[Eisenstein]

As adults already, we grew up with things that are either not relevant or give us the wrong responses to our heuristics.

But the kids who grow up with this stuff will just integrate into their life and proceed. The society which results from that will be something we cannot predict as it will be alien to us. Whether it will be better or not -- probably not.

Humans evolved to spend most of their time with a small group of trusted people. By removing ourselves from that we have created all sorts of problems that we just aren't really that equipped to deal with. If this is solvable or not has yet to be seen.

[FloorEgg]

I don't disagree with any points you made, but I do find it interesting you refused a prompt to imagine a better future, articulate your wants, and practice optimism. That's your choice, but a telling one.

[danaris]

It's really hard to imagine how "truth is harder to find, more people lie with impunity, and convince others that their lies are true" could have a positive outcome.

Moreover, I think it's really hard overall to imagine a better future as long as all of this technology and power is in the hands of massively wealthy people who have shown their willingness to abuse it to maintain that wealth at our expense.

The optimistic future effectively requires some means of reclaiming some of that power and wealth for the rest of us.

[FloorEgg]

Yes, but, overwhelmingly we go where we look. Usually what is meaningful and worthwhile is hard. Also we get better at hard things when we practice doing them.

There is a concept in racing when taking a corner to "keep your eyes off the wall", and instead look where you want the car to go.

Imo the most scary part of the problems we face isn't what you or GP are talking about, it's everyone else's reactions to them. The staring at the wall while screaming or giving up, and refusing to look where you want to go.

It's harder to satisfy our wants if we cant articulate them.

[danaris]

Well, sure—and I am, in general, a very positive person.

But there's a huge difference between (a) "given that this thing exists that seems very bad, can you imagine a way to a better future?" and (b) "can you imagine ways that this thing that seems very bad could actually be very good?"

The ways to a better future are in spite of these developments, not because of them, and I don't think it's at all helpful to act like that's not the case or be all disappointed (and, frankly, a bit condescending) at people who refuse to play along with attempts to do so.

And it's possible that (a) above is what you meant, but your wording very much sounded like (b).

[FloorEgg]

When I read your comment the first time I felt uneasy about your (a) vs (b) framing, but didn't know how to address it head on. A while later I remembered this story told by Alan Watts. It seems relevant...

The Chinese Farmer Story

Once upon a time there was a Chinese farmer whose horse ran away. That evening, all of his neighbors came around to commiserate. They said, “We are so sorry to hear your horse has run away. This is most unfortunate.” The farmer said, “Maybe.”

The next day the horse came back bringing seven wild horses with it, and in the evening everybody came back and said, “Oh, isn’t that lucky. What a great turn of events. You now have eight horses!” The farmer again said, “Maybe.”

The following day his son tried to break one of the horses, and while riding it, he was thrown and broke his leg. The neighbors then said, “Oh dear, that’s too bad,” and the farmer responded, “Maybe.”

The next day the conscription officers came around to conscript people into the army, and they rejected his son because he had a broken leg. Again all the neighbors came around and said, “Isn’t that great!” Again, he said, “Maybe.”

The whole process of nature is an integrated process of immense complexity, and it’s really impossible to tell whether anything that happens in it is good or bad — because you never know what will be the consequence of the misfortune; or, you never know what will be the consequences of good fortune.

— Alan Watts

On a personal level, I have experienced some pretty catastrophic failures that taught me important lessons which I was able to leverage into even greater future success.

So honestly, I am fine with (a) or (b) and I think either are reasonable questions. Really all I am trying to do is encourage you to aim up and articulate that aim. I am not doing a great job, but I am trying.

[FloorEgg]

I asked three questions. Two were about the kind of future we want. One was about how we might get there. I know the “how” question can feel overwhelming. It often does for me too, and I think about it a lot.

What I find curious is that no one has really engaged with any of these questions yet. Not even to reflect personally on why. That’s not a criticism, it’s an observation. I think it’s worth asking what makes this kind of conversation so difficult.

When I said that declining to imagine a better future was telling, I didn’t mean it as a put-down. I meant it as a challenge. Because when we stop trying to define what better looks like, we give up our power to those who will define it for us. History shows where that leads. That’s how authoritarianism takes root; not only through force, but through the quiet surrender of imagination and personal responsibility.

If my earlier tone came across as condescending, that wasn’t my intent. My intention is tough love. I believe that acknowledging problems matters, but it’s not enough. If we stop there, we trade agency for frustration. I’d rather see us wrestle with what we want, even if it’s hard, than resign ourselves to cynicism.

So I’ll ask again: what kind of future would you actually want?

EDIT: I just realized that I missed part of an answer in your earlier comment, which I commend you for now. I apologize for not recognizing it before.

You said:

The optimistic future effectively requires some means of reclaiming some of that power and wealth for the rest of us.

Kudos. That's a start.

[Eisenstein]

Treating people like children is patronizing and I implore you to stop doing it.

[FloorEgg]

You’re right, and I’m sorry.

The way I phrased that was patronizing. It wasn't my intention, but I see now how it comes across.

It seems to me like the attention economy's bias towards threatening novel news is pushing everyone into a negative, cynical, feedback loop, and I am trying clumsily to resist that. There are many real problems and many things seem to be going in the wrong direction, but I don't see how we all get ourselves out of this mess if we can't start talking about what the other side (of the despair) looks like.

I suspect that another mistake I made was the timing/context. For some reason, in the moment, I thought redirecting the cynicism at it's source (a Sora thread) was a good idea. It probably wasn't. I guess there is a time and place to try and inspire hope, and this wasn't it. And judging you for not engaging in it deserves a facepalm in hindsight.

Please accept my apology, and if you think my stance itself is misguided (not just my tone and timing), I would like to understand why.

[Eisenstein]

I don't think you need to apologize, but I will graciously accept it.

I feel your response was misguided because by framing it as my responsibility to see a future with some benefit and casting the refusal to do so under the current terms as a failure of character, you are doing the equivalent of saying to an bottom rung MLM seller that they just aren't trying hard enough.

If the system is skewed in such as way as to prevent the person from being able to gain in it, then making it their fault for not seeing a way through that makes you appear manipulative and tends to make your motives suspect.