Exactly. Hope without realism isn't particularly useful - but realism without hope and agency isn't either. And seems we agree technology gives us rather more reason for excitement than much of the current conversation suggests. Thanks for engaging.
I agree. Optimistic leadership helps young people face reality while believing in their ability to learn, create, solve problems and help shape a better future.
But there's different directions it can go, some with opposite effects to each other in regards to opportunity, culture, science, and more. whether AI is very good and generally serving people, and not the other way around, is directly effected by the institutional landscape it rolls out into because the designs of the institutional landscape has shaping effects on the technology, its design, its implementation, the methods of its deployment, the architecture of its embeddings in the economic and social worlds, and by extension, ultimately its technological-evolutionary pathways.
This is unavoidable because before it even arrives institutional frameworks are already shaping it as the technology is arriving into a structured field of ownership, capital structures and financial decision making architectures, infrastructural designs and controls, legal categories, jurisdictional architecture, and other important institutional dimensions
It is far more likely to end up overall serving people well if its rolled out in an institutional topology that makes for deliberate redundancy, policy variability, with the multiple different sorts of decision making related to it occur in a widely and deeply federated way (which outright requires redundancy and policy variability)
I'm a climate scientist and I have worked for a long time in the space of climate and energy policy. I talk to students occasionally. I try as best I can to counter the message of doom and despair that seems to pervade many parts of the media, especially around the issue of climate change. It's a real issue, entailing real risks and real impacts, some of which are emerging now.
But the apocalypticism that seems to surround discourse around the phrase "climate change" is dangerous in its own way. I think it encourages a form of nihilism, along the lines of "we're doomed [because of climate change], so why bother trying to do anything?" I hate to see this being done to anyone, but especially to impressionable young people.
So I always remind them we [humanity] have solved a great many environmental problems already. In modern cities (many, not all), air and water quality have improved significantly over recent decades. Because of air and water pollution controls, modern sewage systems and water treatment, vehicle pollution controls etc.
Climate change is also a "pollution" problem of its own though it differs from the earlier pollution issues we've dealt with. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse are not "pollutants" in the sense that they act as toxins as such. Also the long time scales of the climate system - especially CO2 buffering, ice sheet mass balance, ocean heat uptake and redistribution - mean the problem won't be turned around quickly.
But we have solutions: nuclear energy, solar, batteries, CO2 removal, clean(er) gas turbines, and climate adaptation, among other solutions, are available and are being deployed and improved.
So my message to students: whatever you are interested in studying you can help. Aside from the obvious need for engineers and scientists; lawyers, economists and others are all needed to help develop solutions to a wide range of environmental and social challenges.
Not only is carbon dioxide not a pollutant in the traditional sense, it is not clearly ANY kind of pollutant. Yes, warming -- whether natural, anthropogenic, or a combination -- will impose costs in places but also benefits such as increased greening and agricultural productivity, and reduced deaths from cold (which vastly outnumbers heat-related deaths).
Thanks - this is exactly the kind of perspective that can move things forward: take the risks seriously, but take human ingenuity and adaptation seriously too. I also always become wary whenever a complex problem is presented as having only one institutional solution - especially ever-greater centralisation of power. With so much money, policy and institutional interest now tied up also in climate, it can be genuinely difficult to know what is impartial. All the more reason for openness, competing approaches and a focus on what actually works.
This article really resonated with me because it reflects much of what I see in the world around us. I've tried to teach my girls to look beyond the negativity, think for themselves, and understand that they control their future. Ultimately, it's up to them to create the life they want, and I believe messages like this are important reminders that hope, effort, and personal responsibility still matter.
Well said, Matthew. Optimistic leadership starts close to home: helping young people think for themselves, see possibility and believe they can take responsibility for shaping the life and future they want.
Thank you, Mark. Fostering optimism is so important, especially for young people: we need to face reality honestly while helping them see that the future is not predetermined and that they have the power to help shape it.
It is very important to impart with young people hope for the future while also being realistic. The future of technology is incredibly exciting.
Exactly. Hope without realism isn't particularly useful - but realism without hope and agency isn't either. And seems we agree technology gives us rather more reason for excitement than much of the current conversation suggests. Thanks for engaging.
Always great to see fellow New England people reading the good news!
I agree. Optimistic leadership helps young people face reality while believing in their ability to learn, create, solve problems and help shape a better future.
But there's different directions it can go, some with opposite effects to each other in regards to opportunity, culture, science, and more. whether AI is very good and generally serving people, and not the other way around, is directly effected by the institutional landscape it rolls out into because the designs of the institutional landscape has shaping effects on the technology, its design, its implementation, the methods of its deployment, the architecture of its embeddings in the economic and social worlds, and by extension, ultimately its technological-evolutionary pathways.
This is unavoidable because before it even arrives institutional frameworks are already shaping it as the technology is arriving into a structured field of ownership, capital structures and financial decision making architectures, infrastructural designs and controls, legal categories, jurisdictional architecture, and other important institutional dimensions
It is far more likely to end up overall serving people well if its rolled out in an institutional topology that makes for deliberate redundancy, policy variability, with the multiple different sorts of decision making related to it occur in a widely and deeply federated way (which outright requires redundancy and policy variability)
This is a great essay.
I'm a climate scientist and I have worked for a long time in the space of climate and energy policy. I talk to students occasionally. I try as best I can to counter the message of doom and despair that seems to pervade many parts of the media, especially around the issue of climate change. It's a real issue, entailing real risks and real impacts, some of which are emerging now.
But the apocalypticism that seems to surround discourse around the phrase "climate change" is dangerous in its own way. I think it encourages a form of nihilism, along the lines of "we're doomed [because of climate change], so why bother trying to do anything?" I hate to see this being done to anyone, but especially to impressionable young people.
So I always remind them we [humanity] have solved a great many environmental problems already. In modern cities (many, not all), air and water quality have improved significantly over recent decades. Because of air and water pollution controls, modern sewage systems and water treatment, vehicle pollution controls etc.
Climate change is also a "pollution" problem of its own though it differs from the earlier pollution issues we've dealt with. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse are not "pollutants" in the sense that they act as toxins as such. Also the long time scales of the climate system - especially CO2 buffering, ice sheet mass balance, ocean heat uptake and redistribution - mean the problem won't be turned around quickly.
But we have solutions: nuclear energy, solar, batteries, CO2 removal, clean(er) gas turbines, and climate adaptation, among other solutions, are available and are being deployed and improved.
So my message to students: whatever you are interested in studying you can help. Aside from the obvious need for engineers and scientists; lawyers, economists and others are all needed to help develop solutions to a wide range of environmental and social challenges.
Not only is carbon dioxide not a pollutant in the traditional sense, it is not clearly ANY kind of pollutant. Yes, warming -- whether natural, anthropogenic, or a combination -- will impose costs in places but also benefits such as increased greening and agricultural productivity, and reduced deaths from cold (which vastly outnumbers heat-related deaths).
Thanks - this is exactly the kind of perspective that can move things forward: take the risks seriously, but take human ingenuity and adaptation seriously too. I also always become wary whenever a complex problem is presented as having only one institutional solution - especially ever-greater centralisation of power. With so much money, policy and institutional interest now tied up also in climate, it can be genuinely difficult to know what is impartial. All the more reason for openness, competing approaches and a focus on what actually works.
And so much pessimism comes from the classroom. The young are often activists in training.
This article really resonated with me because it reflects much of what I see in the world around us. I've tried to teach my girls to look beyond the negativity, think for themselves, and understand that they control their future. Ultimately, it's up to them to create the life they want, and I believe messages like this are important reminders that hope, effort, and personal responsibility still matter.
Many thanks, Matthew. Giving young people problems without reminding them of their capacity to act is a pretty poor bargain.
very true
Well said, Matthew. Optimistic leadership starts close to home: helping young people think for themselves, see possibility and believe they can take responsibility for shaping the life and future they want.
Thank you, Mark. Fostering optimism is so important, especially for young people: we need to face reality honestly while helping them see that the future is not predetermined and that they have the power to help shape it.
Great piece
Was AI used to 'polish' this essay? There are far too many AI phrases for this to have been fully written by a human.