Every year The Edge World Question Center sends out a question to various learned people, researchers, and teachers around the world. This year the question was this:

The Edge Annual Question — 2007

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!
Many of the answers seemed to be about the dissolution of religion, ending of war, and all that jazz. But, as a discussion topic, what are you optimistic about?

It's sad that I've been thinking for 5 minutes and I can't come up with anything that I'm really optimistic about.

WW, I saw pictures on the photo thread of what appeared to be a male drinking with a roomful of hot happy girls.

If you're not optimistic the rest of us should hang ourselves.

Hahaha, well I'm not saying that I'm unhappy. I'm having a great time :D

I guess nothing really just popped out at me. I am optimistic about a lot of things, just not overly so on any particular one.

WW, I saw pictures on the photo thread of what appeared to be a male drinking with a roomful of hot happy girls.

If you're not optimistic the rest of us should hang ourselves.

Very well put Brooks. :)

While I'm generally a realistic pessimist, I continually hope for the best of everything. I want to see things - whatever the topic - go right, yet at the same time realize that I have very little impact.

I am optimistic about the influence that one good, positive person can have upon the people that they come into contact with on a daily basis. I am positive that the influence they have upon those people affects them and that the effect spreads out in positive waves. Therefore I feel optimistic about the influence that a single person can have upon the world.

There is only one thing I'm optimistic about and that's the human race. I think it'll survive anything thrown at it. People are stupid, incompetent and untrustworthy, but our race doesn't need People to survive or advance, only individuals that take the burden of the world and rush forward with it.

There is only one thing I'm optimistic about and that's the human race. I think it'll survive anything thrown at it. People are stupid, incompetent and untrustworthy, but our race doesn't need People to survive or advance, only individuals that take the burden of the world and rush forward with it.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."

I am optimistic about one thing;

....that we are witnessing it happen --albeit with glacial slowness-- that science and reason are beginning to push the pestilence of religion/superstition back into the dark corners from which they emerged so many millenia ago.

____________________________________________

One prominent American religion confidently predicted that the world would end in 1914. Well, 1914 has come and gone, and - whole the events of that year were certainly of some importance - the world did not, at least so far as I can see, seem to have ended. There are at least three responses that an organized religion can make in the face of such a failed and fundamental prophecy. They could have said, Oh, did we say '1914'? So sorry, we meant '2014'. A slight error in calculation. Hope you weren't inconvinenced in any way. But they did not. They could have said, Well, the world would have ended, except we prayed very hard and interceded with God so He spared the Earth. But they did not. Instead, the did something much more ingenious. They announced that the world had in fact ended in 1914, and if the rest of us hadn't noticed, that was our lookout. It is astonishing in the fact of such transparent evasions that this religion has any adherents at all. But religions are tough. Either they make no contentions which are subject to disproof or they quickly redesign doctrine after disproof. The fact that religions can be so shamelessly dishonest, so contemptuous of the intelligence of their adherents, and still flourish does not speak very well for the tough- mindedness of the believers. But it does indicate, if a demonstration was needed, that near the core of the religious experience is something remarkably resistant to rational inquiry. [Carl Sagan, Broca's Brain]

Its amazing how much FT can antagonize a point of view... you misrepresent athiests if you want people of religion to think of you as "nice people"..

Its amazing how much FT can antagonize a point of view... you misrepresent athiests if you want people of religion to think of you as "nice people"..

He doesn't give a crap if people of religion think of him as "nice". So, back to the topic, What are YOU optimistic about Decka? Inquiring minds want to know? :D

I am optimistic about one thing;

....that we are witnessing it happen --albeit with glacial slowness-- that science and reason are beginning to push the pestilence of religion/superstition back into the dark corners from which they emerged so many millenia ago.
I knew you would say something to that effect.

Decka is optimistic about bringing FT into Christianity :D

Decka is optimistic about bringing FT into Christianity :D
Praaaaaaaaaaaaaise the Lord! :D

Amen sister! PRAAISE HIS HOLY NAME!

Come join us Freethinker! Come to the light my son!

15 replies and this thread turns into a PromiseKeepers revival...*shrugs* I guess I'll join in.

Put your hands on FT my brothers in Christ. *incoherent mumbling prayer from the crowd*

*FT begins speaking in tongues*

Preacher: "The power of Christ compells you! You are now ready for the final test. Bring out the knives!"
PromiseKeeper attendant: "We don't do sacrifices."
Preacher: "Oh will you just shut up? We need some food for our Super Bowl Sunday meeting."

hahahhahahahaha.......

What entertainment this is! I literally dropped off of my seat laughing so hard I had tears in my eyes!

I wonder what FT is thinking now. Are you even following this through, FT?

*FT begins speaking in tongues*


are you sure he didn't cut & paste it?

hahahahhaah......

This is getting to be soooo fun... But watch out, guys. There might be a none-too-nice come back from behind. That might smack you in the face. LOL LOL.... And me, too!

Unless the Republicans run Richard Speck in 2008, I will not be voting Democrat.
Unless the Democrats run Ed Gein, Freethinker will not be voting Republican.

I am optimistic when I read what Borg, Blib Blob, Dark Fantasy, Evakian, Overdose and WindWip have to say.

All of the above have agreed with me at times and then shut me up at other times. I think there is a possibility that in the next twenty years the next generation of the electorate may actually vote based on the best candidate rather than party loyalty. (Okay, Overdose has a more predictable point of view, but his opinions are well informed, researched and intelligent).

I see a futute of voting booths with more Viles, Drews and Marzipans and fewer Brooks and Guerillas.

With age, they may all slide somewhat to the right, but I suspect not too far (and not far enough, if you ask me).

Are they typical or the exception? I don't know. Maybe I'm just optimistic.

As American politics is constituted, to vote for someone other than the nominee of one of the two major parties is to waste your time going to the polls.

The vote for other candidates gets mentioned in the statistics, but represent the wasted votes of people who are too fussy (and perhaps too arrogant) to compromise in favor of making an actual choice from among the real candidates.

It does not even constitute "sending a message," since the political professionals couldn't care less, and think such people are fools.

As American politics is constituted, to vote for someone other than the nominee of one of the two major parties is to waste your time going to the polls.

The vote for other candidates gets mentioned in the statistics, but represent the wasted votes of people who are too fussy (and perhaps too arrogant) to compromise in favor of making an actual choice from among the real candidates.

It does not even constitute "sending a message," since the political professionals couldn't care less, and think such people are fools.
no vote is wasted, ever!

no vote is wasted, ever!
Rather than responding with a slogan, could you go into a little depth and explain what is not wasted about a vote that has no chance of choosing a winner?

I'm happy that today's Friday.

And I'm optimistic that, in just 7 short days, it'll be Friday again.

Thanks Brooks, but why did you say "I see a futute of voting booths with more Viles, Drews and Marzipans and fewer Brooks and Guerillas". You've got a great head on your shoulders and I'm sure would make a good choice in the booths. 500, maybe less so.

The development of natural and viable alternative energy sources. Because of such development, I believe that humanity will someday be able to live with some degree of luxury in harmony with nature.

Rather than responding with a slogan, could you go into a little depth and explain what is not wasted about a vote that has no chance of choosing a winner?

Republicans and Democrats are the two major contenders, but if enough people begin to vote for a different party based on a few issues, then the major parties will gain an advantage if they encorporate those issues to their party and fight for the votes that the third party might otherwise get. Thus we have special interest groups who only vote on a single issue, no matter if the candidate is someone like Nader.

Rather than responding with a slogan, could you go into a little depth and explain what is not wasted about a vote that has no chance of choosing a winner?
now that is wasting a vote! my father's father, my mother's father & step father, my father, brother, and I did not risk death, dismemberment, and in the case of my maternal grandfather, die on the other side of the world so ppl could say "i voted for the winner".

elections are for making your voice be heard, not just to pick a herd.

I forgot to answer my question.

Am I optimistic about where the world is going? About as much as I am fearful and pessimistic.

If I had to choose one thing to praise about humanity's future, it would be food. Thanks to the efforts of researchers like Norman Borlaug dotting the globe, and hardworking farmers around the world, more and more people come into the world with an ever-increasing food supply. While our numbers increase exponentially, our agricultural production also booms. As one of the contributors to this question said: Malthus was wrong.

now that is wasting a vote! my father's father, my mother's father & step father, my father, brother, and I did not risk death, dismemberment, and in the case of my maternal grandfather, die on the other side of the world so ppl could say "i voted for the winner".

elections are for making your voice be heard, not just to pick a herd.

I have the highest respect for those who have fought for our country, including yourself and your family, but it doesn't make your point more valid.

I do agree that people shouldn't always vote for the person who has the best chance of winning, or the person who has a good chance of winning that they agree somewhat with; however there should be logic behind a person's vote as well. In the case of Gore vs Bush; there was a large portion of voters that voted for Nader instead of Gore when it was a close race. Obviously Nader would be a crappy president since he was a single issue candidate, but those people wanted it to become a more important issue. The problem with that situation is that they divided the votes and because of that Bush won.

Now lets just pretend that it was the Kim Jong Il running instead of Bush, and that about 40% of voters were choosing him. It would not be wise to split the vote between two candidates that were contesting him. Even if there was a candidate that you agreed with 100%; if he was not the favored option and you voted for him, then you were taking a vote away from the favored candidate and making Kim more likely to win. It's simple math in that scenario.

I wonder what FT is thinking now. Are you even following this through, FT?

Yes, I am.

Per the thread's subject, I stated what I was optimistic about.

I then read posts by Decka, Sal, Evakian, Windwip, Sal, Windwip, Evakian, EasternBarbie, mikezilla and EasternBarbie where they talked about everything BUT what they might be optimisitic about.

(don't get me wrong.....I had a good laugh reading all the "Put your hands on FT my brothers in Christ. --PRAAISE HIS HOLY NAME! --Come join us Freethinker!!--*FT begins speaking in tongues*" posts)....

.......but I was curious as to what people found to be optimistic about living under the Bushit government.



Brooks finally got the discussion back on track by saying what he was ompimistic about. .

Let's think LARGER than U.S. politics for a minute.

After watching a documentary the other night about life along the equator, I'm optimistic that our natural world has the ability to adapt to whatever adverse conditions it finds itself living in. Which means to me that no matter what stupid things the human race does to our environment, our planet will manage to survive.

(Of course, the downside to this optimism is that WE humans may croak, but no doubt plants, fishes & animals will adapt just fine, thank you.)

:)
SMW

What I am most optomistic about is the number of good people in the world. I look around me, and I see the majority of the people are trying to be good. They don't always succeed, and they don't always define good in exactly the way I do, but they are trying. That makes me optomistic.

I'm optimistic of our continuing ability as a species to eat every other living thing on this planet - top o' the food chain :D

I'm optimistic of our continuing ability as a species to eat every other living thing on this planet - top o' the food chain :D
LOL... good one, WW. Nobody can argue with THAT statement!

As an addendum to my last post, I am also optimistic about how the advancement of technology is creating a more comfortable world. Communication is easier, businesses run faster, resources move quicker.

I am a child of the new wave of globalization. While I often ponder the impact of this inventive age on Mankind, I am optimistic about the progress of it all because of one thing: Our lives are becoming more complex, yet easier. With that, we are able to worry less about putting food on the table in times of bad harvest, and more about researching cures for diseases, or writing beautiful sonnets. Technology lengthens lives, but I only want that because it allows us more time to find meaning in what we do. The animalistic existence of 3000 years ago is now one of romance, of logic, and reflection; something we can all benefit from, as a species and as individuals.

Thanks Brooks, but why did you say "I see a futute of voting booths with more Viles, Drews and Marzipans and fewer Brooks and Guerillas".
Not only do I know how I'm voting in 2008, but I have a pretty good idea about 2016.
I can defend my choices, and I am thoroughly convinced I'm right, but logically speaking I must be wrong sometimes (although personally, I can't recall that ever happening).

Some of you make it seem like we're getting away from that.

I'm optimistic of our continuing ability as a species to eat every other living thing on this planet - top o' the food chain :D
sharks, bears, big cats, wolves....less civilized people.

we're only the at the top of the food chain when we have weapons. i'm optimistic it will stay that way.

I have the highest respect for those who have fought for our country, including yourself and your family, but it doesn't make your point more valid.

I do agree that people shouldn't always vote for the person who has the best chance of winning, or the person who has a good chance of winning that they agree somewhat with; however there should be logic behind a person's vote as well. In the case of Gore vs Bush; there was a large portion of voters that voted for Nader instead of Gore when it was a close race. Obviously Nader would be a crappy president since he was a single issue candidate, but those people wanted it to become a more important issue. The problem with that situation is that they divided the votes and because of that Bush won.

Now lets just pretend that it was the Kim Jong Il running instead of Bush, and that about 40% of voters were choosing him. It would not be wise to split the vote between two candidates that were contesting him. Even if there was a candidate that you agreed with 100%; if he was not the favored option and you voted for him, then you were taking a vote away from the favored candidate and making Kim more likely to win. It's simple math in that scenario.
if anyone as loony as Kim picks up 40% of the vote, i'll be swimming across the Detroit River.

LOL... good one, WW. Nobody can argue with THAT statement!
:D

I'm optimistic about the internet. I think it has the potential to transform our world as much or more than the invention of the printing press. Certainly it can be used to spread bad information as well as good, but when presented with it all, I'm optimistic that the bad iformation will eventually reveal itself as such and languish by the wayside. The nature of the internet makes it much harder for despots to control the dissemination of ideas, and has the tendency to obviate the artificial borders within which we live. In short it brings us closer together as a global community, and will help us resolve our petty political differences and get on with the task of making a better world for everyone on the planet.

Not only do I know how I'm voting in 2008, but I have a pretty good idea about 2016.
I can defend my choices, and I am thoroughly convinced I'm right, but logically speaking I must be wrong sometimes (although personally, I can't recall that ever happening).

Some of you make it seem like we're getting away from that.

You seem to be saying that you're optimistic that people will tend not to decide their vote the way you do.

I'm pleased that the Scooter Libby trial has progressed to the point that we now know the outing of Valerie Plame originated in the VP's office, and I am optimistic that this will lead to the impeachment of both Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush.

Pelosi for Prez!!! :thumbs:

On a less political note: I'm optimistic about cancer research. We're getting a much better understanding of that great scourge of humankind, and amazing advances are being made every day - both in prevention and treatment.

:banana:

if anyone as loony as Kim picks up 40% of the vote, i'll be swimming across the Detroit River.
hahaha, yea I'd probably join you

sharks, bears, big cats, wolves....less civilized people.

we're only the at the top of the food chain when we have weapons. i'm optimistic it will stay that way.

I'll take on any wild animal if I've got a shotgun, except maybe an elephant. I don't think a shottie would take down one of those before it trampled me.

I wonder what elephant tastes like...

I'm optimistic about the internet. I think it has the potential to transform our world as much or more than the invention of the printing press. Certainly it can be used to spread bad information as well as good, but when presented with it all, I'm optimistic that the bad iformation will eventually reveal itself as such and languish by the wayside. The nature of the internet makes it much harder for despots to control the dissemination of ideas, and has the tendency to obviate the artificial borders within which we live. In short it brings us closer together as a global community, and will help us resolve our petty political differences and get on with the task of making a better world for everyone on the planet.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. The internet is an amazing thing - it won't be long before we have surgeons performing on patients from thousands of miles away.

You seem to be saying that you're optimistic that people will tend not to decide their vote the way you do.Too much candor there. Hopefully this thread dies soon.

I really do think about this a lot. I often wonder if something I support is really a good idea or if I'm just automatically supporting it because the administration is Republican.

I'm logical enough to realize it, honest enough to admit it, but not strong enough to resist it.

Whatever you do, Brooks, don't turn into a crotchety old Frogger.

I wonder what elephant tastes like...

like freedom!

...or was that bald eagle:confused: