I agree with a lot of what you say - "baby steps" is a term that makes me cringe and although I can see some value in nudge-like approaches I don't want to be someone who nudges others. At the very least, nudging misses the opportunity to work with others rather than trick them into doing the right thing. But I think we can separate the emotional valence of how we go about messaging and debate from the messages themselves. It is possible, for example, to get a terminal diagnosis and still be "positive" in the sense I want to promote. I don't think being positive is about being in denial or telling untruths. It is about trying to maintain a certain grace, wisdom and humility, and never claiming to know for sure how things will turn out and who is right and who is wrong. Being negative by my definition is conveying your sense of fear, chaos, anger and despair as if these are the only way to be. To be clear, I'm not saying these emotions are inappropriate, it is more whether they should simply be accepted or actually celebrated. To go back to the health analogy - is the person with a terminal illness who rants and raves against their fate somehow more truthful than the one who accepts what is happening with a certain calmness? Does the former or latter person help others act well in the face of extreme threat? To be clear again, I'm not saying that ranting and raving is bad and it is certainly very human, but the alternative isn't denial. And I guess I am also saying that I think we do better collectively when people are able to centre themselves somehow. I don't know if/how one can prove any of this - maybe it is all about style and my own preference for listening to people who aren't ranting and raving!
I agree with a lot of what you say - "baby steps" is a term that makes me cringe and although I can see some value in nudge-like approaches I don't want to be someone who nudges others. At the very least, nudging misses the opportunity to work with others rather than trick them into doing the right thing. But I think we can separate the emotional valence of how we go about messaging and debate from the messages themselves. It is possible, for example, to get a terminal diagnosis and still be "positive" in the sense I want to promote. I don't think being positive is about being in denial or telling untruths. It is about trying to maintain a certain grace, wisdom and humility, and never claiming to know for sure how things will turn out and who is right and who is wrong. Being negative by my definition is conveying your sense of fear, chaos, anger and despair as if these are the only way to be. To be clear, I'm not saying these emotions are inappropriate, it is more whether they should simply be accepted or actually celebrated. To go back to the health analogy - is the person with a terminal illness who rants and raves against their fate somehow more truthful than the one who accepts what is happening with a certain calmness? Does the former or latter person help others act well in the face of extreme threat? To be clear again, I'm not saying that ranting and raving is bad and it is certainly very human, but the alternative isn't denial. And I guess I am also saying that I think we do better collectively when people are able to centre themselves somehow. I don't know if/how one can prove any of this - maybe it is all about style and my own preference for listening to people who aren't ranting and raving!
Another goodie Andy. Your paragraph on politics is bang on. Reminded me of this never to be heard speech from Kirk Hall - https://illuminem.com/energyvoices/664976fb-8b91-49d2-be49-8202597b157b
Your article theme also had me think of a quote from Bill Rees "Call me a realist not a pessimist."
I often wonder how these writings are received by your fellow SBN team.
Cheers