The Joy Explosion WT 019

Why are we interested in the future? We want to know what happens next. We want to avoid bad things that might happen and make the most of good things that can happen.

What if the future was all about happiness? If we can have a possibility explosion and an intelligence explosion, why not a joy explosion?

Phil and Stephen explore the possibility of a much happier future for everyone — which might prove difficult to achieve. Even as we get more of everything else, more happiness may prove elusive.


Listen to internet radio with The World Transformed on BlogTalkRadio



About Phil 523 Articles
Phil Bowermaster is a nationally recognized author and speaker. He has more than 25 years experience writing about emerging technologies and the future. As co-host of the popular Internet radio series, The World Transformed, Phil has talked with leading scientists and technologists, best-selling authors, philosophers, filmmakers, artists, entrepreneurs and others who are shaping our understanding of the amazing era of transformation in which we live. Phil helps leaders and their organizations develop strategies for managing accelerating change. He shows how imagination, optimism, empathy, and humor can make all the difference in both understanding and making the most of the powerful currents of change we face.

1 Comment

  1. Phil/Stephen,

    Regarding the ‘disputing of negative thoughts’, etc., I know where that comes from. It’s from A Guide to Rational Living, by Albert Ellis. It’s not really about ‘arguing with oneself’, per se. It’s a specific type of ‘disputing’.

    ‘Disputing’ is a matter of trying to look at things more realistically, seeing that most things aren’t the end of the world, and that you can handle most of them, and probably much worse.

    So if someone you admire throws you an insult, and you start to feel depressed and dwell on it further, it sort of reflects an underlying belief that it would be ‘awful’ if that person dislikes you, or ‘terrible’ if they disapprove of you.

    The disputing argument, in the case above, might be to say, “Sure, it’s inconvenient and a little saddening that my idol demonstrates disrespect, but screw it. It doesn’t have to interfere with an enjoyable workout later, or the pleasure of this burger I’m eating, or the futurist podcast that I’ll host on Wednesday night”. This is similar to what are saying, where you are substituting something more positive, without being phony or in denial.

    In other words, the ‘dispute’ is directed at what Ellis considers the underlying belief, which might not be the same kind of belief that you are considering here.



Comments are closed.