Unsurprising surprises

In Quest of Optimism Beyond the Edge: through avoidance of the answering process (Part #3)

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

The question enjoined respondents to "surprise us" by the focus of their optimism. But curiously most of the surprises presented had long been anticipated by theoreticians, and/or, embodied in science fiction. The possibility of "surprising surprises" was barely considered. What kinds of surprises are in store for those for whom 9/11 was a surprise?

A first reading of the responses was quite disappointing. As might be expected many of the responses of scientists are characterized by explicit or implicit "techno-optimism" -- especially when the solutions advocated are effectively presented as "silver bullets" to deal with some currently recognized crisis. The quality of healthy doubt and uncertainty regarding the methodology of science, and its ability to enhance its capacity to move beyond its conventional (unquestioned) patterns, seemed remarkably low.

Although forced by evolution of fundamental physics to recognize potential implications of quantum theory and the results confirming it, the embedded implications regarding patterns of thinking appeared to be far less obvious in the responses. Uncertainty and probability were not apparent in the "can do" approaches to planetary issues such as global warming. The technological fixes proposed within the current techno-optimisitic mindset take no account of disastrous consequences, considered to be of "low probability", that may be associated with them -- as so ably documented by Nassim Nicholas Taleb (The Black Swan Effect: the impact of the highly improbable, 2007). In a countervailing spirit of optimism, presumably analogous arguments could be made for the serendipitous consequences of other events considered to be of "low probability" -- as those of spiritual inclination might claim.

Is it appropriate to consider that the set of responses was characterized by "in-the-box" thinking and did not get into "out-of-the-box" thinking beyond its "edges" -- however ironic that might be given the source of the question?

Contrasting approaches might have been recognized, such as:

• the call by Jennifer Atlee, Tom Atlee, Susan Cannon and Peggy Holman for "Phoenix Conversations" -- namely "A Call to Prepare Together for Uncertain Futures" -- described as follows:

  An undercurrent of conversations is bubbling in all sectors -- among business people, government officials, futurists, activists, citizens over back fences and blogs... There is a growing sense of crisis that neither mainstream leaders nor the public quite know what to do with. Many of us are talking about it in our own circles, separately, out of the public eye. Very little of this conversation is visible in the mainstream press and political debates, so we don't realize how many other people and institutions are discussing it.
  
  Practically everyone has an opinion about this uneasy topic of crisis. Indeed, there is widespread, legitimate disagreement about the extent to which a "perfect storm" of complementary crises may be emerging in the near future, involving, but not limited to: * peak oil, accelerating climate change, serious economic disruption, loss of democracy, significant resource depletion (including fresh water and arable land), international instability and terrorism, increasingly disruptive technology developments and "wild card" events such as pandemics. [see also The Phoenix Project]

• other ways of knowing with which scientists may claim to be less comfortable -- which nevertheless constitute a source of optimism especially in cases where science and technology seemingly have little of immediate relevance to offer

Where are the surprises of a degree corresponding to that associated with the much-cited Bohr-Pauli exchange. Niels Bohr declared in response to Wolfgang Pauli: "We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. My own feeling is that it is not crazy enough." To which Freeman Dyson added:

"When a great innovation appears, it will almost certainly be in a muddled, incomplete and confusing form. To the discoverer, himself, it will be only half understood; to everyone else, it will be a mystery. For any speculation which does not at first glance look crazy, there is no hope!" (Innovation in Physics, Scientific American, 199, No. 3, September 1958)

Could the challenge of the differences between the perspectives offered by the respondents, and their disparagement of each others "craziness" be fruitfully seen in this light? Investment in this possibility might offer more hope than seeking crudely to eliminate and demonize insights that may, in some as yet unknown way, be vital to the future creativity and diversity of humanity?

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]