Should climate activists be optimistic or pessimistic about the climate crisis and their efforts to confront it? This paper analyses common narratives in the climate movement through the lens of the philosophical traditions of optimism and pessimism, arguing for three points. Firstly, most dominant narratives within the climate movement resemble philosophical optimism through their commitment to political progress and inherent value of climate action. Secondly, optimistic narratives within the climate movement should be rejected, as climate optimism places an overwhelming mental (...) burden on climate activists and drives the climate movement towards bad responses to the inefficacy problem. Finally, the paper sketches pessimism as a better framework that can act as a moral source for climate activists. (shrink)

Both within the climate movement and in academic circles, it has become common advice to avoid despair. Despair about the climate crisis is the opposite of hope and should be avoided on grounds of both rational aptness and pragmatic considerations. Despair about climate breakdown is only rationally apt if it is impossible for our actions to make a difference. As our actions do make a difference, despair is not a fitting response to climate change). Further, we have pragmatic reasons to (...) avoid despair as it leads to apathy and inaction about climate change. This chapter argues that despair is a rationally apt response to the climate crisis. Despair is a fitting response to the structural features of the climate crisis in terms of fragmentation of agency, making despair an accurate representation of a situation lacking agency. Despair is an important source of moral knowledge about the structure of the climate crisis, which is not automatically outweighed by pragmatic reasons and demanding to avoid despair can lead to affective injustice. The chapter closes with considerations of whether despair really does hinder moral imagination. (shrink)

Biological evolution provides a creative fount of complex and subtle adaptations, often surprising the scientists who discover them. However, because evolution is an algorithmic process that transcends the substrate in which it occurs, evolution’s creativity is not limited to nature. Indeed, many researchers in the field of digital evolution have observed their evolving algorithms and organisms subverting their intentions, exposing unrecognized bugs in their code, producing unexpected adaptations, or exhibiting outcomes uncannily convergent with ones in nature. Such stories routinely reveal (...) creativity by evolution in these digital worlds, but they rarely fit into the standard scientific narrative. Instead they are often treated as mere obstacles to be overcome, rather than results that warrant study in their own right. The stories themselves are traded among researchers through oral tradition, but that mode of information transmission is inefficient and prone to error and outright loss. Moreover, the fact that these stories tend to be shared only among practitioners means that many natural scientists do not realize how interesting and lifelike digital organisms are and how natural their evolution can be. To our knowledge, no collection of such anecdotes has been published before. This paper is the crowd-sourced product of researchers in the fields of artificial life and evolutionary computation who have provided first-hand accounts of such cases. It thus serves as a written, fact-checked collection of scientifically important and even entertaining stories. In doing so we also present here substantial evidence that the existence and importance of evolutionary surprises extends beyond the natural world, and may indeed be a universal property of all complex evolving systems. (shrink)

Proponents of temporal neutrality have challenged the intuitive appeal of future-bias: The intuitive appeal of future-bias is limited to a set of isolated cases that involve only hedonic and self-regarding goods and harms. They suggest that we should treat future-bias as irrational in self-regarding hedonic cases too, or at least not treat the intuitive appeal as evidence for future-bias's permissibility, since hedonic and non-hedonic cases are relevantly similar. This paper defends the rationality of future-bias against this concern. Firstly, hedonic goods (...) and harms mostly concern well-being at a time, while the proposed non-hedonic goods concern lifetime goodness. This is a relevant structural difference between hedonic and non-hedonic goods and harms that warrant different attitude patterns, including the applicability of future-bias. Secondly, the degree of idealisation required to make intuitions favour temporal neutrality obscures the weight of intuitions to a level that makes it unreliable as evidence against the permissibility of future-bias. As temporal neutralists need this degree of idealisation of their cases, the argument fails. In summary, we can keep using intuitive support as evidence for future-bias's rationality, at least when it comes to hedonic goods, but to some extent for its general permissibility. (shrink)

Philosoph:innen versuchen zunehmend zu erklären, warum die Struktur unseres Lebens normativ bedeutsam ist. Eine beliebte Erklärung, die von Dorsey (2015), Rosati (2013), Glasgow (2013), Kauppinnen (2012) und Velleman (1991) vertreten wird, ist die Narrativitäts-These: Was der Struktur unseres Lebens normative Bedeutung verleiht, sind die narrativen Relationen zwischen Lebensabschnitten, die verschiedene Teile des Lebens einer Person zu etwas Sinnhaftem verbinden. Sie fügen einem Leben einen Wert hinzu, der nicht auf momentanes Wohlbefinden reduziert werden kann. Da die narrative Lebensstruktur normative Bedeutung hat, (...) ist ein Leben mit narrativen Relationen wertvoller als ein Leben ohne diese Beziehungen, da es mehr Sinnhaftigkeit erlangt. Mit anderen Worten: Unter sonst gleichen Bedingungen sollten wir unser Leben als Geschichte leben. In diesem Beitrag wird argumentiert, dass die Narrativitäts-These falsch ist. Weder ist ein Leben besser, wenn es eine Geschichte erzählt, noch müssen wir unser Leben als eine Geschichte leben. Ich zeige drei Fälle, in denen wir intuitiv nicht der Narrativitäts-These folgen sollten, und gebe anschließend eine systematische Erklärung, warum narrative Beziehungen zwischen Lebensabschnitten normativ nicht bedeutsam sind: Es ist rational, uns von unserer Vergangenheit abzukoppeln und vergangenen Ereignissen und Lebensabschnitten keine normative Bedeutung beizumessen. Ich schließe mit einer Diskussion über Verdrängung und narrative Fehlschlüsse über wichtige Teile unserer Vergangenheit und wie wir uns vor beidem schützen können. (shrink)

We test people's ability to optimize performance across two concurrent tasks. Participants performed a number entry task while controlling a randomly moving cursor with a joystick. Participants received explicit feedback on their performance on these tasks in the form of a single combined score. This payoff function was varied between conditions to change the value of one task relative to the other. We found that participants adapted their strategy for interleaving the two tasks, by varying how long they spent on (...) one task before switching to the other, in order to achieve the near maximum payoff available in each condition. In a second experiment, we show that this behavior is learned quickly and remained stable for as long as the payoff function did not change. The results of this work show that people are adaptive and flexible in how they prioritize and allocate attention in a dual-task setting. However, it also demonstrates some of the limits regarding people's ability to optimize payoff functions. (shrink)