Live data from Hacker News

We Don't Have to Be This Bad at Improving Society

kasperjunge.com

21–30 of 115 posts

Re: We Don't Have to Be This Bad at Improving Society

#21

China seems to do a decent job of it. Why can't we?

I see no reason to believe they are. China is poorer than Taiwan per-capita despite being the same culture. They recovered a little after Deng reduced the amount of centralization, but they are still lagging behind.

Re: We Don't Have to Be This Bad at Improving Society

#22
post #3

China seems to do a decent job of it. Why can't we?

Does it? There are plenty of disastrous decisions in the last 70 years at the level of major policies. There are plenty of failed projects. The west in general used to be a lot more efficient. IMO the main cause is exactly the problem the Soviet Union used to have, and China still does: centralisation.

China is not as hyper centralized as you think, the regions have quite a bit of power over policy as long as they deliver results. Some things are centralized, maybe to many in China. But for things like High Speed rail, such centralization is not bad. Not everything needs centralization but some kind of centralized decision making is need for grand decisions.

The US does this hilariously wrong. Like giving each state money for public metro system and then each state implements a unique incompatible solution that really only differs slightly from the alternative. In a competitive private market that fine, industry standards can emerge. But in terms of metro system that a country only builds very rarely having the system be the same between metros makes a lot of sense.

Its not like these are experimental concepts that nobody in the world knew about already.

Re: We Don't Have to Be This Bad at Improving Society

#23
post #8

I've been thinking about this too: why aren't we able to run safe political experiments? We're missing guardrails to allow safe experimentation and we're missing institutions to provide affordances. I think the difficult bit is figuring out how to seperate the goodness of centralized decision shaping and the badness of centralized power accumulation.

Many things don't really need 'experiments'. You can just do them. Like run good buses. The US already does run experiments thanks to the states, and we run many simply by having many countries. The problem is not lack of experiments the problem is lack of political will to implemented known good solutions.

> The problem is not lack of experiments the problem is lack of political will to implemented known good solutions.

Indeed. We have extensive and widely repeated evidence that walkable streets, cheap mass transit, free healthcare, decriminalisation of drugs, and a 4-day workweek are all strict improvements over our current societies.

And yet somehow all of those are viewed as radical reforms.

Re: We Don't Have to Be This Bad at Improving Society

#24

China seems to do a decent job of it. Why can't we?

> China seems to do a decent job of it. Why can't we?

Like the One-child policy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_child_policy

Or the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution

Or the persecution of Uyghurs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_Chin...

Or the 2021 Hong Kong electoral changes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Hong_Kong_electoral_chang...

Re: We Don't Have to Be This Bad at Improving Society

#25
post #3

China seems to do a decent job of it. Why can't we?

Does it? There are plenty of disastrous decisions in the last 70 years at the level of major policies. There are plenty of failed projects. The west in general used to be a lot more efficient. IMO the main cause is exactly the problem the Soviet Union used to have, and China still does: centralisation.

> There are plenty of disastrous decisions in the last 70 years at the level of major policies. There are plenty of failed projects.

Failures are everywhere, even the OP acknowledged that. I think the more important question is what a system does with those failures and how well it can learn from them and improve. (And if course, what does "improve" even mean? What are the targets that the system optimizes for?)

So my question would be, could China learn from those failed projects and improve its policies? How many disastrous decisions were there in the last 5 years in contrast to 70 years ago?

Re: We Don't Have to Be This Bad at Improving Society

#26
The article gives examples of situations where projects have failed, and states a solution.

> The [solution] is to organize the work into the smallest possible learnable chunks and continuously alternate between doing and learning.

It would be more convincing if the article gave examples of where that solution had been tried and succeeded. I mean this must have been tried somewhere, surely.

Re: We Don't Have to Be This Bad at Improving Society

#27
post #20

China seems to do a decent job of it. Why can't we?

This would seem to me to rely on an extremely selective interpretation of "improving".

Not really. I mean compared to 70 years ago. Its not really a question. The difference in living standard now compared to 70 years ago it gigantic.

Even to 40 years ago.

This is just objectively true for the waste, waste majority of the population.

Re: We Don't Have to Be This Bad at Improving Society

#28

"Society" (i.e. northern European and Anglophone) doesn't want to be improved.

A more nuanced version of this argument is, different people in democratic electorates disagree wildly on what constitutes an improvement to society. A practice or institution that is an improvement to one constituency is a detriment to another constituency, and that other constituency will seek to destroy the practice the moment they have the electoral power to do so.

Re: We Don't Have to Be This Bad at Improving Society

#29
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would seem to me to rely on an extremely selective interpretation of "improving".

Not really. I mean compared to 70 years ago. Its not really a question. The difference in living standard now compared to 70 years ago it gigantic. Even to 40 years ago. This is just objectively true for the waste, waste majority of the population.

These improvements include installing suicide nets at factories making products for foreigners using overworked labour living in dormitories, imprisoning two million people for a decade because they are the wrong kind of religious, suppressing democracy protests, essentially criminalising the use of pictures of Winnie The Pooh for political satire, and burying forever the true scale of how many people died in the epidemic stage of COVID transmission by simply not counting the potentially millions of people who died unable to leave their homes.

Re: We Don't Have to Be This Bad at Improving Society

#30
post #6
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because 15min cities are Soros funded projects to imprison us and the sheeple don't understandit. Renewable energy is a "gina" scam to destroy our economy. Healthcare is communism, socialism, fascism. Everything sucks but I don't want anything to change... /s If a society makes every problem a culture war, there can't be any progress until it gets so bad it can't be ignored anymore. But I feel even that is bit too op…

What is more important for you - economy or ecology?

Trains, walking, bikes, solar or nuclear plants are all good for both.

Smart policies like land value tax are good for both.

Tons and tons of things are good for both.

In general economy is more important because people, but people also live in the environment. But not building a mine because of tailings is a bit silly as it just mean a mine somewhere else is built that handles tailings even worse. These things can be done reasonably.

And if you actually price in the environment destruction in the supply chain cost, we could do a lot of things.

Post reply on HN