6 ms·

Empowering individuals to solve collective problems rarely work. <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31178680 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31178680>

by teddyh 1y ago

Empowering individuals to solve collective problems rarely work. <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31178680 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31178680> The appropriate solution is legislation.

DennisP 1y ago
Maybe so, but in the meantime I'll take all the empowerment I can get.
walleeee 1y ago
> legislation Perhaps more generally phrased as governance Yes, the answer is not some business plan by which some can dodge disaster in an untrustworthy market, the answer is to recognize that this planet is a spaceship i.e. materially closed, and we are massively soiling the nest, microplastic is in steak because it's literally everywhere on the surface of the earth, etc. Therefore, good ecological governance is a requirement, as is the analysis, as a public service, of the resources and ecosystems, and the services they provide human beings and our dependents, i.e. a democratic and just policy, not a lucrative plan to privatize yet more of public health If one is convinced the best vehicle for the above in the near term is a business, then it had better have a different approach than is typical of personal health tech startups Empowering individuals isn't worthless by any means but pitting one against another with asymmetric information is worse than worthless
- lumost 1y ago
  The fundamental constraint the article alludes to is the powerlessness of consumer choice. You can’t make a better choice because you don’t have any better option. When there is a better option, you lack the tools to verify that the option is truly better vs scamming you to pay more for something which either doesn’t matter or is simply a lie. Prior to free trade, you could reasonably sue the manufacturers or distributors for egregious harms. You could also reasonably expect domestic regulatory authorities to intervene before these harms entered the market.* In principal, this could be done in a free trade system with counterparties who implement and enforce similar rules. But then you need all parties to agree on any new rules and enforcement mechanisms. You only need one bad actor to nuke the arrangement by growing without these burdens. * Assuming regulations and laws are equitably and incorruptibly enforced in the local government.
  - BrenBarn 1y ago
    A second-order issue there is the pervasive phenomenon of people wanting things cheap which results in hidden costs. When it costs more to make things safer or to test that they are safe, bad actors can succeed by not doing that and finding ways to dodge responsibility, because people just gravitate towards low prices. Part of the "governance" challenge is forcing market participants to internalize their costs. Somewhat ironically, a countervailing strategy has emerged of charging more for something based on the claim that it's "natural", "organic", "handcrafted", etc. This strategy can also be seen in various types of "detectors" and at-home tests for things, and perhaps even things like the ConsumerLabs mentioned in another comment. This muddies the waters even more, since even people who are willing to pay more for something that's better can't figure out how to avoid paying more for something that's just equally bad. These problems exist not just in the realm of food and health but in all product categories.
Ferret7446 1y ago
That's not a solution. There is no practical solution for this, and has not been for the millennia on human history; it's only been in the recent decades where we've been able the hallucinate about knowing about toxins in our daily lives. Legislation is just paper, you have no enforcement mechanism beyond what you already have currently: suing companies on a case by case basis.
- andrewflnr 1y ago
  This is nonsense, regulation has forced huge improvements in food quality. You don't need lawsuits if agencies are regularly testing and authorized to levy penalties based on the results.
- nbngeorcjhe 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - throwaway290 1y ago
    how much of total legislation is never enforced? probably at least third It's pointless without people caring.
    - IAmBroom 1y ago
      People care when they are personally and noticeably harmed. And the court system provides for redress, when laws are broken. Very imperfectly, but it is there. A substantial portion of that 2/3 of the law is never enforced because it's easier to just go ahead and obey, than to fend off class action lawsuits. Another portion is actually irrelevant. The safety of my next airplane trip is not actually affected by how many barefoot people walk over a threshold.
  - Ferret7446 1y ago
    No amount of legislation will make it practical to do comprehensive chemical tests on every single domestic and imported product, or do comprehensive safety studies on every single chemical used in such products, or to handle the legal proceedings to prosecute all violations. Our society does not have the resources to sustain the incomprehensibly large regulatory and compliance industry needed to enforce a shadow of such legislation.
margalabargala 1y ago
I disagree with this. There are plenty of counterexamples where an individual can have a measurably positive impact on their own life. Solar + batteries comes to mind. Also in your linked example, you brought up reading and literacy as something that would not improve collective problems, and I couldn't disagree more.
- gertlex 1y ago
  Feels like you're on a different tack here: improving your "own life" is different from solving "collective problems". Further, setting up solar + batteries solves a non-modest individual problem, but is not by itself (i.e. reducing carbon footprint; an example mentioned in the parent's link) the solution to climate change. (yes it helps; but incentives leading to people installing solar have a much bigger impact; and the biggest incentive was maybe China building a solar panel industry, but I'm not trying to go down that tangent)
  - margalabargala 1y ago
    That's fair. I think I had read the parent a little differently. I was interpreting this as situations where an individual can improve their own experience of a collective problem, in a way accessible to most. But I acknowledge that's a bit different. With the solar+battery, I was thinking of solving grid issues and energy prices, which it does do.
- Cthulhu_ 1y ago
  Unfortunately, individual action doesn't have significant effects - the article mentions leaded fuels, that wasn't something that could be done by individuals alone. You mention solar + batteries but to be blunt, that's only something middle class homeowners can afford, and they're a minority. Maybe some landlords in housing projects but they want government funding for that.
bad_username 1y ago
This mindset is dangerous - "weak individuals, you better let the strong benevolent government solve your problems". The appropriate solution is legislation AND individual empowerment.
- RobotToaster 1y ago
  Ideally legislation that creates individual empowerment. But the big lobbyists hate that, so it'll never happen.
- Cthulhu_ 1y ago
  But also education; one major shift is that measures that were taken in the past (e.g. vaccination campaigns) were so successful that a generation or three of people have grown up without any of the vaccinated diseases, so now they're like "...why do we even need these?". Add some scaremongering of chemicals and demonizing of autism aaand there's epidemics of measles again.
- more_corn 1y ago
  What if the solution begins with science? Leaded gasoline was known to be problematic from day 1. The science was suppressed for years. Look up what happened immediately after that iconic tv stunt where the guy washed his hands in leaded gasoline (he had a psychotic break from lead exposure and was institutionalized) Forever chemicals were known to be problematic and far more prevent than expected. 3M suppressed the science for literally decades. Senior leadership at 3M deliberately suppressed the data. We should crush without mercy those who rob us of the right to protect ourselves when they suppress the science that is supposed to provide warning. Make penalties for suppressing science so severe that nobody attempts to do it. How specifically? If you hide information that your product kills, you get prosecuted for murder. If there are financial damages make them treble damages. Make it hurt so bad it’s not worth doing. The answer is knowing. Individuals and institutions knowing the real dangers and acting appropriately. The place of governance is punishing those who knowingly hide the dangers and prevent us from taking appropriate proactive action.
wolvesechoes 1y ago
Blasphemy! Everyone knows that the correct solution is to fund startup X.
joenot443 1y ago
> Empowering individuals to solve collective problems rarely work. In Canadian elementary school in the 2000s, we spent a long time talking about our carbon footprint. The hope was that by carpooling and turning off lights when you left the room, we might still have an Earth to live on by 2030. Even at the time I felt a little patronized. Having read enough literature on the subject now the math does become clear: we won't solve our climate issues by guilt tripping children on their individual consumption. It's a problem that needs international government attention.
- IAmBroom 1y ago
  But I bought a stainless steel reusable straw!

by teddyh 1y ago

Empowering individuals to solve collective problems rarely work. <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31178680 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31178680> The appropriate solution is legislation.

DennisP 1y ago

Maybe so, but in the meantime I'll take all the empowerment I can get.

walleeee 1y ago

> legislation Perhaps more generally phrased as governance Yes, the answer is not some business plan by which some can dodge disaster in an untrustworthy market, the answer is to recognize that this planet is a spaceship i.e. materially closed, and we are massively soiling the nest, microplastic is in steak because it's literally everywhere on the surface of the earth, etc. Therefore, good ecological governance is a requirement, as is the analysis, as a public service, of the resources and ecosystems, and the services they provide human beings and our dependents, i.e. a democratic and just policy, not a lucrative plan to privatize yet more of public health If one is convinced the best vehicle for the above in the near term is a business, then it had better have a different approach than is typical of personal health tech startups Empowering individuals isn't worthless by any means but pitting one against another with asymmetric information is worse than worthless

lumost 1y ago
The fundamental constraint the article alludes to is the powerlessness of consumer choice. You can’t make a better choice because you don’t have any better option. When there is a better option, you lack the tools to verify that the option is truly better vs scamming you to pay more for something which either doesn’t matter or is simply a lie. Prior to free trade, you could reasonably sue the manufacturers or distributors for egregious harms. You could also reasonably expect domestic regulatory authorities to intervene before these harms entered the market.* In principal, this could be done in a free trade system with counterparties who implement and enforce similar rules. But then you need all parties to agree on any new rules and enforcement mechanisms. You only need one bad actor to nuke the arrangement by growing without these burdens. * Assuming regulations and laws are equitably and incorruptibly enforced in the local government.
- BrenBarn 1y ago
  A second-order issue there is the pervasive phenomenon of people wanting things cheap which results in hidden costs. When it costs more to make things safer or to test that they are safe, bad actors can succeed by not doing that and finding ways to dodge responsibility, because people just gravitate towards low prices. Part of the "governance" challenge is forcing market participants to internalize their costs. Somewhat ironically, a countervailing strategy has emerged of charging more for something based on the claim that it's "natural", "organic", "handcrafted", etc. This strategy can also be seen in various types of "detectors" and at-home tests for things, and perhaps even things like the ConsumerLabs mentioned in another comment. This muddies the waters even more, since even people who are willing to pay more for something that's better can't figure out how to avoid paying more for something that's just equally bad. These problems exist not just in the realm of food and health but in all product categories.

Ferret7446 1y ago

That's not a solution. There is no practical solution for this, and has not been for the millennia on human history; it's only been in the recent decades where we've been able the hallucinate about knowing about toxins in our daily lives. Legislation is just paper, you have no enforcement mechanism beyond what you already have currently: suing companies on a case by case basis.

andrewflnr 1y ago
This is nonsense, regulation has forced huge improvements in food quality. You don't need lawsuits if agencies are regularly testing and authorized to levy penalties based on the results.
nbngeorcjhe 1y ago
[flagged]
- throwaway290 1y ago
  how much of total legislation is never enforced? probably at least third It's pointless without people caring.
  - IAmBroom 1y ago
    People care when they are personally and noticeably harmed. And the court system provides for redress, when laws are broken. Very imperfectly, but it is there. A substantial portion of that 2/3 of the law is never enforced because it's easier to just go ahead and obey, than to fend off class action lawsuits. Another portion is actually irrelevant. The safety of my next airplane trip is not actually affected by how many barefoot people walk over a threshold.
- Ferret7446 1y ago
  No amount of legislation will make it practical to do comprehensive chemical tests on every single domestic and imported product, or do comprehensive safety studies on every single chemical used in such products, or to handle the legal proceedings to prosecute all violations. Our society does not have the resources to sustain the incomprehensibly large regulatory and compliance industry needed to enforce a shadow of such legislation.

margalabargala 1y ago

I disagree with this. There are plenty of counterexamples where an individual can have a measurably positive impact on their own life. Solar + batteries comes to mind. Also in your linked example, you brought up reading and literacy as something that would not improve collective problems, and I couldn't disagree more.

gertlex 1y ago
Feels like you're on a different tack here: improving your "own life" is different from solving "collective problems". Further, setting up solar + batteries solves a non-modest individual problem, but is not by itself (i.e. reducing carbon footprint; an example mentioned in the parent's link) the solution to climate change. (yes it helps; but incentives leading to people installing solar have a much bigger impact; and the biggest incentive was maybe China building a solar panel industry, but I'm not trying to go down that tangent)
- margalabargala 1y ago
  That's fair. I think I had read the parent a little differently. I was interpreting this as situations where an individual can improve their own experience of a collective problem, in a way accessible to most. But I acknowledge that's a bit different. With the solar+battery, I was thinking of solving grid issues and energy prices, which it does do.
Cthulhu_ 1y ago
Unfortunately, individual action doesn't have significant effects - the article mentions leaded fuels, that wasn't something that could be done by individuals alone. You mention solar + batteries but to be blunt, that's only something middle class homeowners can afford, and they're a minority. Maybe some landlords in housing projects but they want government funding for that.

bad_username 1y ago

This mindset is dangerous - "weak individuals, you better let the strong benevolent government solve your problems". The appropriate solution is legislation AND individual empowerment.

RobotToaster 1y ago
Ideally legislation that creates individual empowerment. But the big lobbyists hate that, so it'll never happen.
Cthulhu_ 1y ago
But also education; one major shift is that measures that were taken in the past (e.g. vaccination campaigns) were so successful that a generation or three of people have grown up without any of the vaccinated diseases, so now they're like "...why do we even need these?". Add some scaremongering of chemicals and demonizing of autism aaand there's epidemics of measles again.
more_corn 1y ago
What if the solution begins with science? Leaded gasoline was known to be problematic from day 1. The science was suppressed for years. Look up what happened immediately after that iconic tv stunt where the guy washed his hands in leaded gasoline (he had a psychotic break from lead exposure and was institutionalized) Forever chemicals were known to be problematic and far more prevent than expected. 3M suppressed the science for literally decades. Senior leadership at 3M deliberately suppressed the data. We should crush without mercy those who rob us of the right to protect ourselves when they suppress the science that is supposed to provide warning. Make penalties for suppressing science so severe that nobody attempts to do it. How specifically? If you hide information that your product kills, you get prosecuted for murder. If there are financial damages make them treble damages. Make it hurt so bad it’s not worth doing. The answer is knowing. Individuals and institutions knowing the real dangers and acting appropriately. The place of governance is punishing those who knowingly hide the dangers and prevent us from taking appropriate proactive action.

wolvesechoes 1y ago

Blasphemy! Everyone knows that the correct solution is to fund startup X.

joenot443 1y ago

> Empowering individuals to solve collective problems rarely work. In Canadian elementary school in the 2000s, we spent a long time talking about our carbon footprint. The hope was that by carpooling and turning off lights when you left the room, we might still have an Earth to live on by 2030. Even at the time I felt a little patronized. Having read enough literature on the subject now the math does become clear: we won't solve our climate issues by guilt tripping children on their individual consumption. It's a problem that needs international government attention.

IAmBroom 1y ago
But I bought a stainless steel reusable straw!