Are You Optimistic/Pessimistic About the Future...


thanks for that, just found a PDF of it and will give it a read, I think I read something about him before, as he wrote about what he was teaching, always meant to seek it out and forgot about it!
I'm always skeptical but unless the facts are bogus, he had a fascinating insight on the world that I'd never considered.
 
Pessimistic.

We are such a horrible species. World leaders tend to be ambitious, selfish males who will seek short-term profit over long-term critical global causes every time - a) because they don't want to lose voters and b) because it makes the even richer.

There is no way we will hit the Climate Change targets. We will need to deal with the consequences. A tad annoying, since the warnings have been coming and have been all but ignored for decades.

We may well be wiped out by then anyway from a more infectious or more deadly virus, antibiotic resistance or nuclear war triggered by some greedy, egotistical male leader.
 
Has Global Violence Declined? A Look at the Data

I read a fascinating book by Hans Rosling called Factfullness. I'd thoroughly recommend it. I think you will view the world differently.

You are going down a peculiar rabbit hole with this. I don't think cars can be uninvented.

I agree that all the stuff you mentioned are issues but I do disagree that illnesses of the developed world are self inflicted. Either through choice (crap food is nice) or ignorance of nutrition.

Everyone has a choice between healthy food or shite. The problem is that shite tastes lovely.

Couple of little examples then,

in Brazil the kids in poverty are fed soda, reason why, its cheaper than fresh water, also the street food sellers go into the city through the bins for chicken scraps, bring it back top the poorer areas and wash it, recook it with a ton of sugar and sell it to the poor, as its all they can afford.

New York, massive takeaway meals, but no supermarkets that sell affordable food, they have a wholefoods that just costs too much for the working poor.

baby milk has sugar added now in many countries, training the poor to be addicted to sugar from birth.

We can find examples of this in all poor populations, diabetes used to be a rare disease effecting the rich, when sugar was costly, now its endemic and is imo the number one reason for so many modern illnesses.

many people have had any sort of choice took off them thanks to a lack of money.
 
Last edited:
You brought the possibility up and then backtracked saying you would allow them for the disabled. Such a Utopian dream will never become real.
Back tracked? I never gave the disabled a thought when I proposed the banning of all cars.

I'll back track again. The world would be a better place without cars. The disabled will have to fend for themselves. Is that better?
 
Pessimistic. Social media is going to ruin the next generation, you can already ready see sign of it happening.

Think it may already have happened :rolleyes: Be interested to see how they vote at general elections in future, given that most of them can't afford that British Holy Grale of owning their own home
 
Last edited:
I think standards falling is a massive thing, from simple stuff like taking accountability for our own health to how much pride we take in the quality of our work.

It seems like many can be quite apathetic about stuff like littering their own pavements so what’s the chances of getting them to care about the polar ice caps.

Spot on 100%.
People don’t give a shit, lack respect.
 

In 2007, just 0.04% of deaths in the world were from international violence. If this data is correct, the world in 2007 was at least an order of magnitude safer than most prehistoric societies.

Well that's a shock :D
...
There has been a clear decline in the percentage of years in which the major powers fought with one another since at least 1600. At one point the rate reached 100% — indicating there was at least one conflict between world powers for the entire 25-year period. Contrast that with 2000, when there were 0 conflicts between world powers. The current period of 66 years without a conflict between major powers is the longest time since at least the Roman Empire.

Again misleading as in modern times we have more proxy wars and civil war encouraged and sponsored by the major powers.
 
Last edited:
Couple of little examples then,

in Brazil the kids in poverty are fed soda, reason why, its cheaper than fresh water, also the street food sellers go into the city through the bins for chicken scraps, bring it back top the poorer areas and wash it, recook it with a ton of sugar and sell it to the poor, as its all they can afford.

New York, massive takeaway meals, but no supermarkets that sell affordable food, they have a wholefoods that just costs too much for the working poor.

baby milk has sugar added now in many countries, training the poor to be addicted to sugar from birth.

We can find examples of this in all poor populations, diabetes used to be a rare disease effecting the rich, when sugar was costly, now its endemic and is imo the number one reason for so many modern illnesses.

many people have had any sort of choice took off them thanks to a lack of money.
I agree that big Agriculture accounts for a lot of destruction in the world. It has fucked the planet.

I am sure there will be ghettos around the world where it is difficult to obtain healthy food but these will be tiny pockets in a world of 8 billion people.
 
The issue was, do people feel optimistic or pessimistic about the future.

We may not have had a direct conflict between the major powers for decades but that is most likely due to the possession of nuclear arms and MAD. Instead we have had a series of proxy wars and conflicts like a game of global chess.

However, to decide whether we feel optimistic or pessimistic about the future requires we examine the current state of affairs and how we see world events developing over the coming century not whether it is more violent since pre-historic times or that it is the longest period of no major conflict since Roman times.

To arrive at a decision requires looking at future global economic trends, future availability of essential minerals, predicted food production, predicted water resources and that can not be arrived at by ignoring the potential effect of climate change.

It's not about Neolithic man and Roman legions.
 
Last edited:
In 2007, just 0.04% of deaths in the world were from international violence. If this data is correct, the world in 2007 was at least an order of magnitude safer than most prehistoric societies.

Well that's a shock :D
...
There has been a clear decline in the percentage of years in which the major powers fought with one another since at least 1600. At one point the rate reached 100% — indicating there was at least one conflict between world powers for the entire 25-year period. Contrast that with 2000, when there were 0 conflicts between world powers. The current period of 66 years without a conflict between major powers is the longest time since at least the Roman Empire.

Again misleading as in modern times we have more proxy wars and civil war encouraged and sponsored by the major powers.

Your snippet makes it appear misleading but the article states that death rates from all conflict has declined since the end of WW2 and it provides data for civil, foreign state and imperial conflicts registering over 25 combat deaths for that period. It also confirms your earlier point that the number of conflicts is rising.
 
Your snippet makes it appear misleading but the article states that death rates from all conflict has declined since the end of WW2 and it provides data for civil, foreign state and imperial conflicts registering over 25 combat deaths for that period. It also confirms your earlier point that the number of conflicts is rising.
As I said it would appear the world is simmering/bristling with conflict, much of it on a more localised level with very little of it being effectively resolved. Historical comparisons are irrelevant though when determining whether to be optimistic or pessimistic about the future. Under the right circumstances many of these local conflicts could explode beyond control. Climate change is the real danger.
 
Last edited:
As I said it would appear the world is simmering/bristling with conflict, much of it on a more localised level with very little of it being effectively resolved.
Simmering and bristling at a very low level in context of history. You be as pessimistic as you like. The world has been transformed for the majority of the world's population in last 50 years.

There is no reason to think that we cannot manage the inevitable rise in population before it peaks at 11 billion and starts to fall.
 
Simmering and bristling at a very low level in context of history. You be as pessimistic as you like. The world has been transformed for the majority of the world's population in last 50 years.

There is no reason to think that we cannot manage the inevitable rise in population before it peaks at 11 billion and starts to fall.
Population level will peak around the year 2100. The effects of climate change will result in severe water shortages before 2050 possibly within 20 years. Food production will be affected long before we reach the next century. There is already conflict arising over a clash of interests over natural resources and minerals. Population rise is definitely not the issue some claim it to be just as the danger will no longer come from Russia but China.
PS
The Pentagon concluded in 2003 that the greatest danger to global security over the coming century was not international terrorism but climate change. I have seen nothing to contradict that conclusion.
Back tracked? I never gave the disabled a thought when I proposed the banning of all cars.

I'll back track again. The world would be a better place without cars. The disabled will have to fend for themselves. Is that better?
No you didn't. You added free cars in a later post.
 
Last edited:
Population level will peak around the year 2100. The effects of climate change will result in severe water shortages before 2050 possibly within 20 years. Food production will be affected long before we reach the next century. There is already conflict arising over a clash of interests over natural resources and minerals. Population rise is definitely not the issue some claim it to be just as the danger will no longer come from Russia but China.
There definitely will be challenges but the world has managed quite well so far.

I always thought Thomas Malthus would be proved correct but the modern world may just prove him wrong. I'm far far more optimistic (or less pessimistic) than I was from realising what has been done in the last 50 years.
No you didn't. You added free cars in a later post.
It was a joke. I thought your point was a bit daft.
 
Last edited:
There definitely will be challenges but the world has managed quite well so far.

I always thought Thomas Malthus would be proved correct but the modern world may just prove him wrong. I'm far far more optimistic (or less pessimistic) than I was from realising what has been done in the last 50 years.
We haven't managed very well at all. We were warned in 1970 that if we didn't stop chopping down the rain forests that within 5 years we would enter a period of climate regime change. To stop cutting down rain forests was considered more realistic than reducing emissions. How has that worked out over the 50 years.
Pessimistic based on the last 20 years. Russia and China seem determined to rip up the UN world order and bring about a new Cold War.
It's clear there's going to be a huge conflict of interest in the South China Sea.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top