Is eternal hope better than pragmatic appraisal?
I have heard it so many times: "do not give up" and "don't tell people there is no hope" because if we give up we surely lose everything. And it may be true.
On the other hand, if you were a doctor, would you not tell a terminally ill patient that he has probably 3 months left to live, so he can put his affairs in order, instead of starting a long-term project, wasting the last 3 months on futility?
If you are an old person and have few years left, would you want to spend them on a most likely futile effort to help save mankind, instead of making your peace with the world?
If you are a parent and are convinced that the future will be really awful, should you not advise your children not to procreate?
I am sure there arguments for both sides, I can't wait to hear them.
@ alien
Yes, I think a person has a right to the truth, but with respect to the future, who knows exactly what that will be?
It's a bit of a double bind. A person who is sensitive to our excesses might want to not bring new people into the world, but there are surely plenty of people who are not aware of that or do not care have no such reservations.
So does refusing to have kids outweigh raising people who might help change our destructive patterns?
In any case, I think there is always hope. If someone doesn't want to bring people into the world just because he or she doesn't want them to suffer it begs the question of why that person doesn't end his or her own life. Likewise, if someone doesn't want to have kids in order to reduce overpopulation that is a personal decision.
In any case, birth rates in developed countries have been levelling off for years anyway. I think the problem is more a matter of education and access to birth control than the myth that people just breed like rabbits.
I would never advise my kids advise my kids to not have children (though I would have no problem advising them to consider the options) because that is their decision, not mine. To impose my decisions on them that way would be just as manipulative as if I coerced my kid to be the doctor, actor or athlete I couldn't be.
(edit)
And although I don't know exactly what your motivation is, telling a child that there is no future and life is not worth living WOULD be a terrible and unfair thing to do.
There's always some hope, even if it's limited in it's scope. No, the terminally-ill patient told they have three months to live almost certainly won't be with us next year but they might hang on long enough for some special event or anniversary - and often do.
For the record and to clarify: I meant "adult children" who may think about having children in the near future.
The 'procreation' example was only one of three. This thread is NOT about procreation, it is about hope versus pragmatism in ALL areas of human decision making. It would be nice if many examples were discussed where one or the other may have an advantage
@Doug
Of course "There's always some hope", that goes without saying. In an infinite universe, the probability of anything is 50% - either it happens or not. Who knows, the Vegans may save us in the last second?
However, humans make decisions and act on realistic appraising of their chances. If the appraisal results in a 95% - 5% distribution of probabilities, then we ought to act accordingly. We may be wrong and the 5% chance would have come through but that's life -- we always gamble and sometime win against the odds, more often lose.
@ alien
Actually I spent less time explaining my position on it, but I think we have no choice but to embrace hope, as hard as it may be. To do otherwise just helps the forces working against us. And I'll say again, who knows what will happen in the future (and this is not a denial of the very dire things which are ahead of us)?
And I don't think giving up hope is necessarily more pragmatic. One doesn't have to abandon hope just because one is realistic about our situation. SO long as we are alive and choose to act we can influence the world around us. Giving up hope is simply giving up our power and handing it over to others.
oops
Here is another example. This time from political life. Voters often vote "pragmatically" for the least of 2 evils (Harper versus Ignatieff) even though they would like to vote NDP or Green. The argument of course is: "if everyone thought like this then the NDP or Greens would never get in". Which is true, of course. However, my single, individual, secret ballot on election day will not affect the votes of anyone else so the argument fails.
So my personal decision comes down to this: do I vote for the Greens or the NDP (5% probability in my riding, alas) or do I vote Liberal because I really, really dislike Harper. Do I base my vote on unrealistic Hope or on Pragmatism?
I agree with this entirely.
However, this thread is about deciding and acting, based either on Hope or on Pragmatism. Even if I decide and act on my pragmatic appraisal of the situation, I may still continue hoping that my appraisal was incorrect and all will be well.
People don't like the truth, they can't handle the truth, they will turn away from you if you try to tell them the truth.
The harder a truth it is, the less of an audience you will have for it.
Tell them whatever they want to hear, what else can you do ?
Get your garden in, stock up on canned food.
And NEVER shut up.
The ONLY difference? That's what you say until you are an old person!
Another exmple for pragmatism versus hope (faith in this case) was the famous quote attributed to Oliver Cromwell at the Battle of Dunbar, on September 3, 1650. A nervous Cromwell spent the night riding from regiment to regiment by torchlight on a small Scottish pony, telling his troops to:
"... Put your trust in God, my boys -- and keep your powder dry!"
You can't (and shouldn't) choose between pragmatism and hope. Hope without pragmatism is blind. Pragmatism without hope is pointless.
I think there is a shortage of pragmatic thinking, particularly when there are choices that pit economy against environment. The great majority of scientists who study in areas related to ecology agree that we're living ecologically well beyond our means. And there is no logical basis for an argument that the economy can do well without a healthy ecology. Yet anyone who tries to suggest that we need to put the brakes on economic growth is treated as part of the lunatic fringe.
I don't think the problem is excess hope. Rather, I think that we, like most organisms are genetically predisposed to worry more about the present than the future. So, a present urge to satisfy desires will outweigh a future fear of potential catastrophe.
If our intelligence can't overtake our desires, ultimately, I think we are doomed as a species (we've already doomed lots of other species but I guess that's called collateral damage
).
But I still have hope.
+To follow on Reefer Madness's thoughts... I also think that those of us who are in a more comfortable position tend to worry an inordinate amount as compared to some people whose lives are a lot more precarious. Not to say that there is nothing to be concerned about, but those of us who are further removed from harsh reality seem to be the most paralyzed by fear and dread. Many other people in the world are just too busy trying to stay alive.
I was at a music festival this summer (Ness Creek) and some people from Ecuador acted out one of their traditional stories. I am paraphrasing, but you should get the idea:
There was a fire in the forest, and all the animals ran into the river to get away from the flames. No one knew what to do, but the hummingbird picked up drops of water with its beak, and flew back and forth into the inferno to drop water on the flames.
The rabbit laughed at the hummingbird, and said it was silly to think the flames could be put out with just a few drops.
The deer was afraid for the hummingbird, and said that it was taking a risk of being killed by the blaze,
The bear was furious, and swiped at the humming bird, growling "What do you think you are doing? You'll never put out that fire!"
"Maybe so," said the hummingbird, "but at least I will have done my part."
As I have pointed out (so far in vain) in my previous posts: you can be pragmatic AND keep hoping at the same time. The thread is about what you BASE your decisions on AT DECISION TIME. Like that voting example I gave. Or the old man's dilemma. Or decision about procreation.
So many people hate to admit sad truths as Pope Teddywang pointed out in an earlier post.
People love their illusions and hang on to them way beyond what is rational.
Like all the Jews in Nazi Germany who said Hitler would never do those things he was ranting about. The few who knew better left. The rest relocated to concentration camps and gas chambers.
I know, I know, we are emotional creatures, but as I pointed out in another thread, people shouldn't allow emotions to muddle their thinking.
One typical example: most people, when asked, would say that they would not want to know the year they would die. The rational thing would be to want to know, so you can plan the rest of your life intelligently. Yet, most people chooose ignorance to be able to maintain the illusion of living forever, or at least to a very ripe old age, far distant in the future.
as much as things look pretty shitty right now, i think it's probably good to remember the world is a much more civilized place than it was even 50 years ago. If we keep going at that rate, it should continue to improve. I think we all tend to look at these things in the sense of "in my lifetime" but on the scale of history our lifetimes are pretty miniscule.
If we are going at the rate we have been going (in every sense) we do not have another 50 years (Russia burning, Europe suffocating, Pakistan and China drowning, ice-caps breaking up, oceans turning into sewers, etc., etc)
I am sure most of you have heard the following joke: A guy falls off the top of a skyscraper and is overheard, as he is sailing by the 54th floor window, muttering to himself: "OK so far!"
Now that is eternal hope as opposed to pragmatic appraisal.
Resurrected thread for George's benefit. Save repeating all my arguments.
Kubler-Ross wrote a fair bit on your questions in the OP alien.
Caissa, from what Wikipedia tells me, it appears that she was primarily concerned with death and dying. If I am wrong, please correct me, I would like to find large-scope literature on this subject.
I tried to make this thread a lot wider in scope: applicable to the human decision-making process in every walk of life, be it health, family, career, politics, survival, etc.
She addressed your first two paragraphs in the OP. She has a small work on Q and A re. Death and Dying. Some of the answers show a wider philosophy of life.
Questions & Answers on Death & Dying, (Simon & Schuster/Touchstone), 1972
Is any of it online, Caissa, I would like to take a peek. Where I live it is very hard to find a good library nearby, so I mostly read stuff online or what I order in.
You might try her foundation's site
http://www.ekrfoundation.org/