billionaire class isn't going to change the system. There isn't any immediate gratification to be had in preservation. Everyone just wants to eat that tuna, bycatch be damned.

Humans: "OH BUT MAYBE IT COULD BE BETTER LIKE BLAHBLAHBLAH, BLAH BLA XYZ BLAH I REALLY DO THINK IT BLA BLAH BLAH"

Reality:

[removed]

Oh, don't worry, ive got it covered, the stuff that comes up in my most personal moments couldn't be any more bleak and hopeless 🤣👍

Of course we have free will. The boss commands it.

Well for starters, calling yourself a pessimist makes one feel more edgy and cool.

It is a fact that wildlife populations have declined. This is a problem to reckoned with, I’d argue more successfully with an optimistic attitude than a pessimistic one.

Evidence shows that people are more greedy than fearful. To convince people to combat climate change, it is more useful to appeal to what they have to gain than what they have to lose.

So many issues here.

1. The assumption that anyone simply picks beliefs based on their perceived utility is utterly baseless. In fact the opposite is often true - people find themselves believing something despite knowing its implications are dangerous to their well-being.

2. Your comparison to the boat is flawed. Naturalism doesn't just reject the search for the life jacket. It rejects the entire reality of the boat in the first place. Only theists see us in need of rescue. Naturalists believe we will die, of course, but would never concede that there is an alternative.

3. You have falsely limited the options here. A naturalist argues that we actually have no reason to believe that utility goes on after death, and the best response the theist has is "well, what if it did"? Well, what if the creator of the universe was a sadistic beast who took pleasure in eternally torturing those who believed in his existence? Or what if paganism is true and the whole system rests on the whims of all-too-human gods who don't care what we believe? Or what if Hinduism is true and we are reincarnated based on our life deeds? It seems that if we are seeking to maximize utility beyond what we all perceive to be its end rather than during the period we can all agree it exists, we don't have any logical basis to believe we know what would maximize such utility.

This is the exact type of pessimistic fatalism that is antithetical to actually accomplishing anything.

[removed]

Optimism for a better future. Be VERY careful into NOT mixing optimism with complacency tho.

[removed]

No, that's just living in denial. The world is quite literally dying in front of us. We've lost 70% of all wildlife since 1970. There's where your fruitful optimism has gotten us.

You know, it gets really annoying when people hide in optimism. Optimism ends up being only denial

1. What is being done faster than the rate of destruction? You have to stop the destruction first and we know this isn't happening. We can't even talk people into having less kids.

2. Lol that some cultures can do things and others refuse. I think the reason is bare as to why global cooperation isn't going to happen just in your own point alone.

>Your strong claim here is suspect, given that I have proved false many of your other claims

Go do some basic Google research on forever chemicals and get back to me. I really think you just suffer from not knowing enough about how bad of a spot we are in.

Where, pray tell, is the hyperbole? Are you sure you're not just the one with their head in the sand??

More words, even less to make of them. We're still not talking about theism, by the way. And as someone studied in the field of philosophy of religion, your words just seem ignorant of the things they're addressing. The reason you think the rest is drivel is because you have shown clearly that you don't understand what you're talking about and can't respond to it. Like I said, leave it to those who can. Thanks for the links.

Being cynical is good and not the same as pessimistic.

[deleted]

Even a monumentally difficult problem can be solved.

You can describe the badness still. Thats ok. It’s hope that needs to drive action.

I see your point, I agree investigation would fall more in line with skepticism.

I do think however that pessimism is not inherently negative to the point of not trying or acting.

I believe from what you have said that pessimism is a projection of a negative out come for some thing or event into its future state. This separates the choices from the view and from your perception onto the future. you then can decide weather or not to act.

What word would you use for pessimism instead of investigation?

You're using some overly strong hyperbole here, and it undermines your point.

[removed]