When the costs are low and require no change in personal behaviour, nor even belief in the problem. Billions of people had no idea about changes to aerosol propellants or refrigerants and they were not required to know or agree in order to solve the problem.
Do people have to know about what generates their electricity? They get input now, but we could probably just stop taking public input on new infrastructure and that would avoid poorly motivated protests of wind farms or nuclear.
They do not need to know what generates there electricity but...
- when what generates the power changes the landscape they can see, many people get upset, however irrationally
- many people are emotionally attached to lifestyle objects that use fossil fuels, i.e. cars, boats, planes, etc
- even where there are good options, most people are not willing to spend one extra penny
- even when there are options that cost less (i.e. bicycles, walking) humans spend a lot of their energy thinking about status and struggle to voluntarily choose things that they fear might result in a loss of status
- even if you solve all that, collective action problems are a named thing for a reason - they are hard and don't necessarily have obvious answers.
My point is not that everything is hopeless, but that OP who said "Have we ever as a species successfully changed our behavior on a scale..." has a point that we will have to grapple with if we want to actually change stuff. Wishing human nature away doesn't actually solve anything.
Perhaps more importantly than any of those, often people react out of fear of what they think other people will think.
Maybe everyone bitches about gas prices, but we would all get over it pretty fast if politicians just pulled the band-aid off. Instead they use it as an opportunity to pull down any crab that tries to save us from the bucket.
Good point - maybe also stop taking public input on decisions. :V
I kid, but I get more sympathetic to totalitarian countries seeing how people react to some things too. it simplifies "banding together" if there's fewer decision makers I guess and I can't think of a good way to have that squared with democracy.
Totalitarianism only works well with a benevolent dictator. Unfortunately, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Due to human nature, it will never ever turn out for the best.
You also get no feedback from people, massive corruption and many useless megaprojects end up being built at the cost of everything else (because everyoneis too afraid to point out its nonsense & regime adjacent thugs will then make it 5x as expensive and pocket the extra money).
It's not possible for us to work together and fix it, since most of the problem is coming from China, like with most pollution in general. Unless you're proposing something like nuking China.
The problem pre exists China’s development, and China’s per capita pollution production is already less than those in western developed countries, with the caveat being that China has a lot more people.
But you are right, if you want to keep the Chinese poor so they don’t pollute as much as we do, then you’ll need to nuke them because they aren’t going back.
And if you think the problem is just China, wait until India gets it act together. The only real solution we have beyond nuking all the people striving to get rich like us is to figure out how to pollute less and still have rich lifestyles, and China is putting more effort into that than all the other countries combined.
Feels like no windows is almost a deal-breaker? No? Do humans handle small enclosed spaces with no way to look outside well? The mock-up image looks like a small two-or-three seat compartment, which seems like it would be awful. Maybe an open space would be less claustrophobic, but still. Imagining just a normal jetliner today with no windows feels... not great. And I'm not sure having a giant flat screen wrapped around me would solve the problem.
I don't mind no windows at all if they have "digital windows" as substitutes. You're already 40,000ft in the air I think windows aren't really gonna help your claustrophobia. Not like you can open the door and walk out for a bit.
Maybe. I think people could survive it, sure. But I also wonder if there's a part of our lizard brain that just for safety's sake prefers to be able to see out of any small enclosed space we might find ourselves in. And that lizard brain is smart enough to know that a flat screen is fake. Again, I just think of flying in a plane today but with no windows and I, at least, am immediately squigged out.
I also feel like a lot of modern air travel is designed around making something that's highly unnatural and inherently terrifying into something palatable for most people. I'm not talking about actual safety, but the perception of safety. Which isn't exactly a logic thing. More about keeping that lizard brain from freaking out too hard.
I get motion sickness when sitting sideways or backwards on a car. People tend to become nauseous when they sense motion but don't see it, or what they see doesn't align with their other senses. Even the small amount of lag that a "digital window" would likely have, will make things much worse.
Actually no windows doesn't even pass Passenger Flight rules and regulations. In Asia, its mandatory that windows should be opened, visible during takeoff and landing.
Doesn’t that technically only mean that all windows that exist need to be open, and having no windows at all would satisfy the requirement “all windows are open”? Or is the second sentence an addition to the first?
When USAid started in 1961 there were around 100 million starving people in Africa, as of 2024 that number has tripled to over 300 million. Sure the percentage of the population that's starving has gone down some but the actual number has gone up significantly and these people are still fully reliant on others good will for their survival. Has that really made the world a better place?
This is reductionistic gibberish. If you want to understand how USAID had actually benefited the region, go read some of the actual reports and analyses on the matter.
But just to engage with your numbers (which I don't agree are fully accurate and are definitely not at all a complete picture):
Getting the rate of starvation down from 33% to 20% in an already food-stressed region that has experienced 5x population growth could be presented as an accomplishment, yes. Flip your numbers around. In 1961 200m Africans were food-secure. Today 1200m are. A billion extra properly fed people, by your (possibly bad and definitely over-simplifed) numbers.
Yes by design. Basically just by designating one part of the economy as non-productive consumption economy, and the other part as production economy, they create the justification for inflation - so that the government can have free money and take it from the stupid consumers by decreasing their wealth a little every year should they choose not to spend it, and give it (sorry, invest) to the nice productive entrepreneurial capitalist part of enconomy who will somehow reinvest it allegedly (read: mostly buy up shit the former half needs and sell it back to them at markup), the system has a direct wealth transfer mechanism that points from the poor to the rich, it couldn't be any more shameless and obvious if they tried.
I find that younger software engineers sometimes take the attitude of: Why would I pay for that when I could easily just do it on my own? As they grow and gain more responsibilities that flips to: Why would I build and maintain something on my own when I could pay someone else a few bucks to do it? At least I feel I went through this change as I grew professionally...
So many things I am completely capable of doing on my own I simply don’t want to. I have better things to do. More valuable things.
This right here is the key difference! Yes anyone can vibe code a replacement for many apps - but will it still run 2 years later (assuming they get it 'running' in an prod environment at all
To be honest, research funding turned stupid before DOGE. I remember talking a guy who was struggling to write the mandatory diversity statement for a grant in quantum computing.
Whatever diversity sections were required in grant proposals are nothing compared to the situation right now.
If your guy couldn’t say stuff like we will do outreach to local CCs, will design summer research programs, etc, then they’re just not a very good grant writer
Why attach this stuff to every grant? This guy was dealing was dealing cutting edge research using multi million dollar equipment. Stuff only a few people world wide know about. That’s difficult enough.
This leads to purely performative diversity statements that mean nothing in the real world.
Seriously. I hope everyone understands that this literally happened at a massive scale. So many projects were killed simply because the project name had a word on the banned words list. The idiots at doge and elsewhere have simply ctrl+f searched "woke" terms and ended projects without the faintest idea of what they were killing. All in the name of saving negative federal dollars.
It is possible for us to work together and fix these things.
Edit:
Moving away from leaded gas might be another example.
(CFCs and leaded gas invented by the same dude, fun fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr. Quite a legacy...)