I don’t disagree with either of you, but as @katharinehayhoe.com and Rebecca Solnit keep reminding us, we don’t have the luxury of being pessimistic about our future, because despair favors inaction.

And how's the luxury of "be optimistic about our future" been working out for favouring action over the last 50 years?

lololol i just reread this in my notif.'s wtf OF COURSE IT WOULD BE GOOD THINKING you got a fuckin' PHD IDIOT slinkin' off, i'll see myself out lol

good thinkin'

When people feel optimistic, it's much harder to spur them into uncomfortable change. I think some good old-fashioned fear of catastrophic change makes it possible to consider paths that would be otherwise close (ie, "completely stop burning oil within 10 years.")

Being pessimistic isn't a luxury, it's the reality. And I disagree that despair favors inaction. It favors action on the science front, because as weak as it is, it's the only thing we can do in the face of political inaction.

One issue here may be the narrow definitions we give ourselves via professional affiliation. I know multiple cultural heritage professionals who are fed up with saving objects in a burning world—with nonexistent budgets, censorship etc etc—who are looking to put their remaining optimism elsewhere.