The Rational Optimist

I just read that review, and it's been years since I've read the book, but here are my thoughts on what I see as the substantive points in the critique: 1. Climate change: Ridley calls himself a "luke-warmer". He doesn't deny that a doubling of carbon dioxide causes a 1 degree celsius increase in temperature, but he accumulates various evidence in the book suggesting that estimated feedback effects (water vapor, etc.) are in excess of what's likely. This claim certainly falls into one of the debatable aspects of the book and I'm not an expert to really evaluate it. I think it's a valid criticism that Ridley is excessively optimistic on existential risks. My guess is that he has a Bayesian prior that dooms-dayers are more likely to be wrong than not. He has many examples in the book of experts predicting existential risks in history and being wrong, and I think this colors his view of all experts. I think those historical examples of wrong doomsdayers is an interesting and important perspective.…

The Rational Optimist by Matt Ridley. Debatable but opened up a new perspective for me.

The Rational Optimist. It helped me realize (along with other things), that no, the world isn't getting worse. Things are much better than they've ever been for most people, and they're only getting better, faster.