[Stratovarius]

There have been a lot of "End of the World As We Know It" predictions throughout history that were almost never true and yet we continue to propagate them to this day. I don't know if it's because of media coverage and the internet but it seems like there are many more doomsday memes running around today than ever.

We have the Mayan calendar, peak oil (and its many ramifications), climate change, threat of terrorism (related to WWIII), nukes, unintentional creation of a super-bacteria because of over usage of triclosan etc., super volcanoes (Yellowstone), hurricane season, the rapture, methane deposits burping causing massive destabilization and possible extinction of humans, bird flu (and other such diseases, viruses), economic meltdown etc.

I wonder what is the motivation behind the propagation of these apocalyptic predictions and why do people get so attached to believing in horrible things instead of being optimistic? I know in the peak oil camp there's plenty of people who wish the economy would crumble overnight and America will experience an absolute social and infrastructural breakdown.

Why is there such an emotional backlash when someone who believes in said apocalyptic theory gets met with an honest opinion that dispels (or tries to dispel) their belief?

Such predictions have been made far far back with each culture's own prophet of doom.

I know, peak oil is something new never before seen (and maybe GW), but I didn't type this out to argue that peak oil is just another passing apocalyptic prediction.

[greenworm]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'y')et we continue to propagate them to this day.

[gg3]

.
If a characteristic exists in an organism, it probably has had utility in terms of natural selection at some point in that organism's history.

Pessimistic forecasts of the future can be seen in three broad categories: One, things that can be overcome (severe weather, crop failure, water shortage, attack by neighboring tribe, economic downturn). Two, things that cannot be overcome (divinely-caused endtimes, large asteroid impact). Three: things that can only be overcome with heroic effort (attack by much stronger neighboring tribe, major natural disaster e.g regional flood, and today, peak oil and the climate crisis etc.)

The second category ("cannot be overcome") and the third category ("heroic effort") make up what are today called "existential threats," that is, threats to existence.

The obvious natural selection utility of pessimism in all three categories is that it leads to routine preparedness (first category), reconciliation with the inevitability of death (second category), and the creation of heroic myths to inspire action (third category), all of which contribute to positive selection outcomes.

Those who routinely prepare, who are not dominated by fear of death (and thus have an avenue for altruistic self-sacrifice e.g. in war), and who believe in heroic myths (thus have a mental template for "rising to the occasion" in severe crisis), are better equipped to survive than those who do not (any of the above).

The opposite meme-sets are not favorable to survival: lack of preparedness (vulnerability to mundane crises), domination by fear of death (inability to engage in altruistic sacrifice), and absence of heroic mythos (inability to model heroic behavior).

Seems to me that the above pretty well explains why pessimistic forecast memes, from downside economic predictions to belief in endtimes scenarios, have been around since day one and will continue so long as humans exist.

Then comes the question of degree: to what degree does an individual hold relevant beliefs? Those whose beliefs are extremely optimistic will tend to get Darwinized; but so will those whose beliefs are extremeley pessimistic because they will tend to over-react to events. Those whose beliefs in either direction are too strong will tend to put "belief" before "observation," thereby blinding themselves to real events about which they should (from a Darwinian perspective) be more aware. Those whose beliefs in either direction are too weak will tend to fail to recognize emerging patterns (since they don't have a theoretical template to which to match events), and will be caught off guard.

The most adaptive (in the Darwinian sense) approach is to maintain a slight degree of pessimism and a belief-template that can provide pattern matching for observed events.

[mos6507]

Primarily, for those who think life sucks for them, it is comforting to think that the whole world will come down with them--instead of just them. They can hitch their hopes on a global "reset button", i.e. the rapture, etc...

However, I think beyond that there is kind of an innate awareness that the very qualities that allowed humans to rise to the top of the food chain also doom us in the end. Call it original sin or the myth of the rhinegold or the tragedy of the commons, this is something that I would expect wise people of any age to understand.

The question of all time isn't really the meaning of life. It's the often postulated notion "are we smarter than yeast?" so common with sig lines.

In moments in the past, easter island, etc... the question was answered "no". Now we have the benefit of modern science to let us know when we're on the precipice. And yet it appears as though the answer is still "no", that there are individual primordial urges that will always trump reason. We'll see if we go over the cliff like lemmings or not, but it certainly looks like that's happening to me.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', '.')
If a characteristic exists in an organism, it probably has had utility in terms of natural selection at some point in that organism's history.

Pessimistic forecasts of the future can be seen in three broad categories: One, things that can be overcome (severe weather, crop failure, water shortage, attack by neighboring tribe, economic downturn). Two, things that cannot be overcome (divinely-caused endtimes, large asteroid impact). Three: things that can only be overcome with heroic effort (attack by much stronger neighboring tribe, major natural disaster e.g regional flood, and today, peak oil and the climate crisis etc.)

The second category ("cannot be overcome") and the third category ("heroic effort") make up what are today called "existential threats," that is, threats to existence.

The obvious natural selection utility of pessimism in all three categories is that it leads to routine preparedness (first category), reconciliation with the inevitability of death (second category), and the creation of heroic myths to inspire action (third category), all of which contribute to positive selection outcomes.

Those who routinely prepare, who are not dominated by fear of death (and thus have an avenue for altruistic self-sacrifice e.g. in war), and who believe in heroic myths (thus have a mental template for "rising to the occasion" in severe crisis), are better equipped to survive than those who do not (any of the above).

The opposite meme-sets are not favorable to survival: lack of preparedness (vulnerability to mundane crises), domination by fear of death (inability to engage in altruistic sacrifice), and absence of heroic mythos (inability to model heroic behavior).

Seems to me that the above pretty well explains why pessimistic forecast memes, from downside economic predictions to belief in endtimes scenarios, have been around since day one and will continue so long as humans exist.

Then comes the question of degree: to what degree does an individual hold relevant beliefs? Those whose beliefs are extremely optimistic will tend to get Darwinized; but so will those whose beliefs are extremeley pessimistic because they will tend to over-react to events. Those whose beliefs in either direction are too strong will tend to put "belief" before "observation," thereby blinding themselves to real events about which they should (from a Darwinian perspective) be more aware. Those whose beliefs in either direction are too weak will tend to fail to recognize emerging patterns (since they don't have a theoretical template to which to match events), and will be caught off guard.

The most adaptive (in the Darwinian sense) approach is to maintain a slight degree of pessimism and a belief-template that can provide pattern matching for observed events.

[gg3]

Nope, I don't (teach soc or anthro); all you have to do is apply "general method" to the issue and you end up with a convergent solution or at least a path toward a hypothesis.

Re. the person above (sorry I don't have your name either; the system is broken right now such that Topic Review is blank under the posting screen so I can't scroll back) who said that the characteristics that enabled humans to become dominant are those that are presently causing us to hurtle toward extinction:

Yes, exactly; what is adaptive under one set of circumstances can be terribly maladaptive under others. The instincts for consumption and reproduction are presently killing us and everything else on the planet. It would be a happier ending to that story if the compulsive consumers and reckless reroducers would selectively die off, leaving at least a partially viable planet for a more intelligent subspecies to inhabit and allow to restore itself.

Humans. Eeeyow!

[Twilight]

gg3, that's thought-provoking stuff, thank you.