There are a lot of interesting ideas in here worthy of consideration. Overall though, I don't like the analogy to technical debt. Software systems are designed

There are a lot of interesting ideas in here worthy of consideration. Overall though, I don't like the analogy to technical debt. Software systems are designed to execute very specific things with very specific parameters, always under the direct agency of their human caretakers. Software does not evolve with out direct action by experts who always have a crystal clear goal in mind—when dilettantes and AI-wielding wannabes try the most common outcome is they break the system and its value trends to zero, at which point the system is immediately discarded and forgotten. Culture, by contrast, is emergent and persistent. It is a natural evolution of behavior, powered by individual incentives. Legibility does not matter. It is not designed, merely influenced. Politicians and demagogues draw attention and make bold claims, but in fact their influence come from tapping into something shared by the diverse lived experience and environment of the populace—their success comes from reading the room and tapping into something that people are already feeling. I would argue their cultural influence is miniscule, like a big wave surfer they are flashy, but they don't control the swell. For this reason I think "refactoring" culture is just not a thing. To be fair, the article acknowledges this. I just think a better analogy would be vestigial traits in biological organisms. You might not need an appendix, but doing genetic engineering to remove it from all humans isn't really a worthwhile endeavour. In complex evolved systems the best you can do are little nudges, you can't orchestrate a wholesale change.