Are you optimistic about the future?

[mix]

[Posteritatis]

1. As socially unacceptable as it is, yes. (nt)

[hatrack]

3. Jeez Louise . .. one in every crowd, I guess . . .

:hi:

[jgraz]

17. Make that two.

Or, rather, 16 by the current count.

[mix]

20. Why is it "socially unacceptable" to be optimistic? nt

[Posteritatis]

28. Just look around this site; despair and cynicism are practically virtues. (nt)

[mix]

31. But if many feel that way, isn't that significant?

Or is pessimism, in your view, a pose? Or a weakness?

I am not so dismissive. I think that people have good reasons to be pessimistic.

Hopefully that will change.

[Posteritatis]

35. Reflexive, automatic pessimism? Yes, I think it is

If someone's first reaction to anything is active indifference or a determined shrug-it's-gonna-suck-anyway, that doesn't contribute anything to anything.

I also do think a lot of it, here and elsewhere, is a pose; I really do feel it's considered a Bad Thing to express oneself as anything other than despairing and cynical about most things these days. There's a reason there's not a single antonym to "cynic" that doesn't have insulting undertones these days, and I think that's part of the problem rather than simply a result of it.

[tammywammy]

2. Yes n/t

[The_Casual_Observer]

4. "The future isn't what it used to be"

[mix]

58. .

[marmar]

5. The short-term outlook, IMO, is very, very dire......

...... But I think after the great economic collapse, what comes out of it will be a new economy that values people and the earth, based on actual wealth and not conjured-up numbers.

[Bobbieo]

9. No, I'm pessimistic as long as Americans will not accept the fact that Barack Obama is the duly

elected president of the United States AND he is.

[jgraz]

14. That is the least of our problems

First we need Obama to accept that he's the duly-elected president and not Rahm Emanuel or Olympia Snowe.

[RKP5637]

19. I truly hope so, but... the bond between politicians, corporations, lobbyists, ...

power, greed, control and manipulated contrived wealth will have to be broken permanently. I'm sure someone can think of examples in history where this cycle has been broken, but most societies have it in one form or another (I think). A lot of it is sadly human nature and survival of the fittest.

[mix]

60. I am pessimistic about "a new economy" emerging.

Without a significant reform of Wall Street, or the banking-investment sector, another round of financial speculation is more likely, eroding further "real wealth" and value, which has been capitalism's pattern since the 19th century really. Capitalism is highly unstable, particularly in its neo-liberal form, which has been dominant since the 1980s, when our woes really began as a country.

[cliffordu]

6. We humans are crapping the nest.

People can't be bothered to figure out how to recycle AA batteries, for christ's sake.

We are going to have a VERY expensive lesson before we can look forward with optimism, I'm afraid.

[Pyrzqxgl]

7. Depends on what day you reach me. Things sure ain't consistent these days.

[Warren DeMontague]

8. Yes. Despite all our problems, things are a helluva lot better than they were 500 years ago.

And way better than they were 10,000 years ago.

[jgraz]

11. So you're optimistic about the present

;)

[Warren DeMontague]

16. And, I'm optimistic about the future.

And as others have pointed out in this thread, I don't care how un-cool some people think that is.

I think science, technology, and the future of an open-minded, inquisitive human race expanding out into the solar system & beyond.. are all great.

[jgraz]

23. I think it's even money as to whether humans make it past 2050.

We've had too many generations of breeding for greed and selfishness. It's not clear we have the capacity to turn it around as quickly as we need to.

[Warren DeMontague]

37. Well, if we're both around in 41 years

I guess we'll know, won't we?

[Sheepshank]

56. so correct!

No hair dryers. My hair!!!!

No skinless, boneless chickens.

No reading fiction.

No flushing toidees.

Yeah, I'm loving life right now and wouldn't go back, no way.

I am such an optomist at heart.

[Warren DeMontague]

59. I think the average lifespan was about 30, back then.

Brutish and short.

[Sheepshank]

65. Not not mention

Hot showers for two, and mattresses with some gentle springy support. I've had some of my best sex after age 30 lol.

[Silent3]

10. Wouldn't it be funny if a giant asteroid smashed into the Earth...

...mere hours after this poll was started, completely wiping out all life on the planet down to the last bacterium?

Well, OK, maybe not funny. Ironic perhaps.

[jgraz]

12. It would be funnier if the LHC produced a planet-eating black hole

Unfortunately, the gamma rays would probably fry me before I had a chance to laugh my ass off.

[mix]

13. There must be satellites to warn us of that, surely. nt

[jgraz]

18. I'm pretty sure B*sh cut the funding for that

No, I'm not joking.

Edit: And don't call me Shirley.

[Silent3]

24. Especially given the fact that we haven't done a thorough search...

...for near-earth objects, it's quite possible for a dark object on a tricky-to-observe orbit to sneak up pretty fast and catch us totally off guard, with little or no warning.

As far as I know there aren't any satellites dedicated to detecting the approach of large asteroids, just a few earthbound telescopes more dedicated to finding things that we'd have enough warning about to maybe put together a mission to do something about.

If we only had hours, or even a few days or months warning, there probably isn't anything we could do about it but go batshit crazy in the streets anyway.

[mix]

25. Couldn't we destroy it with a laser or nuclear weapon(s)? nt

[Silent3]

34. Not that easy.

We don't have lasers anywhere close to powerful enough to do more than scratch the surface of a significant asteroid. We can't put together a space launch of a nuke all that quickly, especially to deliver a nuke to a place far enough away from the Earth to do some good -- ICBM-mounted nukes don't have that kind of range.

Further, a nuke is a pretty crude tool for the job, and not all that powerful compared to the kinetic energy of a large asteroid. A nuke might (but only might) be enough to destroy an asteroid of the kind that could destroy a city, but even in that far less destructive case a nuke might simply break up such an asteroid in a way that makes matters worse.

To save our collective asses from a planet killer, we'd probably have to know about the impending impact many years in advance, and use a nuke (or some other technique -- a "gravity tractor" among the alternatives) to make a tiny deflection that is magnified over time to be enough to steer the asteroid clear of our planet.

[Posteritatis]

36. Given enough warning that scratch would be fine

A little outgassing adds up over time, just like the gravity tractor would. Both depend on how early you find the rock in question, of course.

Nuclear warheads would be about nudging asteroids, not destroying them. All three approaches would have the same goal in mind - shifting a rock's trajectory by a tiny fraction of a degree.

[Silent3]

38. Yes, and as I was explaining...

...the key is knowing well in advance so that a small effect has time to become magnified into a large one, a final deflection of up to several thousand miles which is ultimately needed. We just don't have technology powerful enough to do anything useful on short notice, with perhaps the exception of dealing with smaller (but still deadly enough) "city killer" sized objects.

Even for that, we don't have the logistical and political crap put together well enough to do anything useful fast.

[Posteritatis]

In that case I agree entirely

I could live with seeing the logistical and policial crap put well enough together to at least do one of those long-term deflections, at least. (Possibly literally, of course.)

The one I mentioned elsewhere in this subthread was one of those city-killers, or would have been if it was a few miles lower when it went off. I'm not sure what it would take to stop those readily, but a major city's a pinprick compared to a rock a couple kilometers wide, and seeing those taken a bit more seriously would be nice.

[Posteritatis]

29. One nearly smacked Indonesia two weeks ago

50-kiloton explosion and the works. It was high up enough in the atmosphere that nothing was harmed (except for the meteor), fortunately.

[HughMoran]

15. Yes

If I were a pessimist, I'd be a different person.

[DireStrike]

21. There are many futures

Do you mean of all life on the planet? It doesn't look good for the many species that continue to be wiped out. However, life will continue. Unless we start a runaway greenhouse effect and end up with a second Venus.

My own future? I'll probably be ok. Then I'll die.

The people's future? It will be filled with bloody mayhem and setbacks, but overall it will improve. Unless we wind up with a technocratic feudal state.

[FiveGoodMen]

22. Was once.

Be surprised if I ever am again.

[The2ndWheel]

26. Indifferent

Same problems, different scale.

[StreetKnowledge]

27. I try to be optimistic.

Both for America and the world.

You see, on the world front, demographics are on our side. The LIberal states are growing in population and influence, and major cities (which lean towards the moderate or left) now make up 4/5 of Americans, a number that is only gonna grow. Likewise, minority populations (again, overwhelmingly more liberal than most government officials) are growing. Barack Obama is just the first of the new Presidents elected by the liberal generations. And regardless of what Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and the meatpuppets at Fox News think, the number of people who vote liberal is rising.

America hasn't been destroyed by these pigs yet. We can still make progressive ideals come through yet. And until that ability dies, I'm gonna keep the faith.

[AlienGirl]

48. An optimist can be caught off-guard by the bad things. A pessimist only has good surprises.

[mmonk]

30. No. I can't afford to be. And neither can any of you.

We need to turn things around. To act and do so requires a belief things have been going in the wrong direction too long and will affect our futures negatively.

[slackmaster]

32. Yes I am very optimistic, because I am in it for revenge

:hi:

I plan to survive any catastrophes that come my way, and to thrive in the aftermath.

[Generic Brad]

33. I am always optimistic

While I can't control the world, I can control my reaction to it. And I simply do not want to be a buzz kill. I'd rather try lifting everyone up rather than bringing them down. Sure, it's harder some days than others. But if enough people consistently think like me, how can that not make the rest of you a tad more optimistic too?

[liberal_at_heart]

42. I like your response Generic Brad

You are so right. Yesterday I was feeling lowsy because we have had a pretty stressful year. More fortunate than most because we still have a steady paycheck, but still stressful none the less. Yesterday I was feeling very anxious and depressed. Today I woke up in a good mood. I don't know why. I just decided not to let all the pressures of life get to me today. I enjoyed being with my family. I enjoyed watching my son at his swim lesson. I enjoyed a good meal and here in a little bit we are all going to sit down together and watch It's the Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown. That is one of the things I enjoy about Buddhism. It teaches me that even in the worst circumstances I can chose to be happy, grateful, and compassionate.

[Posteritatis]

43. This is an insufficiently common perspective. (nt)

[HughMoran]

44. Exactly

What bothers me are the polar opposites which seem to be in the majority here - they really bring us all down :(

[mix]

57. Are you optimistic, though, even at the macro/planetary-level? nt

[RagAss]

39. Fuck No...this illusion is over....The rich cocksuckers won !

[liberal_at_heart]

40. definitely both optimistic and pessimistic

I'd say I'm optimistic for the short term not so much for the long term. To use your phrase I take a rather socially unacceptable optimistic view on the economy. I was impressed how all the world leaders came together and they all did whatever had to be done to keep us out of a global economic depression. I think we will come out of this recession. I think the economy is hitting a bottom and will start to go up slowly from here. I think we are already seeing signs of that. When it comes to the long term I am pessimistic because there are too many people on this Earth. Humans have fought over natural resources, money, power, and religion since the beginning of civilization. With over 6 million people and growing the wars for natural resources, money, power, and religion will only get worse and worse until we destroy our entire species.

[barbtries]

41. hopeful

but frustrated.

[AlienGirl]

45. The future will be just like now, only a little bit worse...

[mix]

46. that sounds pessimistic...

[AlienGirl]

47. I'm bearish on humanity: it's not going places

Realistic: for my lifespan and my kids' lifespan, and my grandkids' lifespan if my kids have kids--we are going to see a declining standard of living in the formerly industrialized world, growing wealth disparity everywhere, and combinations of localized social disorder followed by authoritarian crackdowns. Famines are almost inevitable, because arable land is being depleted, and because the changes in weather patterns are likely to make formerly abundant areas produce far less yield per acre of food crops and of feed crops for food animals. Escalating oil prices are an inevitability: many of the most productive regions are already at or past peak, and the price of getting the oil out of the ground is going up just as world demand for oil is ballooning at an unforeseen rate.

There are going to be shortages of anything that needs to be transported across oceans, due primarily to the economic depression (I don't think we're even on the up-swing of the "W" yet, and I expect some level of permanent contraction of the economy--unemployment that never goes back to 1990s levels, permanent lowering of home prices, permanent credit shrinkage) and also due to the rising cost of oil.

We are well past the point of being able to stop global climate change: if the entire human race made a deep commitment to lowering carbon emissions, we might be able to slow it a little, but once the methane in the permafrost starts leaking out (which started last summer on a relatively small scale) there's not going to be a way to mitigate the problem. That isn't to say Earth will become another Venus, but it will make some real problems for agriculture (and a lot of the endangered species on Earth will go extinct).

It is entirely possible that we are going to enter a New Dark Age that will last a few centuries before anything improves significantly. Long-term, if humans are still around in a thousand years, I might be optimistic. Short term, though, I'm bearish on humanity--it's not going places.

Tucker

[MyshkinCommaPrince]

49. I'm torn.

On the one hand, humankind seems to be more concerned about short-term profit than addressing any of the real problems in our world. Robert Anton Wilson used to claim that the ever-increasing number of scientists in our culture would inevitably lead to wonderful growth and advancement. Instead, we seem to get a lot of custom-tailored new pharmaceutical products. The right wing machine still seems positioned to keep winning, at least in the short term, and as the global problems we aren't facing become more critical, their methods seem likely to help them keep winning. I fear we're moving inevitably toward living on Planet Malthus, if we aren't there yet.

On the other hand, it doesn't seem likely that humanity will destroy itself completely. I don't expect my own future to be horrific, merely disappointing. I still think people are more good than bad. I still think life is, overall, good and worth living, given that the only known alternative to living is not living or not having lived at all.

I guess I'm pessimistic when I look at the details, but optimistic when I consider the broader questions of life.

[ismnotwasm]

50. So far

Yes; it seems better than the alternative

Edit; better alternative than no future at all. I'll make the best of it and do what I can with my short stay.

[tekisui]

51. I try to maintain detachment from the past and the future.

Expectations places on future events are not necessarily productive.

[paulsby]

52. yes, and i'll continue to skew the chicken littles as historically myopic

it's what i do.

[Uncle Joe]

53. It's a mixture with me, all depending on what choices; the critical number of people make.

Thanks for the thread, mix.

[mix]

54. If the right choices are made, then we might make it?

In other words, it is not too late to change our course or correct our ways?

[Uncle Joe]

55. Yes with the keywords being "critical number" of people.

I also believe the longer societies; take to alter their economies to sustainable practices, the higher that "critical number" becomes and at some point that window of opportunity to avoid global climatic catastrophe closes.

One other point, a longer delay to change means a more drastic change would be required.

If we had stayed with the environmental push ie:solar energy promotion of the Carter Administration instead of forgetting about it, we would be in a much stronger position today.

[Rockholm]

61. Absolutely!

[mix]

62. In both your personal and planetary life, you are optimistic? nt

[Rockholm]

66. Yep. I'm good with my life.

[mitchum]

63. What future?

[mix]

64. We have more future now than seemed likely in the 1980s,

during the Cold War's nuclear standoff, but how much our future holds going forward remains to be seen. 5 minutes? 50 years? 100?

The Earth will go on, but will the human species?