Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will

Blaise Pacal famously argued that, whatever we may think about the reality of God, it is rational to believe in God for should it transpire that the big G indeed "is out there" the rewards in the afterlife for the believer would be most handsome.

It is difficult to be a confirmed pessimist or optimist. There are signs both for hope and despair. But I shall argue, along with Pascal, that we should at least have optimistic belief and act as if we are hopeful. The rewards of optimism might be vast.

There are, it must be said, interesting arguments for pessimism.

Nicholas Coperni cus is credited with providing the key early work that disproved the notion that the Earth lies at the centre of the cosmos. In this way, he helped us to ultimately move beyond Aristotelian physics, paving the way for the scientific revolution.

Ever since then we seem to have lost our sense of centrality or specialness. Things have gotten worse in that respect.

We know that our galaxy is not unique, that there are other galaxies. We know that there are clusters of galaxies. We know that our local cluster of galaxies is not so special for there are also galaxy super-clusters. We are now even finding other planetary systems.

We know that, courtesy of modern cosmology, based on Einstein's theory of General Relativity, that there is no unique vantage point to the universe; no place in the universe is "special." The universe is homogenous and isotropic. It might well be the case, indeed almost surely so, that there exists more to the physical world beyond the observable universe.

This cutting down to size of humanity through the use of increasing scale we call "the Copernican Principle." The Copernican Principle, and its at first brush seemingly contradictory cousin, the Anthropic Principle, is attracting increasing controversy in theoretical physics that has seen physicists question the very nature of science, much less scientific progress.

The most fashionable theory in physics these days, string theory or superstring theory or M-theory, seems to require the existence of many universes known as "the landscape" or "the multiverse." Though string theory holds the promise of being a "theory of everything," and so the ultimate expression of progress in human knowledge, it actually has many "solutions" that describe different worlds.

Each would have its own laws of physics. We happen to live in a universe where the laws of physics are conducive to the evolution of life and so we ought not be in the least bit surprised, given our existence as observers, that the laws of physics here take the form in which they do. The point is that they could be otherwise albeit not here. This is a curious way of combining the Copernican and Anthropic principles. The theory of everything becomes a theory of anything. Though more could be said the time has arrived to bite the tongue.

This tale is not unrelated to our topic. For it is argued, with the utmost justification, that such considerations demonstrate that fundamental physics has gone backwards since the early 1980s.

The parallel between the dominance of string theory in physics and the neoclassical dominance of economic theory is striking in this regard. Even some of the main mathematical considerations, such as the use of topology in string theory and general equilibrium theory, are shared between them. Alas, time to again bite the tongue.

There does exist an argument for pessimism about the future of modern human society, indeed humanity itself that is based on the Copernican Principle.

Most humans who have ever lived, there are now 7 billion of us, have lived very recently, indeed could well now be alive. So, should it transpire that humanity were to be wiped out in some calamity, it follows that our particular appearance as individuals in the timeline of humanity would not be at all special. If we are at, say, the first 0.001% of all humans that shall ever live, meaning the species has a long and rosy future, our place as individuals in the human timeline would be most special indeed. Should we go now, our place would be, by comparison, rather untypical. By application of the Copernican Principle it follows that we should be pessimists.

We, seemingly, need to reduce the intuitive confidence that we place upon the longevity of man.

The Cambridge theoretical astrophysicist, and former Astronomer Royal, Sir Martin Rees argued that the 21^st century might be "our final century." Despite what we might say about theoretical physics, science and technology continues to accelerate. Rees argues that the advancement of science and technology, coupled with its increasing diffusion, increasingly opens the prospect that they could be used for malevolent, ultimately catastrophically destructive, purposes. He argues that we have a "50-50" chance of making it through the century in one piece.

Such thoughts are not pleasant ones, but they certainly are worth thinking about, no matter how abstract, when we consider such matters as nuclear security and the global ecological crisis.

There are, however, grounds for optimism.

Throughout history, to be sure in fits and starts, that is to say it by no means has been linear, one can detect the reality of moral progress. Humanity, ironically enough following on from empiricist arguments in moral philosophy that lead ultimately to rationalist conclusions, has an innate and creative capacity for moral reasoning and the acquisition, indeed application, of moral knowledge. How the dedicated information processing areas of the mind enable us to do this is now becoming accessible to cognitive science.

The use of moral reasoning, not to be confused with reason itself, throughout history has seen us abandon behaviours and institutions that previously were taken for granted, but which we came to appreciate were morally deficient. Slavery is a notable example.

Since the 1960s, following on from the rise of popular social movements, Western civilisation has achieved quite important advances in the moral realm. For example, if it were now in 1962, I doubt whether there would be any mountains left on the landscape of Afghanistan. Unrestrained strategic bombing is something our governments cannot get away with anymore. Notice that this even applies after the worst single act of terrorism in human history. This is a very powerful indicator demonstrating moral progress.

Movements for nuclear sanity and ecological protection have an important ethical component. They essentially serve as movements that are trying to assert the rights of future generations and non-human life. This is something new and, again, is a good indicator of moral progress.

The global economic crisis, often cited in the case for pessimism, might be used to argue the opposite. Neoliberal economic restructuring, despite all the fancy topology, is essentially based on what Adam Smith called "the vile maxim of the masters of mankind," which he stipulated held throughout history - that being "all for ourselves and nothing for other people." This has been accompanied by a certain coarseness and an overt focus on individual wealth and gain. It should not perplex us that application of the vile maxim has led to increasing inequality between social classes.

Does this mean we have gone backwards?

I do not think so. The social welfare state came about, in part, because of the strength of public opinion, most spectacularly demonstrated when Winston Churchill was sent packing from Number 10 following World War Two. This, critically, also relied upon the rise of a strong labour movement dedicated toward moral progress and social change. It is surely no accident that the reassertion of "the vile maxim" has been accompanied by a major assault on organised labour.

I do not believe that neoliberalism demonstrates that we have experienced moral decay. The attitudes of the population have remained largely socially democratic, with strong shades of socialism and libertarianism, throughout the neoliberal era. Intellectual commentary and scholarly work has missed an important point here.

The neoliberal assault has occurred during a period of moral advance. That being the case, how have the two coexisted?

The key point is that neoliberalism has been accompanied by a major offensive against democracy. The objective, to a not inconsiderable degree successfully achieved, has been to shift accountability of government away from people and toward markets. This process lies at the core of the European debt crisis. When power is taken away from people and increasingly shifted toward corporations and markets it is possible for moral progress to coexist with moral decay.

The point here is this.

There are grounds for pessimism. However, if we can apply our moral sense and reconstruct our societies, up to and including systems of global order, to accord with moral principles it would be reasonable to be optimistic about our future prospects.

But this shall require overcoming a sense of despair and fatalism. It pays to be optimistic and to act upon that optimism. So though we might have grounds for pessimism it is surely rational for us, following Pascal, to become optimistic and to channel that optimism into dissidence and activism. The rewards could be huge, not just materially but also spiritually. The alternative is too ugly to even think about.

Another world is possible, if we rid ourselves of the masters of mankind.