Optimism Bias

 

What is it that leads to denial of reality and then subsequently in many cases, optimism bias? Recently, I have noticed a rather large increase in the number of posts and/or comments which are not based on reality and demonstrate a large amount of ignorance on a large number of topics. Is it just me or is this happening across the spectrum of groups that are based upon climate change and/or energy and resource decline? So, based on my curiosity, I decided to make posts asking about this scenario. The answers I received confirmed, that indeed, the same lines of thought that I figured are also responsible for the denial of reality and optimism bias I continue seeing in increasing amounts. As for whether or not a large increase is happening, please offer up YOUR observation in the comments section below!

Among the topics this covers are the overwhelming subjects often found in news articles regarding new technology focusing on artificial intelligence, batteries, non-renewable "renewable" energy, hemp alternatives to common materials, biofuels, space travel, flying cars, traveling to Mars, mining asteroids/the Moon/Mars, and topics regarding emissions reductions from products being proffered as "sustainable" or "green" or "clean" or "renewable" where in reality NONE of those words actually describes said products. One article about bitcoin actually brings entirely false concepts into the mix. More often than not, people simply haven't researched the material to discover how much energy is embedded within and the resources that make up the products along with how much energy and resources will be required to place the products in service, maintain the products, and dispose of or recycle the products at the end of their useful life. I found the following picture indicative of the scenario:

What I find particularly disturbing is how little thought is given to the topic of any item labeled with the "green, clean, renewable, or sustainable" monikers. Society has been working on building non-renewable "renewable" energy devices such as solar panels and wind turbines for over 30 years now and we have reached just less than 6% of total world energy (global electricity accounts for about 20% of total global energy use). The green industry simply slaps labels of one sort or another to foster sales of these products to people, other companies, and governments around the world with the empty promise that they will reduce emissions when in reality what they do is simply provide for increased overall energy use. The real trouble is in the fact that as long as these devices are in use, they REQUIRE the fossil fuel platform to be fully functioning for both their maintenance and decommissioning process at the end of their useful life. Noting that the EROEI of fossil energy sources is reaching the lower limits to keep civilization running, it is only a matter of time before a large majority of these ideas are abandoned in favor of keeping enough energy available to keep existing systems running as long as possible; especially water and sewer systems, agricultural and food delivery systems, and other basic infrastructural systems which are seen as absolutely essential. Non-essential systems such as the entertainment industry, the travel industry, and similar industries will slowly fade away.

One form of optimism bias happens quite regularly; where we often fail to judge risk appropriately, as shown in this article about the family in California found dead while hiking in the Sierra National Forest. So, this isn't limited to energy and resource decline or ecological overshoot; it is a common human flaw and happens frequently, as described here.

Now that we see articles from energy companies regarding the decline of fossil energy being available, what will happen to these devices once the fossil fuel platform cannot be maintained? The answer to this question isn't pretty, and one with grave implications: once the fossil fuel platform (which extracts fossil fuels, ships them to refineries to be processed, then ships them to locations around the world to the end consumer) can not be maintained, neither will the rest of the world's infrastructure. Roads, bridges, transmission towers, substations, wind turbines, nuclear power plants, solar systems, batteries, hydroelectric dams, municipal water systems, municipal sewer systems, and all other infrastructure depend utterly on both the energy AND the resources said energy makes possible for their very existence. Millions of installations, roads, and bridges will become permanently damaged by extreme weather events and without the ability to reach locations due to this issue along with a lack of energy and resources to repair or replace damage, much of the world's infrastructure will simply be abandoned. This can clearly be seen even today from empires which collapsed - the Greeks, Romans, Mayans, Inca, Aztecs, Easter Islanders, and many others.

One of the most pervasive issues I see routinely is the focus on one area of information or route of design. This silo mentality means that a holistic view is often hidden from the agenda of those working on ideas to solve problems, and this generally introduces optimism bias into said agenda. As such, many people tend to view the future from a perspective based upon denial from the set of holistic perspectives, providing a false sense of security. They then go on to spread this false sense of security as propaganda. 

 

As my continued study of science has informed me; the more I keep learning, the more I realize just how foolish optimism bias really is. Considering the fact that no human is capable of knowing 100% of any particular field and certainly not 100% of all fields, this means that the real truth regarding each predicament or set of predicaments is almost ALWAYS worse than originally suspected. 

For instance, one of my files on this blog has to do with pollution loading. As one looks through the various articles, one can probably make a generalized guess as to where this all winds up. However, most people might never come to the conclusion that we may be poisoning ourselves to the point of making us infertile. How long will it take before our species becomes functionally extinct just as a result of toxic substances? Needless to say, one of the worst assumptions with regard to optimism bias is the one that continuing building technology is "safe" for humans (and all other species for that matter) in the first place. One look at most electronics these days comes up with one of these warnings, which doesn't give much confidence in these devices (regardless of stripe) being safe:

So, that is my take on optimism bias; although there are other perspectives on this scenario that are equally hilarious/ironic/thoughtful such as this article here about the likelihood of humans traveling to Mars to set up a homestead there. I could find many other examples if I wanted to; but since I face these situations every day, I'm all stocked up already.