Live data from Hacker News

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

kasperjunge.com

61–70 of 115 posts

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

#61
post #33

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

a) survivorship bias, and b) long-termism. Many nations have tried to plan their economy. Most perform badly and end up as footnotes in the history of the Democratic Republic of Tinpotonia. It takes a lot of skill to plan an economy. The star performer in living memory was South Korea: best dictatorship! But it completed its succession plan and pivoted to free markets, so the example is forgotten. Mao kicked off by o…

> I would say that democracy has inherent problems:

It is indeed the worst possible system except for all the others.

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

#62
post #60
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like all of that, but is there really a scientific consensus about those things? I don't think so. Most seems to be disputed.

Hmm what do you mean by disputed? There is mixed but often promising evidence depending on context. For example there is quite a bit of urban planning evidence that shows that walkable environments improve physical activity and health outcomes and other outcomes. And so on for the other topics. It’s also worth noting that current systems are not the result of a unified scientific optimization process. So even increme…

With disputed I mean mainly that whenever there is a study linked here for example (drug decriminalisation shows benefits) - there is a heated debate about it. And also links shown to other studies. I know that elements of the established medicine in germany for example are highly critical of decriminalisation. So - if something is disputed (rightfully or not) it is not hard to see why it is not allways implemented.

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

#63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are plenty of disastrous decisions in the last 70 years at the level of major policies. one thing I've come to respect about the Chinese is that while they make huge decisions that sometimes have disastrous consequences, they don't make the same mistakes twice. At this point they have fed information from their environmental impacts into reforesting entire mountains and improving air quality. They went in on…

"they don't make the same mistakes twice." But they do. Even if we limit ourselves to post-1949 China. Once Mao died, the Party decided to never allow a single leader to arise again, and switched to an oligarchic model. But Xi was able to break that system and once again you have a sort of cult of personality with One Dear Leader at the top, although we have to admit that Xi is a lot saner than Mao ever was. But the…

> once again you have a sort of cult of personality with One Dear Leader at the top

Sounds hell of a lot like USA right now.

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

#64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"they don't make the same mistakes twice." But they do. Even if we limit ourselves to post-1949 China. Once Mao died, the Party decided to never allow a single leader to arise again, and switched to an oligarchic model. But Xi was able to break that system and once again you have a sort of cult of personality with One Dear Leader at the top, although we have to admit that Xi is a lot saner than Mao ever was. But the…

> worship of a single person, personal loyalty triumphing over competence, and the Chinese economic machine, subject to whims of a single person, seems to be slowing down. The whole world is swinging in that direction. its not like the US is any better in that respect in our current political climate.

I would say that is swing as already over and the US was a late comer to the trend. Of the ur-strongmen of the democratic world, Orbán just got the boot and Erdogan's genuine popularity peak is also long over, although he might be able to hold on power by simply hijacking the state and jailing his opponents. And there are quite obvious marks of Trump fatigue on the non-MAGA American right as well.

The one genuinely popular populist leader who seems to be holding is Modi in India.

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

#65
1. An airplane crashes, everyone dies. Clearly a bad thing. Not so quick. For the funeral industry this means additional business, a good thing. And this is true for a LOT [1] of things, they are not good or bad, right or wrong, their judgment depends on perspective and personal preferences.

2. Which means that there is generally no policy that makes everyone happy. So you need a party with a program that aims at finding compromises that are acceptable for everyone.

3. But nobody will vote for such a party. Why would you vote for a party that gives you 50 % of what you want if there is a different party that is more aligned with your views and preferences and promises to give you 90 % of what you want?

4. In consequence the political direction tends to hop between extremes instead of settling on compromises. One group gets really unhappy with the current situation, shows up for elections, votes their party into power, moves the situation into the direction of a different extreme, until others get unhappy enough to start the process all over again.

5. Even in political systems where [sometimes] a coalition of parties exercises the power and they are forced to compromise, the outcome is all but ideal. Things move slowly because finding compromises is hard if you do not really want to compromise. Voters look down on the party they voted for because they are not delivering what they promised but only compromises.

I guess the moral of the story is that the voters have to realize that their view is not the only valid one and that voting for compromises would probably yield better outcomes than voting for extremes and either going in that direction for some time until turning around or maybe arriving at a forced compromise that no one voted for.

[1] Exercise for the reader, find something politically relevant that does not depend on perspective and personal preferences.

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

#66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"they don't make the same mistakes twice." But they do. Even if we limit ourselves to post-1949 China. Once Mao died, the Party decided to never allow a single leader to arise again, and switched to an oligarchic model. But Xi was able to break that system and once again you have a sort of cult of personality with One Dear Leader at the top, although we have to admit that Xi is a lot saner than Mao ever was. But the…

> once again you have a sort of cult of personality with One Dear Leader at the top Sounds hell of a lot like USA right now.

Technically, it would be kachní ocásek, not kachnuv.

Yeah, the US has been flirting with similar approaches quite heavily, but I don't believe that Trump will get 15 or more years in power out of it like Xi managed to.

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

#67
post #65

1. An airplane crashes, everyone dies. Clearly a bad thing. Not so quick. For the funeral industry this means additional business, a good thing. And this is true for a LOT [1] of things, they are not good or bad, right or wrong, their judgment depends on perspective and personal preferences. 2. Which means that there is generally no policy that makes everyone happy. So you need a party with a program that aims at fin…

[deleted]

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

#68
post #65

1. An airplane crashes, everyone dies. Clearly a bad thing. Not so quick. For the funeral industry this means additional business, a good thing. And this is true for a LOT [1] of things, they are not good or bad, right or wrong, their judgment depends on perspective and personal preferences. 2. Which means that there is generally no policy that makes everyone happy. So you need a party with a program that aims at fin…

Here's a recent blog post in a similar vein: https://benthams.substack.com/p/voting-self-interestedly-is-...

Although your plane crash example falls afoul of the broken window fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

Plus the simple fact that, by the same logic, you can try to both-sides plain murder on the ground that the murderer wants to murder (and, again, that the undertakers and coroners and such must be kept in business). Clearly, whilst every policy will have supporters and detractors, some detractions are more worthy of consideration than others.

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

#69
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.

What disasters, particularly relatively modern ones?

This reads as massive cope because China has lifted ~800M people out of extreme poverty [1][2] and the transformation of the ordinary lives of Chinese people is almost unbelievable. More cope here is "yeah but that's Tier 1 cities". But look at rural life in small villages. Even 20 years ago people were still drawing water from wells and didn't have indoor plumbing.

Now? High speed internet on smartphones, modern houses, indoor plumbing, reliable electricity, electric vehicles, etc.

What we have in the West is a captured system of parasitic wealth transfer from the young and poor to the old and rich where society and infrastructure is crumbling. My prediction is that the 21st century is going to show the central planning (in China) is going to produce far better outcomes for the vast majority of people.

[1]: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/04/01/l...

[2]: https://amro-asia.org/an-exemplary-journey-in-eradicating-po...

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

#70
I agree with the problem, and I think it stems from a few core issues:

1. Societies are heterogenous, and some groups are always benefitting from the status quo, which will then rebel against any potential changes.

For instance, in Germany (and multiple other European countries), forming a GmbH (LLC) requires in-person sessions with expensive notaries, who will read the entire paperwork out loud.

This made sense when it was invented in 1892 because company formation was extremely rare, always required large facilities and upfront purchases, etc.

Today, this requirement only benefits notaries, as I reckon extremely few people would voluntarily hire a notary to form their company.

But of course notaries would be against making their services legally required! And of course, if anyone suggests loosening requirements, they will spell out all of the terrible fraud that would happen if company formation didn't require a thorough legal review.

That's an example for something relatively obvious. It gets much harder with genuinely complex topics (pensions? tax reform? healthcare?).

2. Many initiatives to improve society fail because they're viewed through a prism of administration/policy, not the actual people impacted.

Take modern urbanism, which cleanly separates where people live (residential areas), where they work (commercial districts), where they shop (malls), and where they spend their free time (recreational centers, etc.)

This beautifully serves people who plan and administer because it makes their work massively easier vs. a tangle of apartment buildings with a coffee shop and clothing boutique on the ground floor and a playground for the kids in front.

It checks the boxes of daily life, but the people living through it feel alienated from their community with these single-purpose urban areas.

3. We have a bias towards actionism.

We tend to think that big, complicated problems need big, complicated solutions, and politicians (who are evaluated on perception, not results) need to be seen designing and implementing those big, complicated solutions.

Massive amounts of infant mortality were prevented by simply making doctors wash their hands, and Semmelweis (who came up with the hypothesis) was so ridiculed for that idea that he died in an insane asylum.

It's sadly often unacceptable to say "we're going to make a little tweak that'll have a ton of downstream effects and solve this massive problem in 5 years".

Post reply on HN