You covered exactly what I said, with more words, until making the claim that an interdisciplinary approach is required. "Interdisciplinary approach" means we n

You covered exactly what I said, with more words, until making the claim that an interdisciplinary approach is required. "Interdisciplinary approach" means we need to research the problem space. The research is already done. The solutions are ready and exist. Its the implementation that people get squeamish on for fear of offending portions of the coalition in power. Their squeamishness doesn't justify delaying action, which is what your approach advocates by casting solutioneering as requiring additional raw research versus applying what is known. Pipes, shovels, and pumps solve a lot of core problems for a community. Where and how they get laid down doesn't require sociology or political economy research. You might care about the people displaced by the infrastructure, which a compassionate person will, but don't forget that home construction and legal recompense for eminent domain are also known. The major difference between your and my approaches: while the interdisciplinarists are arguing about the impact of infrastructure development on endangered plants and relative value of indigenous pottery buried for several thousand years, the pragmatists are getting people out of the bondage of poverty and enabling them solve their problems themselves because they have risen above subsistence. Note there is value to ensuring the endangered plants are maintained and the indigenous pottery is studied -- as well as the knowledge gained from all fields that might come to an interdisciplinarists table -- but one must recognize the advancement of patron-funded knowledge is a bottleneck when it stands in the way of well-understood solutions.