Nov. 7th, 2020 04:32 pm
Books from the 1990s, part one
How is it you come here to read about small, personal stuff, about what happens in our life’s and I am living in my head so much that I write about larger, more abstract ideas. One book, that I got as a present from mom, was Darwins ofullbordade, (1997) , by P.C Jersild. The title literally means "Darwin's unfinished". It’s about biology and human nature and for some reason I didn’t read the book until this autumn. The thing with that subject was this. The book was written during the era of the sequencing of the human genome, and DNA-evidence in courts, and Jurassic Park, and special agent Dana Scully doing western blots on TV. So One could think genetics was popular. Att the same time, biology, genetics, of human nature had the disturbing political background of being associated with the Nazists. But that’s not what I’ll write about here. On one of the last pages he, in relation to human nature, mentions optimism and pessimism. He writes that an optimist, on a global scale, sooner or later will be proven wrong. We won’t create a paradise on earth (that’s why many in power, historically have promised a paradise after death, not a paradise in life: “you get pie in the sky when you die”). We won’t even create a world where everyone has freedom, human rights, and welfare. Plus, the fact he actually started with, sooner or later humans will go extinct. However being a pessimist has very little reward. Sooner or later you get to say: “I told you so!” and feel “Skadeglägde”, that’s Swedish for Schadenfreude, when whose optimists are proven wrong. The problem is just that before you get that pleasure, you have to spend years being depressed.
The last thing, can you really have Schadenfreude over optimists being wrong? It’s now ten years since Matt Ridley's book The rational optimist was published. In it he amogh other things tone down the impact of the climate catastrophe and the risk of a pandemic. Living in a world with a pandemic and that has been screwed up by climate change, it should be weird to be happy over those things, just because they proved Matt Ridley wrong. Wouldn’t most of us prefer that he was right? We then have other examples with the pandemic. I can, again, write that I don’t know how to best fight pandemics, it’s not my job and I’m happy I don’t have that job. My exemple is just this, all spring one saw experts saying that masks had no use outside hospitals. Of course other experts said the opposite, but hear me out. Are the experts who were pessimistic about masks, now happy that infections have skyrocketed in countries like Italy and France, despite mask laws? No, being happy that ICU-units getting filled, isn't good, even if you predicted it. In the last exemple it's also too early to tell.
The last thing, can you really have Schadenfreude over optimists being wrong? It’s now ten years since Matt Ridley's book The rational optimist was published. In it he amogh other things tone down the impact of the climate catastrophe and the risk of a pandemic. Living in a world with a pandemic and that has been screwed up by climate change, it should be weird to be happy over those things, just because they proved Matt Ridley wrong. Wouldn’t most of us prefer that he was right? We then have other examples with the pandemic. I can, again, write that I don’t know how to best fight pandemics, it’s not my job and I’m happy I don’t have that job. My exemple is just this, all spring one saw experts saying that masks had no use outside hospitals. Of course other experts said the opposite, but hear me out. Are the experts who were pessimistic about masks, now happy that infections have skyrocketed in countries like Italy and France, despite mask laws? No, being happy that ICU-units getting filled, isn't good, even if you predicted it. In the last exemple it's also too early to tell.