The importance of realistic prediction in healing the world
Posted on Sep 27th, 2007
by 
FLOW
FLOW
I originally called FLOW "realistic visionaries" because while I am a passionate visionary, I had become aware that it is also important to be realistic about what is possible. The challenge is to strike the right balance between cynicism, on the one hand, and unjustifiable optimism, on the other. Striking that balance is the key to wisdom.
I have become increasing convinced that making a commitment to realistic predictions regarding the outcomes of future events is crucial to making the world a better place, rather than making it a worse place. Certainly the Bushies were completely unrealistic regarding the outcome of the invasion of Iraq, and Jeff Sachs and other World Bank/IMF economists were unrealistic about what was needed to transition the Russian economy to a successful free market economy in the early 1990s.
But likewise Marxists were dreadfully unrealistic about the outcomes of collectivist agriculture. While it seems possible that Stalin and Mao had no concern for human life when they imposed their "experiments" in collectivist agriculture, it is still shocking to read idealistic leftists from the 30s celebrating Stalin's collectivst agrigulture even while he was killilng 30 million or so, and even more shocking to read idealistic leftists celebrating the Maoist experiment in collectivist agriculture in the late 50s and early 60s, when 50-60 million were killed. Good hearted people sincerely believed that they were supporting the good guys even as they were supporting evil. And i attribute this largely to an unwillingness to be realistic considering the outcomes of the actions being taken.
To take a very different example, I'm convinced that the environmental movement's hostility to DDT use contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, and probably millions, of people in Africa and elsewhere. And yet of course this was well intentioned environmental passion.
Predicting the outcome of real world events is very difficult, and thoughtful, honest people disagree. That said, I think we idealists will do less damage in the future if we agree that we are responsible for the outcomes of the movements we support, and that we accept a responsibility to predict how the future will unfold based on our assumptions. As our assumptions are proven wrong, we should be willing to reconsider them. This will not eliminate the harm done by idealists, nor will it result in agreement on prospective future courses of action, but it will, hopefully, reduce the number of crimes done by idealists that perhaps could have been avoided through a greater commitment to realistic assessments of real world outcomes.
I have become increasing convinced that making a commitment to realistic predictions regarding the outcomes of future events is crucial to making the world a better place, rather than making it a worse place. Certainly the Bushies were completely unrealistic regarding the outcome of the invasion of Iraq, and Jeff Sachs and other World Bank/IMF economists were unrealistic about what was needed to transition the Russian economy to a successful free market economy in the early 1990s.
But likewise Marxists were dreadfully unrealistic about the outcomes of collectivist agriculture. While it seems possible that Stalin and Mao had no concern for human life when they imposed their "experiments" in collectivist agriculture, it is still shocking to read idealistic leftists from the 30s celebrating Stalin's collectivst agrigulture even while he was killilng 30 million or so, and even more shocking to read idealistic leftists celebrating the Maoist experiment in collectivist agriculture in the late 50s and early 60s, when 50-60 million were killed. Good hearted people sincerely believed that they were supporting the good guys even as they were supporting evil. And i attribute this largely to an unwillingness to be realistic considering the outcomes of the actions being taken.
To take a very different example, I'm convinced that the environmental movement's hostility to DDT use contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, and probably millions, of people in Africa and elsewhere. And yet of course this was well intentioned environmental passion.
Predicting the outcome of real world events is very difficult, and thoughtful, honest people disagree. That said, I think we idealists will do less damage in the future if we agree that we are responsible for the outcomes of the movements we support, and that we accept a responsibility to predict how the future will unfold based on our assumptions. As our assumptions are proven wrong, we should be willing to reconsider them. This will not eliminate the harm done by idealists, nor will it result in agreement on prospective future courses of action, but it will, hopefully, reduce the number of crimes done by idealists that perhaps could have been avoided through a greater commitment to realistic assessments of real world outcomes.
Access: Public
damage
June 2008