tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18052302.post9051408044181336300..comments2024-03-23T11:23:29.270-04:00Comments on Music of the Spheres: Dare to be an optimist!FlyingSingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12015886527228889332noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18052302.post-78523737455326313192010-07-10T13:23:16.063-04:002010-07-10T13:23:16.063-04:00Good conversation! I should probably stop and rea...Good conversation! I should probably stop and read Ridley's book before commenting further. But I might add that even discussing this topic implies that "optimism" is a choice, and if it is a choice, then there (must be? may be?) a rationale for making the choice (implying there is a "correct" choice). Optimism may be less a choice than an evolved behavior/attitude that has helped people survive rather than jumping off cliffs. If that's the case, optimism may be "rational" because it helped/helps preserve us -- but I have started to find evolutionary foundations a bit weak for supporting the apparent choices I make. On the third hand, there may or may not be free will to even decide which attitude to take -- after all I'm not sure I even have control over the number of characters I type in this commeCHCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18052302.post-31904816924915207152010-07-09T18:02:51.782-04:002010-07-09T18:02:51.782-04:00I am not the author of the book, but I believe tha...I am not the author of the book, but I believe that Ridley is not conflating progress and optimism. I think he takes a rather pragmatic and personal view of optimism, related to a personal sense of well-being. There are various definitions of optimism ranging from the philosophical to the practical. I think the one that best applies to this book is something like "Hopefulness and confidence about the future or the successful outcome of something; a tendency to take a favorable or hopeful view. Contrasted with PESSIMISM." <br /><br />I believe you are right in saying that optimism has an "effective range" in terms of time, geography, and the things you consider when you say "things are good." Most people look first to themselves, their family members, and their friends. Most people have a time horizon of their own lifetime and perhaps the lifetimes of their children and grandchildren. I would like my descendants to have a nice world to live in and to have a chance for enjoyable, productive, and fulfilling lives. In fact I'd wish that for everyone, but I wish it more for those closest to me. But what do those things mean? And if we make choices that enable those things to happen, what does that mean to the whales, or the lichen? I guess I apply a heavier weight to humans, relatives, and friends in my implicit "merit function" for "goodness of life" though I don't apply a zero weight to others. <br /><br />You raise a lot of issues but my main impression of your comments is "what's the sense of optimism when we, our children, all of nature, and even the earth itself will all be destroyed anyway?" We could all be miserable waiting for all that to happen, or we could try to look on the bright side, whether rationally or emotionally, at least once in a while. Ridley gives a lot of example of things that are measurably brighter (e.g., it's better to be fed than hungry, better to have some choices than be dictated to, etc.). He shows that over time, more people on earth have gone into those categories than was the case in the past. Is everybody better off? Is everybody happy? No. But there's reason for optimism, IMHO, even though in the long run, we are all dead.FlyingSingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12015886527228889332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18052302.post-27701228723083827802010-07-08T23:34:40.326-04:002010-07-08T23:34:40.326-04:00Ah, "progress". Does your author confla...Ah, "progress". Does your author conflate "progress" (which should be defined) with "optimism"? I might say, let us start by defining optimism. Is it simply a personal attitude that influences/interacts with one's own behavior, or is it a rational (logical) response to a person's guess at the outcome of future events? If it is the latter, then the extent of rationality of optimism must depend on: the accuracy of one's guess; the scope in time and space of one's guess; the reward for guessing right. For example, I am not optimistic that the Earth or humans will survive when the sun goes supernova in some billions of years from now. That is too far to look ahead, you say? Why? I can step forward, generation by generation, from now to the time when the sun goes supernova, making it seem like it will be our grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren, etc. etc. that will be at risk, and therefore draw a pessimistic (emotional-personal) conclusion. Too many generations, you might say? Why? What is the time cutoff for optimism? Similarly, what is the geographic/spatial cutoff? United States? Africa? Mars? Arbitrary. And what about lichen? Or coral reefs? Optimism in terms of time and space is undefined, or better yet, individually defined, hence meaningless outside an individual's own arena. If so then can optimism (or any other attitude) be called "rational"? I think not - "optimism" is based primarily on the things (time/space/objects) we care about, and we draw the extents of our caring arbitrarily.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05515637873755047834noreply@blogger.com