Particular changes have positive and negative aspects for different people. E.g. almost everybody was better off circa 1980 producing steel by the basic oxygen

Particular changes have positive and negative aspects for different people. E.g. almost everybody was better off circa 1980 producing steel by the basic oxygen process and arc furnace except steel makers who had built open hearth furnaces 50 years ago and they had political power to maintain tariffs for a long time. See also AI —- there will be positives but this site and all the others I am on have a lot of users who are afraid of losing their job or losing the joy in their job or being overwhelmed with AI slop. There are certain systematic ways things break: in terms of politics the instinct is always to protect incumbents because they know it is a negative change for them and are already organized whereas the new entrants for which it is a positive change don’t even exist yet. See also systematic biases in planning: like the “luxury apartments” that get built and are then unrented because there is no market for them…. Yet they were seductive to investors because they were sold with attractive but false numbers… and subsidized “affordable” housing is built on the same template and has been failing the same way ever since https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabrini%E2%80%93Green_Homes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabrini%E2%80%93Green_Homes I was talking to the systems engineering prof about “why are nuclear plants always late and over budget” and concluded that the vendors were basically dishonest and knew they quote an unrealistically low price and like a game of poker the customer would keep raising so as not to lose their sunk costs.