[carlosft]

> We are living through a moment of deep cynicism about our ability to solve existential problems.

I have no doubt that we can create a really miraculous future. I am just increasingly pessimistic about our collective desire to do so.

[jackyinger]

Cultivating optimism is the first step. Optimism is irrational, you can just choose to have it (of course thinking about good things that have happened helps). Optimism is the precondition for doing good.

So what if there’s a low collective will at the moment. Do your part to be part to grow the collective will to good. Go volunteer for a good cause (food bank, community organizations, etc.), donate to good causes, just be friendly to other people you see.

[overfeed]

I mostly agree with what you said, but disagree on one point:

> Optimism is the precondition for doing good.

It is still possible to do good when things are bleak and there is no possible way out - just because doing good is the right thing[1]. Optimism helps a lot for morale, but is not a precondition.

1. e.g. the 2 people who were pictured comforting each other while trapped at the top of a burning wind turbine.

[JumpCrisscross]

> the 2 people who were pictured comforting each other while trapped at the top of a burning wind turbine

Optimism doesn't necessarily mean hope. It can mean belief in an afterlife. An end to a suffering. Or gratitude for having someone else in a terrible moment.

I think OP is correct. You can't have good without optimism. Your point, which is also correct, is you can do good without hope.

[overfeed]

From the Oxford dictionary:

op·ti·mism (noun): hopefulness and confidence about the future or the successful outcome of something.

[JumpCrisscross]

The term has a philosophical heritage way richer than a dictionary one liner. I’m using one that makes OP’s statement make sense.

[overfeed]

The philosophical definition just opens up bigger cans of worms that can't be adequately addressed in an HN thread, and have been debated for thousands of years: what is "good"? Perhaps we need a moral framework to answer that, but then, what are morals? "You can't have good without optimism" is a declaration that has to be contextualized, and is far from universal.

I suspect answers couched in terms of individualism will always sound inadequate to questions that are inherently collectivist, such as why people do things "for the greater good" detrimental to their own well-being.

[kiba]

Wouldn't say optimism is irrational. There are good things happening in the world in spite of all the bad things in the world.

Pessimism that leads to a self fulfilling prophecy is irrational, but you still need a win. A win is fuel.

[quesera]

Choosing a belief that is more desirable than the most likely case, is by definition irrational, and can be called optimistic.

Choosing a belief that is less desirable than the most likely, is equally irrational, clearly pessimistic, and often self-fulfilling.

So the ideal belief system is irrational (optimistic) but only to a chosen and realistic extent.

Somewhere between Pollyanna and Eeyore, but more P than E. And as irrational psychologies go, moderate-P is by far the more successful of the two.

[quesera]

> Cultivating optimism is the first step

I agree with this, and I recognize it as the good intentions behind faith communities.

People are (statistically) terrible at creating optimism on a blank canvas. They need narratives and common points of understanding.

And then the other side of human nature gets to take its swing at the mass of optimistic people with a shared belief system. :)

[hn_acc1]

I had a lot of optimism as a teenager in the 80s. And maybe even more during Obama's presidency. Then 2016, 2020, 2024-2026 hit, and I'm at like -89% for optimism.

[mmooss]

> Optimism is irrational

That is an argument of the pessimists and enemies of the good.

Pessimism is clearly irrational: Look at the world we live in; look what humanity has achieved since the Enlightenment, and in the last century - freedom, peace, and prosperity have swept the world. Diseases are wiped out, we visit the moon and (robotically) other planets, the Internet, etc. etc. etc.

To be pessimistic about our ability to build a better world is bizarre.

[pluralmonad]

Pessimism and optimism are philosophical perspectives (dispositions) and do not necessarily have anything do with doing good or doing bad. Why do you think optimism only precipitates good things? Surely you can imagine a situation (or many) where thinking more positively about a situation than the data warrants leads to bad outcomes?

[mmooss]

> Surely you can imagine a situation (or many) where thinking more positively about a situation than the data warrants leads to bad outcomes?

We're not talking about hypotheticals - we can always construct hypotheticals that yield the answer we desire - but the real world.

[pluralmonad]

None of your examples above tie directly to an optimistic disposition. How could you possibly know the disposition of the thousands of humans involved in those endeavors? You are letting your personal disposition color your view of the world (as we all do) and mistaking this for some sort of absolute truth.

[mschuster91]

> So what if there’s a low collective will at the moment. Do your part to be part to grow the collective will to good. Go volunteer for a good cause (food bank, community organizations, etc.), donate to good causes, just be friendly to other people you see.

The problem is, that way of thinking is just like the "co2 footprint" - individualise responsibility from where it belongs (=the government) to individual people, and let's be real, outside of the very last action item many people don't have the time and/or the money.

At some point, we (as in: virtually all Western nations) have to acknowledge that our governments are utter dogshit and demand better. Optimism requires trust in that what you work for doesn't get senselessly destroyed the next election cycle.

[XorNot]

Okay but also we all still live in democracies, and people are fairly obviously getting what they vote for a lot of the time.

Extrrnalising that to "the government" is to pretend you had no say, or to collectively try and pretend everyone else is with you & which they observably are not.

Edit: and before anyone responds with to me with a quip about money and corporations - money in politics buys advertising and campaigning. It doesn't buy votes directly, and when it does that's corruption and what's done about that is still largely on you the voter to set your priorities at the ballot box.

[secos]

You do not need optimism to do good. It helps motivate, but its not required.

[ryandrake]

> I am just increasingly pessimistic about our collective desire to do so.

It's not just a lack of desire (apathy). People who want to solve big, collective problems are increasingly up against groups who actively want to not solve the problems and/or make the problems worse. COVID, for example, was so much worse than it had to be, purely from people actively fighting efforts meant to contain it. Efforts to reverse or mitigate Climate Change are routinely and vigorously opposed.

[D-Coder]

For news about things that are going right, I suggest https://fixthenews.com/. You can get a free weekly email about progress in energy and the environment, national economies, health and medicine, crime etc (or pay for a longer weekly email).

[satvikpendem]

As they say, pessimists sound smart, optimists get things done (and make money along the way, if that is the goal).

[kimmeld]

When the the only thing CEOs talk about for every new technology is how many people they are going to put out of work because of it, the collective desire for new technology and progress is understandably lessened.

[crancher]

That you have the mental capacity/structures/language to form the thought should indicate the trajectory you're caught up within. It's disappointing that everything not's resolved during the blip you're you but even a moderately long view provides evidence for optimism.

[titzer]

It will rewire the hard sacrifice of limiting individual wealth to less than a billion dollars per person. Trajectory of present indicates we won't be doing that soon.

[lostlogin]

It would be interesting to know what portion of people disagree with your suggested cap, and why.

[ge96]

It is interesting, I wonder is it possible to get so rich and be kind, probably examples. I'm the kind poor person myself even what money I have I have given too much of it away. In which case I'm a dumbass for doing so but yeah.

[lostlogin]

The Gates Foundation used to be something that gave me hope. The recent revelations have coloured that.

Maybe I need to to separate the art from the artist?

[JumpinJack_Cash]

> > The Gates Foundation used to be something that gave me hope. The recent revelations have coloured that.

What revelations? That the guy at the helm of the Gates Foundation uses escorts?

Next thing you're gonna lose faith in Lady Gaga because she doesn't write her own songs...

[lostlogin]

> What revelations

His relationship with Epstein and the alleged secret dosing of his wife with antibiotics to clear an STD he gave Melinda from the escorts.

I hadn’t seen Bill’s denial of the STD claim when I made my comment and what went on there is murky according to the below. Bill denies and Melinda expresses sadness. What actually happened?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/02/04/business/melinda-bill-gat...

[tialaramex]

> Maybe I need to to separate the art from the artist?

Yes. We die but the consequences of our actions resonate indefinitely. Ideas make good idols and people do not. Better Родина-мать зовёт! (a statue in Stalingrad approximately "Motherland [ie Russia] calls") and Liberty, which are both definitely statues about ideas than the Lincoln Memorial for example, or even arguably the "Statue of Unity" which is named for Unity but in practice is explicitly a statue of a specific man - Sardar Patel.

[lostlogin]

I like this comment, as it both supports The Gates Foundation and condemns Bill Gates.

[ge96]

Yeah... I still listen to Drake for ex

[titzer]

In the US one can retire comfortably on $3 million without relying on Social Security. From the downvotes, it's crazy to me that people think a limit of 300 "ordinary people's" retirements is unreasonable.

I really don't think people understand how little difference there is between having $1 billion and $10 billion or even $100 billion. It makes no difference whatsoever to have that much money; they can't enjoy it.

[BobaFloutist]

I would at the very least index it to inflation.