If you're an academic of some kind, then being able to explain all of the problems that

are out there and how dangerous these problems are and why you need funding in order to look

at these problems in more depth, that appears to be the intellectually serious position.

Someone who claims that we can solve this, it sounds a little bit cum-boy-r, even though

it's quite right, that in fact, collaboration, cooperation and resource exploitation will

actually be the thing that's going to drive this, the knowledge economy forward so that

we can solve with these problems, it always sounds more intellectually serious if you can

stand up there with a frown on your face in front of a TED Talk audience and say, these

are all the ways in which we're going to file and which we're going to come to ruin.

I'm guilty of having recorded one of these Doomserer podcasts about Enders blowing up

the Earth, but that was the one podcast that I regretted the most.

We had a great conversation, but I don't fundamentally agree with any of the conclusions

that might come out of that, which say the world is going to end, so we should slow down.

The only way out is through progress.

And subsequently, I haven't promoted as much as I promoted my third podcast and upon

reading Doich, I realize why.

It's because it's easy to be a pessimist.

It's an easy trap to fall into, but it implies that humans are not creative.

It doesn't acknowledge all the ways that we have innovated our way out of previous traps.

And fundamentally, entrepreneurs are inherently optimistic because they get rewarded for

being optimistic.

As you're saying, intellectuals get rewarded for being pessimistic.

...