Reasons for Optimism

The Edge poses its annual question: "What are you optimistic about? Why?"

As an activity, as a state of mind, science is fundamentally optimistic. Science figures out how things work and thus can make them work better. Much of the news is either good news or news that can be made good, thanks to ever deepening knowledge and ever more efficient and powerful tools and techniques. Science, on its frontiers, poses more and ever better questions, ever better put.

What are you optimistic about? Why? Surprise us!

This question was posed to many brilliant thinkers, mainly scientists of varying disciplines. I particularly like Chris Anderson's answer:

Paradoxically, one of the biggest reasons for being optimistic is that there are systemic flaws in the reported world view. Certain types of news -- for example dramatic disasters and terrorist actions -- are massively over-reported, others -- such as scientific progress and meaningful statistical surveys of the state of the world -- massively under-reported. Although this leads to major problems such as distortion of rational public policy and a perpetual gnawing fear of apocalypse, it is also reason to be optimistic. Once you realize you're being inadvertently brainwashed to believe things are worse than they are, you can... with a little courage... step out into the sunshine. ... So for example, the publication last year of a carefully researched Human Security Report received little attention. Despite the fact that it had concluded that the numbers of armed conflicts in the world had fallen 40% in little over a decade. And that the number of fatalities per conflict had also fallen. Think about that. The entire news agenda for a decade, received as endless tales of wars, massacres and bombings, actually missed the key point. Things are getting better. If you believe Robert Wright and his NonZero hypothesis, this is part of a very long-term and admittedly volatile trend in which cooperation eventually trumps conflict.

Here are thoughts by many more:

• Philosopher Dan Dennett: The evaporation of the powerful mystique of religion.
• Psychologist Daniel Goleman: Transparency.
• The New Scientist's Alun Anderson: The sunlight-powered future.
• Psychologist Steven Pinker: The decline of violence.
• Howard "Smart Mobs" Rheingold: The tools for cultural production and distribution are in the hands of 14 year olds.
• Biotechonomy's Juan Enriquez: Leading millions out of poverty in a single generation.
• Science historian George Dyson: The return of commercial sail.
• Former Microsoft VP Linda Stone: People are using tech effectively to mediate toward a healthier global community.
• Biologist Brian Goodwin: Our ability as a species to respond to the challenge presented by peak oil.
• "Collapse"'s Jared Diamond: Good choices sometimes prevail.
• Google's Chris Dibona: Widely available, constantly renewing, high-res images of the Earth will end conflict and ecological devastation as we know it.
• Human genome decoder Craig Venter: Evidence-based decision-making will help transform society.
• Social networks researcher Clay Shirky: Evidence.
• Forecaster Paul Saffo: Humankind is particularly good at muddling.
• Anthropologist Helen Fisher: "Free love".
• Writer Cory Doctorow: Copying is what bits are for.

Read questions and answers from previous years here.

What Am I Optimistic About?

First, I'd have to run in the opposite direction of Philosopher Dan Dennett. I am optimistic that with advances in fields, such as the "Economics of Religion", scholars will not simply dismiss religion as the "opiate of the masses" but look at it from the standpoint of genuine academic inquiry.

There is a common tendency in the academy to dismiss religious thinking and religious people as being somehow ignorant, backwards looking, and hindering progress. The standard assumption is that as technology, scientific knowledge, and wealth all increase, religion will decline. This is something Professor Larry Iannaccone calls the "secularization theory".

This theory is that it presumes religions will fade away (or become socially irrelevant) due to the advance of science. What is ironic about the secularization theory is that there is nothing scientific about it at all. It has no data to support it, no evidence of trends favoring it, lots of evidence contradicting it, and yet people hold on to it with what appears to be religion-like faith. My hope is that as people begin to study religion seriously rather than condescendingly, it will bring about more respect for and insight about religion and religious people and the significant role religion may play in bringing about development and working as a stabilizing force in society. It may also go a long way towards respecting other people's "right to be wrong".

Second, I am also optimistic about the upcoming advances in medicine/biotech such as the recent possible treatment for diabetes. I am hopeful much progress will soon be made against cancer, nerve/spinal damage, and other diseases and injuries. I am also optimistic about the potential of nanotechnology, further advances in computer technology, and economic progress in the poorest areas of the world. My hope is that the world will move closer together through the magic of political and economic freedom and that economic education will improve so people better understand the benefits of mutual exchange. The more we are able to communicate and trade with one other, the more I believe peace will prevail and people will prosper.

Third, I am optimistic about issues regarding evidence-based research and decision-making. While I agree with much of what both Venter and Shirky wrote, I fear the over-stretch of this type of thinking. While it is true that evidence-based reasoning has brought about tremendous gains in science and technology, it has limits in other spheres of life -- particularly where knowledge and information are either imperfectly known or unknowable.

I think it is appropriate to apply evidence-based research to evidence-based research. What are its limits? Does this type of reasoning lead to better decision-making? If so, under what conditions? Any and all or under a subset? Is there a kind of unarticulated evidence-based knowledge contained within traditions and customs (trial-and-error has led to varying forms of social arrangements that are proven to work). This doesn't mean don't ask questions about certain issues, but those issues include evidence-based reasoning itself.

I am for optimistic that we will optimize our use of these wonderful evidence-based tools rather than extending their use too far. Much of the complexity of social sciences involves the complex interaction of billions of intelligent individuals, making modeling of these interactions and isolating of individual and interaction effects extraordinarily difficult. It is important to keep in mind the limitations of knowledge and what is knowable when approaching these fields.

There will always be an area in tension and flux as we discover new ways to tackle previously unaddressable issues using evidence-based reasoning. It is an area where a little humility can go a long way.

QUESTION: What are you optimistic about and why?