> Precisely. And that’s as good as it gets. There won’t be another group able to make the decision. As long as those running the show in this "democracy" conti

> Precisely. And that’s as good as it gets. There won’t be another group able to make the decision. As long as those running the show in this "democracy" continue to have their way...which I suspect is the case as long as people run on a cognitive model where they are unable/unwilling to distinguish between predictions about reality (for example: the future) and reality itself. > The initiatives were signed off in that citizens elect representatives.... The election of representatives is not an agreement with all the subsequent decisions made by those representatives, but if the minds of the public can be conditioned appropriately, it can cause it to appear that way to them (and: they will typically defend this clearly false belief passionately, if the conditioning is adequately powerful). > There’s no way for a citizens panel to evaluate these kinds of details due to their secrecy. I agree that there is no current way, but that was true for many current human capabilities prior to humans figuring out how to achieve them. But if you never even try to figure something out, there's a decent chance it will never be figured out. > One way to improve it would be something like directing the entire portfolio to reduce carbon by 10% or something. But that would probably result in planting lots of trees or something. Agreed. And I suspect there are many, many more opportunities for improvement. A plausibly decent way to come up with a shortlist of ways of more: utilize the human mind's capacity to think, ideally: free from all constraints (conditioning, censorship, etc). Easier said than done perhaps, but the true difficulty can only be discovered if one tries. If we continue to refuse to try (or even think about trying), then we may be stuck at this local maxima forever.