>... but the main reason is that bad news actually outweighs good news, at least as far as things like climate and environmental is concerned.

This is my point though. Is it? It is the different between feelings and facts. It feels like everything is negative and doom and gloom because that is all we see. That is all the algorithms seem to feed us. It's what we remember and what is reinforced by interactions with other people who are also getting the same gloom and doom we are.

A negative feedback loop where negative things drive us to click on more negative things, training our algorithms that we want to see more negative things.

TL;DW: Back when climate change was first being studied, climate scientists all were more or less convinced we were on an 'apocalyptic' trajectory. Today, we have made enough progress in the past few decades that most scientists agree we have likely avoided "worse case" scenarios. Still bad, but not end of humanity levels predicted before.

We aren't making quick progress, but progress is being made.

Social media also plays a huge role in this. Algorithms push negative news because "doomscrolling" increases engagement, and more engagement means more money.

This also shifts reporting as well. If your job is based around clicks and eyeballs, the gloomy story about how X is bringing about the end of the world is going to do that better than some hopeful news about how things can and are improving.

If all the average person sees is doom and gloom, that is going to reflect in their general attitude toward the future.

I have been trying my hardest to switch toward a more optimistic view of the future, and it is hard considering the usual things floating around. It's not about ignoring all the troubles we are currently facing, but about seeing them as challenges we have to overcome rather than impossible hurtles that will doom us.