I fully support activism. Even passionate activism. But when predicted outcomes are wildly exaggerated, in terms of both impact and timeline, activism tips into alarmism. And alarmism is self-defeating.
Exaggerated claims are easy to refute and easier to ridicule. Doubters do not even need to work hard. They simply point at the gap between what was predicted and what actually happened, and the argument is effectively over. The people you needed to convince have switched off, and the ones already anxious have been made worse for no good reason.
The same dynamic plays out in business. Tell a client their company will fail within three years if they do not adopt a particular technology, and you are taking a significant gamble. Many of those urgent technologies turned out to be hype cycles. Businesses sank billions into them and emerged with little to show for it. The consultant who issued the warning did not look prescient. They looked like someone who had bought into the panic.
The deeper problem is what happens when the danger is real. If you have spent years overstating threats that did not fully materialise on schedule, you will have no credibility left when something genuinely serious arrives. People will have learned to discount you. The warning will go unheeded, the damage will unfold, and all that remains is the blame game.
Stick to the hard evidence. Communicate risk honestly and proportionately. It is less dramatic, but it is the only approach that holds up over time. And when it really matters, it is the only one that gets people to act.
