| ▲ | panick21_ 7 hours ago |
| 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. |
|
| ▲ | red-iron-pine 4 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| > Like run good buses. you act like people are born with an idea of what "run good busses" means. how many busses? what models? what schedule? what routes to where? how do you staff them? how do you handle disruptions, strikes, bad weather, fist fights, budget cuts, etc? there may be some known good solutions there, but how do you know they apply here? Australian public transit approaches aren't necessarily gonna work in frozen Canada, and great solutions for dense cities won't translate to rural. at some point you're gonna have to figure out what works for your locality, and that may involve trying new things |
|
| ▲ | nilirl 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yes, but they're not safe experiments. And they're not experiments in the sense that we don't focus on shaping the reusable knowledge they produce. It's not enough to try things, we also need a social system in place to allow trying to be safe and useful, even on failure. |
|
| ▲ | swiftcoder 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > 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. |
| |
| ▲ | mlsu 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Man you guys are so close. "Somehow." Indeed, it is a mystery. 0.01% of the population has direct control over something like 50% of society's resources. Society moves to enrich them, at everyone else’s expense. Curious that. | | |
| ▲ | kjshsh123 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Most countries don't allow billionaires to influence elections like the USA. Maybe they still do in other ways. Anyway, I think blaming the 0.01% for how 50%+1 vote is too easy. Take electoral reform. Is that the 0.01%, or is the case that it's just the only one that could improve elections with electoral reform never has any incentive? Still, if voters really made it their priority and punished parties that run on it and ignore it once they win, it would be more likely to happen. No doubt there is problems of reproduction of class, and conservatism to preserve existing hierarchies as they are. But is it the 0.01%? Or is it actually a much larger fraction? Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny even if it's 51% lording it over the 49% instead of 0.01% lording it over the 99.99%. History shows people have a desire for minority scapegoats. We should know that is wrong. Take housing. Is unaffordability to blame on the 5% of the population that are landlords? The 1% involved in housing development? Or is it maybe the 60%+ households that live in detached homes being insulated from the problem and being NIMBYs in local elections? | | |
| ▲ | red-iron-pine 3 minutes ago | parent [-] | | that's cuz the billionaires already own the system and don't need to influence the elections. Putin waves his hand and it is so -- no election needed. |
|
| |
| ▲ | lukan 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | kuerbel 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 incremental changes that are supported by good evidence seem worth seriously exploring. | | |
| ▲ | lukan 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | swiftcoder 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > whenever there is a study linked here... there is a heated debate about it There are tons of people in this world who don't believe in evolution, but there aren't a whole lot of scientists who doubt its validity - laypeople debating science is worth about what you pay for it. The only interesting question here is whether there is debate in the scientific community about these topics. |
|
| |
| ▲ | JuniperMesos 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Also, do you trust the scientists? Or the scientific establishment that decides what practitioners rise to the level of being trustworthy? | | |
| ▲ | _DeadFred_ 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes. I've found most of the people who don't trust don't want to trust, not they actually don't trust, because they know nothing about the bodies that establish this, the standards they hold, specific issues that cause their loss of trust. Zero real background. What actual bodies that establish credibility/verification do you currently not trust? What examples of their failures prompted you to stop trusting them or even be interested in the topic of if they were trustworthy gatekeeps? Most of the time that answer ends up having personal politics as the root, not actual trust issues that actually occurred and got the doubters attention. Normally if they have any examples they are politically sourced/politically generated laundry lists, not authentically generated concern or personal knowledge/care of the topic past wielding as a political weapon. |
|
|
|
