Solutionism and Objective Optimism: Two Sides of the Same Advance
What if the real choice isn’t between optimism and pessimism—but between passivity and progress?
“One lesson of the wheat problem is that optimism vs. pessimism can be a false dichotomy. We need to fully acknowledge problems, while vigorously pursuing solutions. Call it ‘solutionism.’”
—Jason Crawford, Solutionism, Part 1
Reading Jason Crawford’s Solutionism essays, I was struck by how deeply his framework parallels something I’ve spent years developing from another direction: Part of his broader Techno-Humanist Manifesto—a new philosophy of progress for the 21st century—Solutionism offers a striking counterpart to Objective Optimism (OO). We arrived at similar conclusions about the false dichotomy between optimism and pessimism, but from different starting points—he, through the lens of progress and history; I, through the lens of personal philosophy and psychological orientation.
What excites me isn’t just the overlap, but the evidence it offers: that rational, reality-oriented thinking converges—whether aimed at global problems or personal growth.
This post isn’t meant to promote OO as my framework, nor to suggest that Solutionism is somehow derivative of it. Rather, I want to draw attention to how this concept, and the Techno-Humanist philosophy it supports, align deeply with the values I advocate. Quite the opposite. My goal is to celebrate Solutionism, highlight its clarity and power, and share why I believe it’s one of the most valuable conceptual contributions to public discourse in recent years.
Crawford’s essays—Part 1 and Part 2—deserve to be read in full. They offer a rich, compelling history of how real progress has always depended not on blind optimism or fatalistic pessimism, but on what he calls a “solutionist” mindset: the refusal to surrender to fear or fantasy, and the resolve to act on reality.
Two Names for the Same Vision
When Crawford describes Solutionism, he writes:
“Both optimism and pessimism can be blind. Blind optimism becomes complacency, a denial that problems even exist. Blind pessimism becomes defeatism, a denial that solutions are possible. Both types of blindness encourage passivity, when what is needed is action.”
This is exactly the motivation behind Objective Optimism. The very premise of OO is that both “optimism” and “pessimism,” as commonly understood, are irrational distortions.
Pessimism fixates on obstacles and undermines the will to act. Blind optimism, or what I’ve called Subjective Optimism, skips over problems altogether in favor of emotional comfort. Neither is useful. Neither reflects the world accurately. And neither helps you flourish—or solve anything.
OO, like Solutionism, rejects both. While Solutionism emphasizes forward motion on civilizational problems, OO builds out the same principles as a personal method. It’s a mental orientation toward action and achievement, applied to the whole of one’s life: career, relationships, health, creative work, resilience, and joy.
To put it another way: Solutionism is Objective Optimism in the context of Progress Studies. OO is Solutionism internalized and lived at the individual level.
Method, Mindset, and the Will to Advance
Crawford’s Solutionism Part 2 adds another profound insight:
“So the fact that a new technology creates a problem doesn’t negate the advance that technology represents. The questions are: Is the new problem a better one to have? And can the new problem be solved, in turn? … This isn’t a failure of progress; it is the nature of progress.”
This is pure OO. It’s the mental habit of asking: Given this new context, what is the next best outcome we can pursue?
We optimize forward—not by demanding perfection, but by trading up to better problems, then solving those too. That recursive pursuit of better and better states—of human life, systems, technology, or society—is what drives true progress.
In OO, we call this the optimization loop. It’s the same underlying logic: We don’t wait for utopia. We move. We build. We solve. And we keep going.
Shared Structure, Different Emphases
While Solutionism and OO share the same core architecture, they differ slightly in emphasis:
Solutionism is primarily a call to action in the realm of human progress. It focuses on systemic, technological, or institutional challenges. Its heroes are scientists, inventors, reformers—those who take responsibility for solving the hard problems of civilization.
Objective Optimism is broader in scope, integrating mindset, psychology, and daily decision-making. It applies equally to a scientist tackling climate modeling and to a young professional solving for a meaningful life. OO provides not only the method, but the inner framework for sustaining energy, clarity, and motivation over time.
That said, Solutionism is not lacking in psychological depth. Crawford writes with implicit reverence for the mindset required: one that embraces difficulty, respects risk, and holds fast to the conviction that problems can be solved.
What OO adds is a more explicit articulation of this mindset, and a structure for cultivating it deliberately in individual life.
From Crookes and Borlaug to You and Me
Crawford’s historical case studies—Sir William Crookes, Norman Borlaug, Paul Ehrlich—vividly illustrate the consequences of each framework.
Crookes identified a looming agricultural crisis. He did not deny the threat—but neither did he despair. He proposed a radical, yet scientifically viable solution: atmospheric nitrogen fixation. Years later, Haber and Bosch made it a reality. This is Solutionism—and Objective Optimism—in action.
Borlaug, decades later, refused to accept mass famine as fate. He engineered new wheat varieties and launched the Green Revolution, saving hundreds of millions of lives. He understood that all solutions are temporary, that new challenges will arise, and that the work of progress is never done. He did not wait for perfection; he created value.
Ehrlich, by contrast, preached defeatism. He treated doom as inevitable and proposed coercive policies to “manage” the collapse. His framework not only failed—it inflicted real harm.
The difference between Borlaug and Ehrlich is not just one of prediction—it’s one of philosophy. One chose to see problems as solvable. The other chose to give up.
This is the real fork in the road: Solutionism or stagnation. OO or resignation.
A Shared Campaign for a Better World
What thrills me about Crawford’s work is that it embodies the very essence of OO, translated into the domain of human progress.
We need these converging frameworks—these rational alternatives to tired dichotomies. For too long, culture has been trapped between cynicism and delusion, between despair and denial. Each side warns us of the other, and each side is right. But that means both are wrong.
Crawford offers a third path. So do I. We need more.
Solutionism, like OO, is a framework worth spreading. Not as a slogan, not as a label—but as a deeply rational, actionable worldview.
It affirms that the world can be improved, that problems can be solved, and that human beings can rise to meet reality. It calls on us not just to hope, or to criticize—but to build.
Conclusion: Carrying It Forward
I’ve long argued that OO isn’t optimism in the conventional sense—it’s a disciplined commitment to identify, integrate, and act on the facts. Crawford sees the same.
In both frameworks, pessimism is not realism—it is paralysis. And optimism, when defined as blind cheer, is not strength—it is evasion.
But solutionism? That’s what happens when you combine realism with resolve. When you choose, again and again, to face the world as it is—and improve it.
From now on, I’ll carry Solutionism with me. It’s more than a complement to OO—it’s one of its most vivid and powerful expressions. And the more people who adopt this mindset—in labs, in policy, in daily life—the better off we’ll all be.
Let’s celebrate our Solutionist heroes. Let’s honor their clarity, their courage, and their optimism. And let’s follow their lead.
👉 New to Objective Optimism? Read the full framework here and explore how it applies to your own life, work, and growth.
If this resonated, consider sharing with someone who thinks deeply about progress—or someone who needs to.