If you believe that changes to society can only be made through government action: yes, everything is political. If you reject that assumption, you may think differently.

Truth.

In fact, the more harsh way to frame this is people need to understand whether they have an interest in politics does not change the fact others do.

And we all live with the product of those of us who do get involved politically.

Speak or be spoken for has real teeth when viewed through this lens.

I think what we can do tomorrow is lighten regulations on things like how many people are allowed in a hotel room. This could help many people tonight.

Next is feeding the homeless, some cities limit how they can be fed.

We need to take a close look at these sorts of regulations as soon as possible. Just these two things could make a huge impact.

This is a well known issue known for a long time.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flophouse#Cage_hotels_in_the...

> At the end of the day, everything is political.

It only is if you view everything through a political lens. Science and psychology, for example, are not political.

Plus you can affect change without the political system. Starting with improving oneself. Then family members. Then local community. If enough people did that, that would be a societal change and maybe we wouldn't have such a crisis in the first place.

> Science and psychology, for example, are not political.

Science is extremely political. Ask any PI who's written a grant or published a paper before whether they think science is apolitical.

>Science and psychology, for example, are not political.

Could you clarify? Do you mean to say that these fields of study don't yield results that have political implications? Or that these fields are impervious to political influence because...well I don't know, they aren't performed by humans?

I mean they aren't political by definition. They exist at a lower layer and are apolitical by default. They can be used or corrupted by politics - and are.

But people do science. We bring our bias, limited vision, and our politics and opinions.

Which is why there is the scientific method. Good science is reproducible and provable regardless of what your opinion is.

Facts are facts regardless.

'Facts' bend to the funding available. Money (can) drive conclusions. Interpretation is a matter of prior experience and available terminology. Even our hallowed logic stands on unprovable axioms.

That and there is an incredible shortage of reproductions and garbage publications that are difficult or impossible to replicate with the available information.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis [1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170411104516.h...

These point to soft sciences, so I suppose my point doesn't stand so much for things like climate change publications, or evolutionary biology.