> At best this boils down to the idea that people don’t always know what’s best for them and a disaster is necessary to move things forward. That doesn’t sound

> At best this boils down to the idea that people don’t always know what’s best for them and a disaster is necessary to move things forward. That doesn’t sound right — this is more like the collective benefits at the cost of the individual. It’s very likely that those who lived in the now-destroyed areas are worse off than they had been — though their children may now have better prospects. The same with the window: having energy efficient windows doesn’t cover the damage of the lost window — but it improves the quality of life for people going forward. I think they key is that the improvements are inefficient to implement, but if it’s inevitable (the broken window is already broken; the fire can’t be stopped; they’re a sunk cost) the improvements suddenly become viable. That is, the improved option has to significantly superior to the current situation, because it has to be better than the object in question and the cost to replace. Once the window is broken, it simply needs to be better.