Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Are people optimistic about the future?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 100 posts

Re: Ask HN: Are people optimistic about the future?

#91

Post by dudul »

softwaredoug wrote: post #90
dudul wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're being fooled by the public platforms and the communication stunts. Yes the world stage would be pretty much the same with a different administration. The parties are basically lighting rods at this point. They claim that they're for this or against that, they would do this, we should do that, and if only we... blablabla. But in the end, nothing concrete ever changes. Sure there are adjustments here or there th…

I don't see how you can back that up with actual data. - SCOTUS would be radically different in composition without a GOP President being elected in 2016. That would have preserved post-Watergate reforms that prevented broad, sweeping executive actions that go against Congress's wishes. So at best Trump II could only look like a Trump I - We wouldn't have attacked Iran. Continued closing of Hormuz has pretty far-reac…

"We wouldn't have attacked Iran" How do you back that up with data? The US have been swamped in that part of the world for decades and decades, it didn't start with Trump.

As of today, the EU has not done anything concrete and real to be more military independent. Yes they have created "institutions" and "programs" and enacted "regulatory changes" (things they love to do in Europe), but concretely their military capabilities have not moved at all. These are just the thing the EU has been doing for a long time with never any result.

Again, do you have actual data to predict what the US position vis a vis Taiwan/China would be with a different administration?

What I will give you is that yes, Trump is way more disruptive than the previous tag team game the blues and the reds were playing before. I still don't think it will change much. Trump has not done anything truly radical.

Re: Ask HN: Are people optimistic about the future?

#92

Post by dhruvyads »

kai_mac wrote: post #67

The remaining carbon budget for limiting warming to 2°C with 66% probability was estimated (in 2022) as equivalent to 23 years of (then) current CO2 emissions. It does not seem likely that we will be anywhere near zero CO2 emissions in 19 years. We are heading towards a hothouse Earth without the technology to reverse this on any meaningful scale. So no I don't think humans will be more happy, I think they will be ho…

Carbon capture will become feasible once we have cheap energy. Building fusion reactors is an engineering problem (AI can help), and the cost of building them is mainly dominated by labor instead of raw materials, which humanoid robots will drive to near zero. AI could of course go very wrong, but it will make environmental problems seem trivial.

Re: Ask HN: Are people optimistic about the future?

#94

Post by throwaw12 »

corporate lobby is getting more powerful, needs of corporations put above human needs, people are getting laid off to boost stock price, even though company is still making billions, top 1% is getting even richer, housing is getting more expensive, government is doing nothing to punish people involved in child sex trafficking, foreign tiny state is dictating how to conduct diplomacy to a superpower.

if trend continues, I am not optimistic.

Re: Ask HN: Are people optimistic about the future?

#95

Post by softwaredoug »

dudul wrote: post #91
softwaredoug wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how you can back that up with actual data. - SCOTUS would be radically different in composition without a GOP President being elected in 2016. That would have preserved post-Watergate reforms that prevented broad, sweeping executive actions that go against Congress's wishes. So at best Trump II could only look like a Trump I - We wouldn't have attacked Iran. Continued closing of Hormuz has pretty far-reac…

"We wouldn't have attacked Iran" How do you back that up with data? The US have been swamped in that part of the world for decades and decades, it didn't start with Trump. As of today, the EU has not done anything concrete and real to be more military independent. Yes they have created "institutions" and "programs" and enacted "regulatory changes" (things they love to do in Europe), but concretely their military capa…

To win your argument, you need to enumerate every major outcome in the last few decades, and argue how it would still happen under the other party's president. Here's a few:

1. Iraq War (how does President Al Gore convince us to go to war in Iraq?!?)

2. ACA (President McCain passes the Affordable Care Act or something like it)

3. SCOTUS and downstream consequences (How does a President Hillary Clinton appoint a SCOTUS that overturns Roe v. Wade, to name a few)

Those are fairly preposterous, so I don't know how you can hold "it doesn't matter"

On Iran War itself, we didn't attack Iran for decades :) Past Presidents knew about the risks to the Strait of Hormuz, and this president clearly ignored numerous warnings.

(a) Past Presidents did not ignore these warnings, it's well known this would be a move from Iran from military planners (b) Current president clearly did (c) "It never matters" doesn't hold, because clearly

Hormuz being a known / ignored risk is well known

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/02/us/politics/trump-iran-st... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/13/goal-plan-ir...

Re: Ask HN: Are people optimistic about the future?

#96

Post by dudul »

softwaredoug wrote: post #95
dudul wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We wouldn't have attacked Iran" How do you back that up with data? The US have been swamped in that part of the world for decades and decades, it didn't start with Trump. As of today, the EU has not done anything concrete and real to be more military independent. Yes they have created "institutions" and "programs" and enacted "regulatory changes" (things they love to do in Europe), but concretely their military capa…

To win your argument, you need to enumerate every major outcome in the last few decades, and argue how it would still happen under the other party's president. Here's a few: 1. Iraq War (how does President Al Gore convince us to go to war in Iraq?!?) 2. ACA (President McCain passes the Affordable Care Act or something like it) 3. SCOTUS and downstream consequences (How does a President Hillary Clinton appoint a SCOTU…

Oh I think I understand the source of the confusion: you think that whoever is in the White House makes the decisions, I don't. I know: "ooh conspiracy theory blaba!" yeah. The thing is I think people who've been in place for 20/30 years in core power positions actually have more power than people who are elected and replaced every 4 to 5 years.

ACA didn't happen because of Obama for example.

Re: Ask HN: Are people optimistic about the future?

#97

Post by softwaredoug »

dudul wrote: post #96
softwaredoug wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To win your argument, you need to enumerate every major outcome in the last few decades, and argue how it would still happen under the other party's president. Here's a few: 1. Iraq War (how does President Al Gore convince us to go to war in Iraq?!?) 2. ACA (President McCain passes the Affordable Care Act or something like it) 3. SCOTUS and downstream consequences (How does a President Hillary Clinton appoint a SCOTU…

Oh I think I understand the source of the confusion: you think that whoever is in the White House makes the decisions, I don't. I know: "ooh conspiracy theory blaba!" yeah. The thing is I think people who've been in place for 20/30 years in core power positions actually have more power than people who are elected and replaced every 4 to 5 years. ACA didn't happen because of Obama for example.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Re: Ask HN: Are people optimistic about the future?

#99

Post by senordevnyc »

badpun wrote: post #85
JohnDSDev wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I quite like this question. I'm not exactly sure, but either a but in the past to get to watch the internet start, or far in the future like 4000 or something.

Due to population distribution, you're most likely to be born in a poor country. And, in those countries, you're way better off being born in 2026 than in 1970s (to be able to watch when the Internet was starting). Chances are, if you were born in China, India, Nigeria, Malasya etc. you wouldn't even hear about the Internet anyway.

Hey, someone who gets it!

Re: Ask HN: Are people optimistic about the future?

#100

Post by monssooon »

I'm scared of the future but split in pessimistic and optimistic scenarios.

Optimistic : if surveillance becomes benign to good people and all bad people get caught and put away the future looks bright to me. But I doubt that will happen.

If robots and AI become a positive factor in our lives and economies maybe combined with 3d printing and scanning, tool making and so on will it empower us.

Maybe chinas dominance will be a good thing in the future and our fears will be in vain. Maybe democracy will prevail even in the east.

Pessimistic : surveillance will strangle all innovation and happiness out of society.

AI will take over and large corporations will own everything including political power and even countries.

Geopolitical struggle will lead to war and currency collaps.

I mostly think we are heading in the pessimistic scenario but I still hope.

Post reply on HN