Should Prophets Speak Like Prophets?

Maybe not, if they want to change things instead of getting famous.

In moments of great change, there are always many potential ways the future could unfold. Many of them quite consequential! Take the industrial revolution, the printing press, radio, and television. Feudalism changed into nation states, coal and oil uprooted a lot of the natural resources of the world, industries and large companies reoriented societies away from villages, pulled people into cities, charismatic leaders could scale with radio and TV to MUCH larger audiences and lead entire peoples into horrible wars for ideologies and ethnicities… It’s really hard to overstate how many things change when we hit these historical cruxes.

And so many people are right to sound warnings.

But they are usually not really listened to.

I wanna take a stab at why. In a single compressed sentence: The carrying costs of preparing for all possible critical futures is too high. The pragmatic and pro-topian majority tune out the 100 prophets of doom and then muddle through the crises that do come true.

Lets unpack that. A chorus of voices often emerges, each vying for the public's attention with stark predictions and calls for drastic action. These individuals, akin to modern-day prophets, paint vivid pictures of impending doom, urging society to alter its course. Yet, for many, these doomsayers are dismissed as alarmists, their warnings filtered out as a form of epistemic hygiene. The term "doomer" has become a label for those perceived as overly pessimistic or catastrophizing, their concerns often sidelined in favor of maintaining a sense of normalcy.

The challenge lies in discerning the validity of these claims. While history is replete with examples of accurate predictions of disaster, most predictions end up wrong.

The multitude of potential catastrophes vying for attention makes it impossible for individuals to deeply investigate each one. Moreover, the cost of acting drastically on every warning would be paralyzing, effectively shutting down society as we know it. This creates a dilemma where the prophets, facing skepticism, escalate their rhetoric, further solidifying the beliefs of their already-convinced followers. The resulting filter bubble reinforces their message, creating a widening gap between the doomsayers and the rest of society.

In contrast, those who advocate for a more measured approach, often labeled as pro-topians (between utopians and dystopians), emphasize the importance of muddling through. They acknowledge the existence of problems but reject the catastrophizing tendencies of the doomsayers. Pro-topians focus on incremental progress, favoring practical solutions over grand pronouncements. Their quiet voices, however, are often drowned out by the clamor of the prophets and their competing fans and filter bubbles, their message of cautious optimism dismissed as complacency.

This dynamic creates a dangerous polarization, where the public is forced to choose between extreme positions. The doomsayers, with their apocalyptic visions, offer a sense of urgency and purpose, while the protopians, with their emphasis on incrementalism, risk being labeled as apathetic or naive.

So, counterintuitively, if you are one of these prophets and it feels like people are responding more and more positively, you are probably just building a following that is stuck in the same filter bubble as you. Making a move to be more incremental and pro-topian will feel like giving up, not taking the problem seriously. Why? because you’ll now be talking to the pragmatic majority. But it seems that’s the only way to not get discounted as a potential crank.