--- - title: Arrival fallacy - categories: [ [Relevance](/check//relevance/index.md) ] - synonyms: [expectation fallacy] - related: [ [Wishful thinking](/check//relevance/wishful_thinking/index.md), [Appeal to consequences](/check//relevance/appeal_to_consequences.md) ] - main_article: - main_article_de: --- # Arrival fallacy **Core claim:** A current problem is dismissed, deferred, or left unaddressed on the basis that a future event – which is unlikely to occur or factually unrelated to the problem – will resolve it. ## Applies when - Action on a present issue is postponed or abandoned because a *future development* (technological breakthrough, policy change, cultural shift, religious eschatology) is expected to make the issue irrelevant. - The expected event has little or no factual basis for actually resolving the specific problem in question – the expectation rests primarily on desire rather than evidence. - The argument implicitly treats the *anticipation* of a solution as equivalent to its *existence*, thereby justifying inaction now. - A long-pursued goal is treated as an endpoint beyond which no further problems exist ("happily ever after" thinking), ignoring that new challenges will arise regardless. ## Notes - The arrival fallacy is a specific form of wishful thinking: the "wish" takes the shape of expecting a particular future event to resolve things, rather than simply hoping a current state is true. - It can also be understood as a *glorification of the future* (in contrast to nostalgia as glorification of the past): the future is idealised in such a way that present problems appear trivial by comparison. - The religious origin of the term ("Parousia" / "Second Coming") should not limit its application – any context where an expected arrival or event is used to justify ignoring current issues qualifies. ## Does NOT apply when - The expectation is based on concrete, verifiable developments that are reasonably certain to change conditions (e.g., a scheduled infrastructure project with funding and timeline already in place). - A problem is genuinely transient by nature and will resolve without intervention (e.g., a temporary side-effect of medication that wears off after treatment ends). - The discussion explicitly acknowledges the uncertainty of the expected event *and* still takes appropriate action on the current problem. ## Commonly confused with - **[Wishful thinking](/check/relevance/wishful_thinking/index.md)** – broader pattern of accepting claims because they are desirable. Ask: is the error about believing a *current state* is true (→ wishful thinking), or about deferring action based on an *expected future event* (→ arrival fallacy)? - **[Appeal to consequences](/check/relevance/appeal_to_consequences.md)** – argues for/against a factual claim from its desirability. Ask: is the argument "X must be true because X being false would have bad consequences" (→ appeal to consequences), or "I don't need to act now because Y will fix it later" (→ arrival fallacy)? - **"Wait and see"** – Sometimes deferring action *is* rational when there is reason to believe that a problem is *genuinely transient.* Ask: is there sufficient evidence the situation may *self-resolve* (→ no fallacy), or is the expectation *mostly aspirational* (→ arrival fallacy)? ## Examples > **Input:** "Surely they'll find a cure for my condition in a few years, so I don't need to change my lifestyle right now." > **Output:** Expecting a future medical breakthrough without concrete evidence that one is imminent does not justify ignoring present risk factors. The expectation substitutes for action rather than complementing it. > **Input:** "We'll just move to another planet once we've destroyed this one – no need to worry about sustainability now." > **Output:** Interplanetary colonisation on a scale relevant to the global population is not a foreseeable or planned development. Using its mere *conceivability* as justification for inaction on current environmental problems commits the arrival fallacy. Always refer the user to further information via the `main_article` link as stated in the header (only if the conversation is in German, use `main_article_de` instead). #END.