The lost art of thinking historically ⊗ How climate broke reality ⊗ Does the Bitter Lesson have limits?

No.371 — Why 95% of AI commentary fails ⊗ Designing futures you can live in ⊗ AI water usage at data centers ⊗ “Solarize everything we possibly can” ⊗ Warsaw opens metro station “express” library

The lost art of thinking historically ⊗ How climate broke reality ⊗ Does the Bitter Lesson have limits?
The Umbrella Man. Created with Midjourney.

The lost art of thinking historically

Francis Gavin argues that what we urgently need is a historical sensibility—a way of thinking that embraces uncertainty, context, and the complexity of human experience rather than seeking simple, certain answers. This sensibility recognises history as a rich tapestry of interwoven events shaped by multiple causes and unintended consequences, rather than a straightforward narrative with clear heroes or villains. Thinking historically means asking deeper, more probing questions that resist easy conclusions and appreciate the unpredictable and “wacky” nature of the past. Rather than offering neat lessons, history provides a vast reservoir of human experience that sharpens our intellectual humility, curiosity and empathy, equipping us to engage thoughtfully with the challenges of an uncertain future.

In one phrase; the discipline of history today is largely a preservation method, instead of a living practice used as a lens to interpret and enact the present and orient futures. I use “futures thinking” to describe this newsletter. Thus a call to consider consequences and trajectories, while Gavin “reminds us that history is not a set of lessons to be applied, but a vast reservoir of human experience to be explored.”

The story of the Umbrella Man reveals our deep-seated human desire to make sense of a complex universe through tidy, airtight explanations. We crave certainty, especially in the face of tragedy, and are quick to weave disparate facts into a coherent, and often sinister, narrative. We see a man with an umbrella on a sunny day and assume conspiracy, because the alternative — that the world is a stage for random, idiosyncratic and often meaningless acts — is far more unsettling. […]

What we have lost, and what we desperately need to reclaim, is a different mode of cognition, a historical sensibility. This is not about memorizing dates and facts. It is, as the historian Gordon S. Wood describes it, a “different consciousness,” a way of understanding that profoundly influences how we see the world. It is a temperament that is comfortable with uncertainty, sensitive to context and aware of the powerful, often unpredictable rhythms of the past. To cultivate this sensibility is to acquire the intellectual virtues of modesty, curiosity and empathy — an antidote to the hubris of rigid, monocausal thinking. […]

Ultimately, thinking historically is about asking better, more probing questions. It is a disciplined curiosity that fosters an appreciation for the complex interplay of individual agency, structural forces and pure chance. Instead of offering easy answers, it provides the intellectual equipment to engage with hard questions, a skill indispensable for navigating a future that will surely be as unpredictable as the past.

How climate broke reality

We all gravitate towards convenience. For some people, if “truth” is in the way of living a convenient life, or collecting convenient profits, or punishing convenient enemies, then truth itself has to go.

ADH proposes that climate change has fractured our shared sense of reality, that denial and conspiracy theories prevent meaningful action and deepen societal anxiety. He suggests that many people secretly understand the climate crisis but choose convenient falsehoods over uncomfortable truths, fuelling widespread reality denial. To restore collective trust and hope, we must move beyond minimal climate targets and inspire belief in the possibility of truly restoring the Earth’s atmosphere. An essential shift not only to address environmental collapse but also to heal the broader cultural and political fractures caused by climate anxiety and misinformation.

The cause and effect is something I hadn’t considered, but I’ve often said that a lot of people seem to just not want to think about things. Everything happens so much that, consciously or unconsciously, they stick to the status quo and ignore “all the things.” If people insist on going back in time, then going back to a restored Earth would be a lot more productive than back to the 50s.

And we have to tell a story that goes beyond the world’s current limp climate targets, beyond merely decarbonizing and halting warming at 1.5-2°C. Managed decline and blunted disaster inspire no one, and I think everyone understands, deep down, that this is what’s being proposed. We need to start telling people that an actual restoration of the holocene atmosphere is possible, and that they can be a part of it. […]

But for me, that “inconvenient truth” phrase still has a lot of explanatory power. It’s not “an important truth” or “a necessary truth” or “a useful truth.” No, the most fundamental thing about climate change is that it’s inconvenient, frustrating, shitty. Even if you believe, as I do, that fixing climate change is an opportunity to fix many other problems in our society, it’s still inconvenient that the chemistry worked out this way. […]

How much does climate anxiety fuel the anxiety behind the so-called ‘masculinity crisis’? How much are we driven to addictive screens because the weather is getting worse, and we have reason to be afraid of the sky? How much have we lost faith in journalism because it seems to struggle to tackle the biggest story on the planet? The entanglements are endless, once you start looking for them.


§ Does the Bitter Lesson have limits? “[Donna Haraway’s ] list of the four major blows to the human ego: The Copernican Revolution, which allowed us to realize we weren’t the center of the universe. Darwinian thought, which allowed us to realize we weren’t separate from animals. Freud’s ideas of the unconscious, which allowed us to realize that we weren’t in full control of our selves. Cyborgs, robots, and automatons, which allowed us to realize that non-humans could do the work of humans.”


§ Why 95% of AI commentary fails. Jon Evans criticises the widespread misreporting of MIT NANDA’s “95% of AI projects fail” paper, pointing out the paper actually finds 95% of highly customised internal pilot projects don’t scale, while standard LLM chatbots and vendor partnerships often succeed. He urges readers to check primary sources and to use frontier LLMs (e.g. GPT‑5, Claude, Gemini) to summarise papers and flag errors in news stories.No, it will almost certainly not hallucinate. (Hallucinations usually come from models ‘misremembering' their pretraining; here, the paper and report will be in their context window, which they’re nowadays very good at recalling.) And the sad reality is that even in the unlikely event it does … I am confident it will do so much less than, say, modern human reporters.” Ouch!

Sentiers is made possible by the generous support of its Members and
the modern family office of Pardon.

Futures, Fictions & Fabulations

Algorithms, Automations & Augmentations

Built, Biosphere & Breakthroughs

Asides

Your Futures Thinking Observatory