3 ms·
this is overly reductive. the post didnt ask why we aren't building more libraries, it's asking whether we would build them today if they didn't exist. just li
by bllguo 5y ago
this is overly reductive. the post didnt ask why we aren't building more libraries, it's asking whether we would build them today if they didn't exist.
just like it's not ambiguous that libraries are a net positive, it's not ambiguous whether we need more housing and infrastructure. it's not ambiguous that we should deal with climate change. the inaction is not because of ambiguity, it's because we are unwilling to make short-term sacrifices. it's because there is no shared belief in a greater good.
these are the kinds of decisions that were, for whatever reason, more easily made in the past than now. Look at the New Deal.
- etempleton 5y agoI don’t think the ambiguity is what the challenges are, but how to solve the problems. And yes, we are unwilling to make sacrifices until the effects are already being strongly felt. This is not a good thing, just a reality of democracy not in chaos. Climate change is a good one. The threat is real. It is at the door, but unfortunately democracies and capitalism will not really react until it is kicking the door down. Europe avoided the Hitler problem until they invaded. US avoided Hitler and Japan until Pearl Harbor. I am agreeing with the author. Democracies need to be stoked into action. Other forms of government are more likely to act quickly, but perhaps rashly. That is my point.