3 ms·

We can't have all people working just on most important problems. Many will just waste time doing this (me for example, I don't know how to end poverty), so we

We can't have all people working just on most important problems. Many will just waste time doing this (me for example, I don't know how to end poverty), so we have to have people attached to many different problems. Now this problem may not be the most important, but still maybe if someone has time, she should look at it at least briefly?

imtringued 6y ago
What authority decides whether a problem is important and how important it is? It probably doesn't or at least shouldn't exist because that power could be equivalent to a dictatorship. Here is a little bit of hyperbole. "Voting for anyone other than Trump for president is not an important problem" The other extreme would be to assign every person on earth to work on fusion power. Even if we are generous and define importance loosely as reward divided by needed investment (aka ROI) we just end up with the current system. It's still not perfect because it doesn't account for time and corruption. People will optimize for the short term and powerful corporations can create feedback loops by lobbying the government to declare their business as "important" which makes the corporation more powerful and that additional power can be used for lobbying again. However, despite all the shortcomings we still have yet to find a better system. I just realized that this comment was mostly aimed at doublesCs. Feel free to ignore it.