Optimistic Nihilism: On 'Local Meaning', Freedom, and Bias for Action in a Meaningless Universe
Nihilism: The Case for No Inherent Meaning to Life
Two anchoring sets of facts:
We’re on a pale blue dot called Earth that orbits a modest-sized star, barely noticeable in an otherwise average galaxy containing 1011 other stars. This galaxy is part of a supercluster containing 100,000 other galaxies. There are probably about 10 million other superclusters in the observable universe.
The universe began about 13.8 billion years ago. Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago. Modern Humans appeared around 300,000 years ago (~0.0067% of Earth’s current age), and all of written history — and any named human — are from less than 10,000 years ago (~0.00022% of Earth’s current age).
These timelines and scales are so huge that they are humanly incomprehensible. People realise this and move in either direction — incredible religious awe as well as those around rejecting it.
You could be like the young protagonist of Annie Hall (1977 movie), who on hearing that the universe is expanding (45 seconds clip) gets depressed and stops doing homework, because “if universe is expanding, someday it will break apart and that will be the end of everything.”
That kid is not alone. This leads many of us to nihilism (the belief that life is meaningless). Many associate this with a cynical and a pessimistic world-view.
But, here’s where things get interesting.
Optimism: The Case for Freedom to Make Mistakes
This leads us to two fabulous ideas.
There’s liberation. We’re not carrying cosmic burdens of our actions — the universe doesn’t care and continues as it would. There’s freedom to be what we want to be, and what we want our life to mean.
That we can afford to make mistakes. We can experiment, iterate, and try out things. Things may not work out and we can drop them, to pick new things. The universe wouldn’t remember. On cosmic (and even earthly!) scales this is less than a blink.
Rory Sutherland explains that there are two things that explain a lot of human social behaviour.
habit: we do things a certain way because we always have (e.g., arriving at the airport ~2 hours early with nothing to do)
social copying: Sometimes we change only after seeing others do something new, seeking validation (consciously/subconsciously), and copying that. The rising popularity of kopi luwak — a coffee from the excreta of a particular kind of cat — is also part of the same phenomenon.
I think a corollary follows too.
Just as social copying can lead to a viral trend, fear of social judgement can also lead to crippling inaction.
I can’t dance and don’t dance. Former is a skill problem due to lacking rhythm sense. Latter is an action problem due to fear of social judgement being seen that uncoordinated.
And similarly, we skip a lot of, possibly, enjoyable experiences for fear of being seen doing it. I am not saying dancing is one. But that’s me.
So how do we move from this liberating realisation to actual action? Three perspectives can help reframe our approach to decisions and social fear.
Perspective 1: What’s The Impact? Would People Care for the Mistake?
We can classify a given event, and our actions in the event along a two-by-two matrix along the impact (how many people would see/experience it at that moment) and its memorability (how long would it be remembered) on a log-log scale.
.png) |
| For a given event — its impact (people reached or affected) vs. its memorability (how long would it be remembered after the event) on a log-log scale. Image generated using chatGPT. The exact location for a given event on the graph is intended to only be indicative. |
Most of the events that we shy away from lie not just in the first quadrant (low impact and low memorability) but in that tiny yellow patch there (less than 10k and less than 1 month). Fearing going for a movie or a restaurant alone? Maybe 5 people will notice (if at all!) and would forget before the end of the movie/their meal. Definitely not beyond a day, even if so.
Re-reading that email before it goes to a large set of people? If you’ve reread three times without detecting a typo/‘thoto’ (and it’s not being written in anger), go ahead!
In most cases, we probably fear the mistake may have a high(er) memorability, even if the impact radius (the number of people potentially witnessing it) is limited. Or, without thinking about the memorability are assuming a high impact radius (“everyone is looking at us and our moves”).
The latter is actually a psychological phenomenon too (‘Spotlight Effect’). From wikipedia:
The spotlight effect is the psychological phenomenon by which people tend to believe they are being noticed more than they really are. […] The reason for the spotlight effect is the innate tendency to forget that although one is the center of one's own world, one is not the center of everyone else's. This tendency is especially prominent when one does something atypical.
Again, this is not to say that our actions carry no meaning, or that nothing we do matters. The Impact X Memorability matrix above is more towards impact on strangers. Our actions carry meaning — in the local context. To our family, friends, peers, partners. To our circle of influence. But, we overemphasise the impact on those beyond (which would be extremely limited or for a very short period) leading us to fear of judgement and inaction.
We can afford to ignore that.
A regular recentring to this realisation — that the impact of our action would probably be limited to 5-10 strangers for less than a day or two (in a high number of situations in real life), or 50-200 acquaintances for less than 5 mins (if it’s online action of ours) — helps bias in favour of action, if it’s something we’re thinking about and possible social judgement is preventing us from that.
Perspective 2: Of Reversible Decisions or Two-Way Doors
There are also decisions where inaction is not due to social judgement but our own inherent fear in taking the ‘leap of faith’. Whether we’ll land safely after that leap, or not.
This leads us on to ‘reversible decisions’. Or, as Jeff Bezos frames it about ‘two-way doors’.
What are the stakes involved (what’s the worst that can happen? what’s the best that can happen?) and what’s the reversibility of it (if with some limited extra cost, effort, or time the decision can be reversed)?
Based on these two questions, a set of heuristics around such decisions can be arrived at:
Reversible and Low Stakes: act immediately; go with whatever you’re inclined towards (in favour or against). Bias in favour of increasing your ‘surface area of luck’ (increased chances of upsides; increased size of upsides; higher exposure to multiple such events in future with high upsides).
Reversible and High Stakes: Is downside limited? If not, is it possible to limit it? Otherwise, is it possible to pilot it before committing? If the answer is yes and carries high potential upside, go ahead and do that!
Irreversible and Low/High Stakes: A few sub-questions/heuristics for such a scenario
examine if it is actually as irreversible* as you think it is.
Can you explore reversible alternates and then come back to this irreversible option?
and in case of a low stakes decision check if even worth it or not.
Is this going to irreversibly define your path over the next 15-20 years?
Will you regret not exploring this path?
Is it possible to reduce the scope of this decision and do a trial at a smaller scale?
Can you gather evidence that is ‘disconfirming’ (evidence that goes against your intuition or falsifies your beliefs)?
*On irreversibility: keep in mind the first section. The size of the universe, timelines of it. I am not asking you to jump off a cliff without a safety parachute but we humans are far more adaptable to situations than we think we are.
Perspective 3: A Kinder Assumption about Strangers
Once you internalise the originally stated facts, nihilism can be like gravity — ever present. But that needn’t be such a bad thing. Even if you disagree with the two perspectives above, think about:
random strangers: when you were in public last week (say, travelling to office in your vehicle or at a restaurant or at a mall) do you recall any person making any mistake? Do you recall their face? Would you be able to identify them again on a road if you were to meet them outside of that context, and be able to recall the same thing?
mild acquaintances: say, someone from your school/organisation/any common circle from ~10 years ago. Not someone you’ve been in touch with since then, though. Think about 4-7 of them from those groups. By and large do you recall their positives, negatives, or just random factoids about them?
I’d guess that in the first example, you barely recall anything and definitely can’t identify them again. Even in the case of a mild acquaintance, there’s a higher chance you’d recall a random factoid about them (their city of origin, birthdate/month, or a particularly loved movie(!) of theirs).
Of Independence — in Mistakes, Local Meaning, and Orthogonal Choices
This isn’t advocating inaction or pointlessness. Quite the opposite: this is a call for positive bias toward action. It is about emphasising the optimistic aspect of ‘optimistic nihilism’1 and realising that many of the hurdles on the way to action may possibly be moved with these three perspectives.
This freedom doesn't extend to actions that harm others or freedom from consequences. The cosmic insignificance that liberates us from social judgment doesn't absolve us of basic moral responsibilities or absolve us of consequences to those in our immediate circle of impact.
I write this on India’s 79th Independence Day, 15th August 2025. And this is an exhortation for independence of a different kind. Of freedom of making mistakes, making ‘local’ meaning of our own lives, and making choices less so from social circumstances and more so based on what we actually want.
‘Local’ meaning is the freedom to make of life what we want it to have. Not something divinely ordained. Nor something fixed in stone.
It also means the freedom to make orthogonal choices: choices that break stereotypes. Think a policeman who writes poetry, a mathematician who plays bass guitar, an insurance salesman with a deep interest in neutron stars on the side, or a nurse who unwinds by listening to death metal.
Not orthogonality for its own sake, but the kind of freedom where past choices—or labels—don’t bind our future, unless we allow them to.
The universe doesn’t care for anything but we are a world unto ourselves. And, we are free to make whatever meaning we wish to.
Footnote
1: I first came across the term ‘Optimistic Nihilism’ through the ever-awesome YouTube channel, Kurzgesagt. The link to the original clip (7:46 minutes) from about 8 years ago. If you liked reading this post, I’d recommend the clip; irrespective of whether you liked the post, I’d recommend the channel.
Comments
Post a Comment