Hi everyone,

Whew!  "Is it hot in here, or is it me?"  . . .  hmmm,  must be that global
warming thing.  :-)

My original post wasn't really about global warming at all, or about the
greenhouse effect for that matter.  MY post was about despair, and the
debilitating effects it can have on us as individuals and as a society.

>
>Jim here:  I guess I just don't think it's time yet to "despair," if for no
>other reason that it can result in apathy, listlessness, and inaction in
>the face of issues that really do need to be addressed.  Please note that I
>am not trying to pick on Chris (Lees) here; in fact, I have admired his
>passion for the environment ever since we locked horns over the past year
>during our various discussions about hunting on this list.  But I just
>don't see how either despair or extreme rhetoric helps matters all that
>much.

Despair *is* a moral issue.  In my copy of Roget's, "despair" is listed
under "hopelessness."  Related terms include words like futility,
pessimism, negativism, disconsolateness . . . .  Verb forms include:
"despair, despair of, despond . . . falter, lose hope, lose heart, abandon
hope, give up hope, give up, give up all hope or expectation, give way,
fall or sink into despair, give oneself up or yield to despair, turn one's
face to the wall."

I'm more than happy to let others more qualified than I, including Paul
Kirby, Recursive Steve, and yes, even Chris Lees (although his sources are
suspect <grin>) debate the state-of-the-science with regard to global
warming.  While I have paid some attention to this issue over the past few
years, I am sure that I will benefit from their continued discussion of the
technical aspects of global warming here in this forum--and I am sure
others here benefit as well.

But Chris's response to my comments about despair well illustrates some of
the negative effects that pessimism can have on discussion; and as a result
I was reminded of a section in Nicholas Rescher's book, _Ethical Idealism:
An Inquiry into the Nature and Function of Ideals_ (U. Cal. Press, 1987).
Rescher describes and discusses what he calls "attitudinal optimism," a
term that draws inspiration from the works of Hegel and William James.
Whereas meliorism or "tendency optimism" implies a naive faith and/or
simple belief that things tend inevitably to get better, attitudinal
optimism is "not a matter of predictive foreknowledge so much as hopeful
expectation in the absence of contrary information."

Rescher notes that attitudinal optimism is especially appropriate, both
morally and pragmatically, under conditions of uncertainty, "where the
established facts are insufficient or indecisive, neither resting on the
facts of the matter, nor defying them."  It is an especially appropriate
attitude to hold when we are in doubt as to what the future may have in
store for us.  Thus the attitude of optimism, he says, "is a point of
practical policy rather than one of factual foreknowledge" (99).

That the emotional battle between despair and optimism should be at the
center of our moral deliberations about issues like global warming should
come as no surprise.  Despair can lead to loss of hope, resignation, or, as
we have seen on this list, to anger, accusations, and empty-headed
assertions such as "Humans suck."   Surely such slogans are unhelpful at
best . . . .  In the long run this misanthropic sentiment may turn out to
have a much more lasting and damaging impact on future generations and on
the environment than we can now predict.

In contrast, I believe an attitude of optimism is justified.  Rescher
devotes an entire chapter to "Optimism and Pessimism: On the Pragmatic
Power of Expectations," which I believe to be relevant to the current
discussion (argument? feud?  donnybrook!) on this list.  I hope that the
list members will indulge me in quoting just a few short sections from that
chapter.

Rescher writes:  "Attitudinal optimism is thus a matter of outlook and
perception--or attitude rather than expectation.  The tendency optimist
[i.e. meliorist] counsels *patience* : 'Wait!  Things will get better.'
The attitudinal optimist counsels *confidence* : 'Hope!  Don't let your
spirit be crushed by present adversity.  Spirit is something too valuable
to be diminished by events whose overall worth in the larger scheme of
things isn't all that big.'  Attitudinal optimism accordingly represents a
fundamentally *evaluative* rather than a factually *predictive* posture"
(100).

My point to Chris originally was that regardless of the uncertainty
inherent in any discussion of the scientific or factual basis of global
warming, and *even* in the face of potential climate catastrophe in the
future, the appropriate response is NOT pessimism and despair.  Despair can
only be counterproductive.  Despair yields no benefits.

Now, I know by now Chris's eyes are probably just about glazed over in
frustration at what he sees and chooses to interpret as 'Jesuitical'
philosophical rationalizations and continued semantic hair-splitting.  But
Rescher argues, utilizing insights from decision theory and elsewhere, that
pessimism is rarely either rationally OR morally justified.  "The advantage
of optimism is that it need not be predictively warranted to be
pragmatically useful," he writes.  "Even if it eventuates as not justified
in actual historical fact, attitudinal optimism can induce us to make
things better than they otherwise would be.  This sort of thing cannot
happen with attitudinal pessimism" (111).

(As an aside, upon rereading that passage, I cannot help but think of
Roberto Benigni's recent film, _Life is Beautiful_.  If you haven't seen it
. . . see it.)

In other words, even if global warming is occurring, it is better to
maintain an attitude of optimism than one of despair.

Thus, Rescher notes, there is a curious asymmetry between optimism and
pessimism.  "A pessimistic attitude is of advantage only if pessimism is
correct as a substantive position and things are indeed going downhill,
while an optimistic attitude *can* also be useful when the reverse of its
expectations is the case."   In other words, pessimism is justified if and
only if things are going downhill, with 100 per cent certainty.  Chris's
Titanic allegory is indeed an apt context to illustrate justified
pessimism, but ONLY *after* the ship hits the iceberg--in which case there
simply can be no doubt that things are going "downhill."

Now, I'm going to spare the list the gory details of Rescher's technical
analysis of the rationality of optimism, but let me say to folks like Paul
and Recursive Steve, and possibly Ray Lanier, who have been trading in
phrases like "beyond reasonable doubt," "on the balance of probabilities,"
"magnitudes of the probabilities," and "magnitudes of influence," that they
may enjoy the bulk of Rescher's technical discussion of this topic.

Instead, let me now reiterate my message to Chris (and to anyone else who
is still listening <grin>).  Here, I am content to let Rescher speak for
me, because as far as I know and to the best of my knowledge, Nicholas
Rescher has never advocated the killing of animals for "mere fun" and/or
any of the other ghastly things that I seem to have advocated in the past
that will interfere with Chris's reading comprehension.  And, contrary to
Jamey's repeated lumping of my various philosophical positions into her
catchall "Jim-says-killing-is-best" basket, I honestly believe that a
guarded optimism is the best policy when it comes to environmental ethics
and environmental problems (global warming included), because as Nicholas
says, optimism is by its very nature "life enhancing" (112):

--"An optimistic attitude imples its owner-operator to act with
confidence--to run risks in hopeful expectancy that things will go well. It
supports activity and enterprise.  A pessimistic attitude tends to
immobilize.  If one confidently expects the worse (or worst), there is
little point save in safeguards and insurance.  And a sufficiently deep
pessimism will dissuade one even from taking such measures becase one
expects they will prove unavailing.  Insofar as these attitudinal matters
lie within our control, we do well to favor the optimistic approach.  Hope
invites the penalty of disappointment but has the benefit of sustaining
courage in the face of adversity.  Pessimism invites inaction and, even
worse, a despair that brings no benefits at all.  We prefer optimism to
pessimism in our companions because optimism is by its very nature life
enhancing.

--"Little is more bleak and more inhumane than a life not actuated by some
hope of better things to come--if not for oneself and one's posterity, then
for one's successors at large.  Concern for our fellows and our species is
not altogether unselfish.  By taking such a stance we enlarge our stake in
the world's affairs and broaden the basis of that hopefulness that endows
our own life and labors with a significance it would otherwise lack.  The
extinction of hope is the ultimate evil."


Jim