Why we should all be hopeful

As it might be 'the only way' forward

Earlier today, Dr. Jason fox posted something on LinkedIn that I responded to. This process of doing a little back and forth, in relation to an incredibly confronting and challenging topic, inspired me to once again write about the usefulness of ‘active hope’.

For those who don’t want to read much, here’s a brief summary:

1. I define hope as ‘belief in the possibility of better’

2. Hope can and should be grounded in empiricism (in this case, the ‘best available balance of evidence’), and shouldn’t get too caught up in narrative biases about ‘human nature’ etc.

3. Acting on our collective belief in the possibility of better - exercising something like normative collective agency or ‘active hope’ - is not just a ‘nice’ to have’, but is likely an essential feature of any kind of equitable, just and biophysically compatible civilisational transformation

Now let’s get into a tad more detail. Starting with…

Definitions

Optimism: The belief that things will be better

Pessimism: The belief that things will be worse

Hope: The belief that things can be better, but that it largely ‘depends’ (which relates to organismic agency. Just don’t say that one too fast!)

Active hope: Acting positively based on the belief that things can be better

Going forward, when I use these words, this is how I’m using them. If you use them differently, that’s okay. Equivocation is everywhere (and I’m very likely guilty of it far too often). With that said, I’m confident that by opening up to productive tension with curiosity and care, we can work together to enhance the usefulness of our shared understanding.

Making the case

Some folks really struggle with the way I frame this. Their relation to optimism is a ‘good one’. But, as is the case with stuff like the Techno-Optimist Manifesto, I often find logical contradictions and all manner of issues in optimistic frames about our trajectory. I won’t get into the details, but I think there is something like a positivity bias here that somewhat disables a really grounded (in ‘reality’) perspective (the inverse is likely somewhat true with pessimistic positions).

When this tension arises, here’s how I respond…

Firstly, I attempt, as best as I can, to describe the relation between our historicity and something like a metacrisis framing (grounding my position in a decent balance of evidence) i.e. the fact that we are amidst a total global ecosystem of interconnected crises, and that said crises have common underlying drivers. I then describe some kind of vision for a socially vibrant, healthy (not tension free, but rather deeply capable of regularly and productively working with tension) world where all of humanity operates within ecological limits (in essence, a descriptive belief of what this possibility of better can actually look like). I then get into stuff that might help get us there, along with stuff I’m doing in service of that (again, grounded in what seems verifiably possible).

In this way I try to ‘show’ active hope.

You could think of this as a way to sequentially describe the more complete version of the futures cone (that also includes the past). This process covers:

1. The possibility space of where we came from

2. The historical trajectory of what most likely happened

3. Where we are today

4. The future trajectory we seem to be on

5. The possibilities that exist outside of that, from the very best to the very worst

6. A normative orientation (i.e. what we should be aiming for), and

7. Some of the actions that seem likely to put us on that normative (i.e. preferable) path

In this way I am trying to open people up to deeper inquiry, dialogue and experimentation that:

• Accepts a very broad possibility space

• Grounds the process of reasoning in the best available balance of evidence (whatever that practically means)

• Posits our ability as organisms to make choices that align to our values (this is not ‘free will’ the way it’s often been framed, but rather a somewhat bounded ability to act in relation to intentions in ways that have real effects on the world)

• Doesn’t make too many big, unverifiable assumptions about ‘human nature’ i.e. we are just a war mongering species) as this type of stuff typically fails to account for the power and impact of agent-arena relations and the mutual modelling process that comes with it, along with a heap of other important stuff

• Increases the overall probability that we find more ways to ‘do good’ in service of a better future we can enjoy together

After such discussions, it’s my hope that I have contributed to a seedling of sorts that may eventually lead to a reorientation. One that is actively hopeful.

Conclusion

In a simple and binary way, we either come together and learn to live far better with our differences, or we continue supporting a devastating collapse trajectory (and yes, this is the trajectory we seem to be on).

Positivity bias seems likely to fail us. As does negativity bias. Because of this, it’s active hope (or whatever you want to call it) that I believe must carry us forward.

Could I be wrong? Yes! Could we be ‘too far gone’? Yes! But, in the immortal words of Ed Sheeran (and of course, J.R.R Tolkien), “if this is to end in fire, then we should all burn together”.

I look forward to discussing. With love as always.