The reasonableness of optimism vs. pessimism

27 August 2019

How optimistic or pessimistic is it rational to be when it comes to contemplating the future?

More specifically (and a crucial question for our species): How should we rate our chances of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels?

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, limiting warming to 1.5 degrees is still geophysically possible – which is not to say that it would be easy. It would require unprecedented action: rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, a sharp shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy, and the coordinated drawdown and sequestering of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. At present it seems unlikely that such drastic changes will occur quickly enough. And even if they did, a rise of 1.5 degrees would still make for a very different world than the one we know, challenged by more extreme impacts of climate change. But the IPCC’s verdict at least leaves room for optimism that planet Earth will remain liveable.

Yet we’ve recently been hearing more pessimistic reports from other scientists and citizens who have disputed the accuracy of the IPCC’s data. I’m not talking here about anti-scientific climate denialists whose counter-claims are easily refuted. I’m talking about reputable climate safety advocates like David Spratt and Ian Dunlop, whose recent report ‘What Lies Beneath’ highlights the IPCC’s tendency towards conservative projections, scholarly reticence and a downplaying of the more extreme and damaging outcomes of climate change. In particular, Spratt and Dunlop criticise the IPCC’s decision to exclude positive feedback loops from its climate projections. This decision is irresponsible, they argue, as it underplays the extreme risks of tipping points that could lead to step changes in the climate system that pose an existential threat to life.

Others have added further detail to this gloomy picture of what the future holds. Roger Hallam, a founder of the social movement Extinction Rebellion, argues in his lecture ‘Time to Act Now’ that a temperature rise of at least 2 degrees is inevitable. Even if emissions were to stop tomorrow, he says, a 2 degree rise is already locked in, given the combined effects of the ‘carbon lag’ (according to which the delayed effects of previous decades of emissions will be later felt); the loss of ‘global dimming’ (i.e. pollution shielding us from the sun’s rays) as a result of any drawdown efforts; and the release of carbon from the soil as global warming continues.

Prof Schellnhuber, a global leader in the climate science community, warns that what is now at stake “is the very survival of our civilisation” and that “climate change is now reaching the end-game, where very soon humanity must choose between taking unprecedented action, or accepting that it has been left too late and bear the consequences.”

Which view – the pessimistic or the optimistic – is more reasonable? Is it really the case that everything’s going to hell in a handbasket, and despair is fully justified? Or is such an attitude merely the result of self-indulgence, or a failure of the imagination – a failure to recognise the potential of future technological innovation and democratic renewal?

And if we take an optimistic view, is this because that’s justified by the available evidence, or is it simply because optimism is so essential to our survival that it’s hardwired into our brains, as cognitive neuroscientist Tali Sharot has claimed?

If we’re pessimistic, is it because the news cycle is dragging us down rabbit-holes of negativity? (We know that alarming news often arrives suddenly and grabs lots of attention, whereas positive developments tend to unfold so gradually that they aren’t even considered newsworthy.)

And in a hyper-connected world of addictive and sometimes fear-mongering clickbait, how can we figure out how hopeful or nihilistic it actually makes to sense to feel?

In a Guardian article entitled ‘Is the world really better than ever?’, Oliver Burkeman suggests that “the world we have created … is so complex, volatile and unpredictable that catastrophe might befall us at any moment.” His interviewee, political scientist David Runciman, says that “human beings still have the capacity to mess it all up. And it may be that our capacity to mess it up is growing.” Runciman further suggests that “it’s perfectly rational to be freaked out” in a world where everything could collapse tomorrow. Burkeman concludes that “everything really is pretty fragile” and that, in light of the instability and unpredictability of progress, “for people to feel deeply uneasy about the world we inhabit now… seems to me reasonable.”

Does it seem this way to you, too?

If so, I can offer two tonics:

(1) Hans Rosling, author of ‘Factfulness’, has argued with reference to global health that our despondency about the future is unjustified. It’s not just that we’re ignorant of the facts, he argues, but worse: we’re actively convinced of depressing ‘factoids’ that aren’t true. A recent example of this phenomenon in the climate context, it seems to me, is the widespread reporting this week that the Amazon produces 20% of the world’s oxygen. This statistic – especially alarming given the extensive fires burning – proved to be false: it turns out to be more like 6%. I highlight this discrepancy not to trivialise the damage caused by the fires, nor to underestimate the role of the Amazon as a carbon sink or the risks of deforestation due to mining, logging and farming. It’s just that we need to be alert to media fabrication – regardless of whether it presses an environmental point (as in the case of the Amazon’s oxygen generation) or whether it presses an anti-environmental point (as in last week’s false report about Extinction Rebellion activists in Queensland setting booby traps).

(2) You might want to visit Reasons To Be Cheerful, and online magazine (founded by artist and musician by David Byrne) that reveals smart, proven, replicable solutions to the world’s most pressing problems.

…………………………..