So my EX wouldn't stop talking about this Crash thing.

[Amoryenar]

He sounded like a doomsday guy, you know, the ones on the street yelling "The end is NEAR"

 

Well he kept saying that, any day now, everything would crash and we'd all lose power and chaos would ensue and---

 

He was madman in my opinion, but idk, it's possible I guess.

 

What he a madman or do others(besides his family ahah) share his opinion?

[montky]

@amoryenar

you ask a very profound question of futures,

and thanks for asking it.

you could study a dissertation on this, it verges on

an infinite regress.

 

you ask a debate as old as society itself -

the cornucopian v malthusian 'great debate'.

several other 'nex-ites' (nex-ians? nexus-ers)

have also asked futures questions.

 

To ponder the future is a part of the human condition,

and part of how we make choices.

To ponder futures too long is to answer what it felt like to be Icarus -

it is staring directly at the sun with no eye-protection hehe.

 

the point? there are extremes to many things,

extreme pessimist, extreme optimist, and futures-standpoints are no different.

some take a dystopic bias and extreme,

others a eutopic bias and extreme.

the aim is moreso an accurate picture, and a 'happy medium', somewhere nearer the middle.

 

some different pathways ask these questions of futures -

futures studiers, insurance, epidemiologists, town planners, developers, geopol futures, technocrats/progressives, and eschatologers.

to name a few.

people study things such as

the toynbee-huntington thesis, the resource futures models, and choice theory...

this then leads them to ask questions,

such as "on the balance of probabilities, with the presently available information,

how likely is x,y,z to occur within p,q,r,s,t interval? (perhaps x,y,z is TEOTWAWKI)

how people arrive at those answers - the scope, assumptions and framework,

are as important as the conclusions arrived at.

 

some people do not model a continuum of futures, and instead

follow a more spiritualist-informed or eschatological-biased model of futures.

"theological fatalism, predeterminism etc"

their model of futures is more like a cartesian punnet, with only 2 or 3 'likely outcomes'.

these eschatological standpoints do not reason or consider choice-theory, rather it is based on a string of

prophesy and a particular conception of 'agency'/choice.

to be certain, some models of futures can similarly be biased by meliorism or an over-estimation of the rates of change.

 

-----

So, to answer your question;

Futures will transpire (the Desiderata).

I do ask questions of futures, as I am sure a lot of people from all different walks of life do.

 

I do not think dystopic futures are likely, at least, of the Seneca Cliff, TEOTWAWKI kinds in near-term futures,

though if any futures ought occur, then those futures ought be eutopic.

Though, understanding futures is something that can be done.

modeling futures can help shape the courses we make today to arrive at those envisaged tomorrows.

 

However, frankly,

if people only knew the non-standard analysis distribution of probabilities,

of any time t, of how things could end... they would likely fixate on those.

stochastic chance should factor into a lot of models...

there are all kinds of possible futures.

the idea of modelling potential dystopic scenarios disturbs many people.

 

It further saddens me to see

otherwise rational people, fixate on a particular filter and confirmation bias,

on any 'side' of the cornucopian v malthusian debate.

So many people lament their time...

the malthusian who regrets time spent 'prepping' for a day that never came, for one scenario of an infinitude of scenarios.

they only listened to pro-malthusian sources, and discerned

the cornucopian, who sees the downsides to 'progress'... who sees the overshoot scenario continue despite innovation...

they only listen to pro-technocrat/meliorist sources, and discerned on that basis.

 

I have seen good friends become quite adversarial, merely over things like asking futures questions.

I have been attacked in the past for asking the wrong futures questions in the wrong times and spaces...

people break up, and many different things,

all over uncertain things, which they may not have much ability to influence.

 

-----

If you pressed me in to answering more specifically

"which futures do you model as 'likely' and why?"

I'd suggest that, over the longer terms,

kissinger, j diamond, s sand, jn gray, asimov, harlan ellison, santayana, borges, frank herbert, inayatullah, FM2030,

have a model which converges on a timespan, for reasons they discuss.

those futures are likely, if certain constraints exist also.

the why would be harder to answer...

 

less likely, though I hope is what transpires,

are scenarios in which

J Sacks "dignity of difference" emerges,

and that other more dystopic future does not transpire, nor does an n'thpartite or cosmopolitanism imposed future.

no-one is effaced, and there's no need for a vying.

this is dubbed the "roddenberry scenario".

[MotoSxorpio]

@amoryenar

you ask a very profound question of futures,

and thanks for asking it.

you could study a dissertation on this, it verges on

an infinite regress.

 

you ask a debate as old as society itself -

the cornucopian v malthusian 'great debate'.

several other 'nex-ites' (nex-ians? nexus-ers)

have also asked futures questions.

 

To ponder the future is a part of the human condition,

and part of how we make choices.

To ponder futures too long is to answer what it felt like to be Icarus -

it is staring directly at the sun with no eye-protection hehe.

 

the point? there are extremes to many things,

extreme pessimist, extreme optimist, and futures-standpoints are no different.

some take a dystopic bias and extreme,

others a eutopic bias and extreme.

the aim is moreso an accurate picture, and a 'happy medium', somewhere nearer the middle.

 

some different pathways ask these questions of futures -

futures studiers, insurance, epidemiologists, town planners, developers, geopol futures, technocrats/progressives, and eschatologers.

to name a few.

people study things such as

the toynbee-huntington thesis, the resource futures models, and choice theory...

this then leads them to ask questions,

such as "on the balance of probabilities, with the presently available information,

how likely is x,y,z to occur within p,q,r,s,t interval? (perhaps x,y,z is TEOTWAWKI)

how people arrive at those answers - the scope, assumptions and framework,

are as important as the conclusions arrived at.

 

some people do not model a continuum of futures, and instead

follow a more spiritualist-informed or eschatological-biased model of futures.

"theological fatalism, predeterminism etc"

their model of futures is more like a cartesian punnet, with only 2 or 3 'likely outcomes'.

these eschatological standpoints do not reason or consider choice-theory, rather it is based on a string of

prophesy and a particular conception of 'agency'/choice.

to be certain, some models of futures can similarly be biased by meliorism or an over-estimation of the rates of change.

 

-----

So, to answer your question;

Futures will transpire (the Desiderata).

I do ask questions of futures, as I am sure a lot of people from all different walks of life do.

 

I do not think dystopic futures are likely, at least, of the Seneca Cliff, TEOTWAWKI kinds in near-term futures,

though if any futures ought occur, then those futures ought be eutopic.

Though, understanding futures is something that can be done.

modeling futures can help shape the courses we make today to arrive at those envisaged tomorrows.

 

However, frankly,

if people only knew the non-standard analysis distribution of probabilities,

of any time t, of how things could end... they would likely fixate on those.

stochastic chance should factor into a lot of models...

there are all kinds of possible futures.

the idea of modelling potential dystopic scenarios disturbs many people.

 

It further saddens me to see

otherwise rational people, fixate on a particular filter and confirmation bias,

on any 'side' of the cornucopian v malthusian debate.

So many people lament their time...

the malthusian who regrets time spent 'prepping' for a day that never came, for one scenario of an infinitude of scenarios.

they only listened to pro-malthusian sources, and discerned

the cornucopian, who sees the downsides to 'progress'... who sees the overshoot scenario continue despite innovation...

they only listen to pro-technocrat/meliorist sources, and discerned on that basis.

 

I have seen good friends become quite adversarial, merely over things like asking futures questions.

I have been attacked in the past for asking the wrong futures questions in the wrong times and spaces...

people break up, and many different things,

all over uncertain things, which they may not have much ability to influence.

 

-----

If you pressed me in to answering more specifically

"which futures do you model as 'likely' and why?"

I'd suggest that, over the longer terms,

kissinger, j diamond, s sand, jn gray, asimov, harlan ellison, santayana, borges, frank herbert, inayatullah, FM2030,

have a model which converges on a timespan, for reasons they discuss.

those futures are likely, if certain constraints exist also.

the why would be harder to answer...

 

less likely, though I hope is what transpires,

are scenarios in which

J Sacks "dignity of difference" emerges,

and that other more dystopic future does not transpire, nor does an n'thpartite or cosmopolitanism imposed future.

no-one is effaced, and there's no need for a vying.

this is dubbed the "roddenberry scenario".

In other words, s#*! Happens. Deal with it. ;)

 

Montky deserves props for all that though, so...props! Clap Clap. Corn vs. Mal had me there for a minute, though.

 

Life can be as complex or simple as you make it. You probably live longer when it's all simple. ;) Live long, AND prosper.

[montky]

@MotoSxorpio

Thank you for your reflection, and the 'props'.

having seen a lot of your threads and stuff elsewhere, that means a lot to me personally.

 

I could see a fellow nex-ite ask an interesting question - presumably, not rhetorically,

and tried to answer as best I could.

They took a chance and shared a private moment.

 

I've seen so many people

have profound disagreements over

such a deceptively simple issue as this

its a real "what the?"

 

though that truncation and paraphrase

"in other words, s*$# happens, deal with it",

is not at all the abridged YOLO TL;DR sparknotes version of what I said,

nor anywhere close to the sentiment I was conveying.

"it's so wrong, it is not even wrong."

 

bauhaus and minimalism is cool in some context,

though sometimes minimalism is as much a barrier

as other kinds of barrier too.

 

Frankly, that is effacing to misquote or mis-paraphrase someone to portray it as much, though

different strokes for different folks.

Futures are a very complex issue, despite how some factions might

oversimplify that.

[gandalftw]

Something,some event, has caused your EX to become irrational.

Doomsday prophets are as old as civilization itself and usually these individuals have a subconscious passion for disaster.A belief that one is facing the end times is exhilarating to doomsday types for the humdrum of their existence is suddenly transformed and electrified they become especially animated and enjoy sharing their knowledge with everyone they come in contact with.

 

I'd be interested to know if your EX has a timeline for this crash and what event triggered him.