Back in reality, the majority of society was opposed to the Apollo program (even after the successful landing support was only lukewarm) and I have no difficulty thinking of difficult problems with enormous societal buy-in and vast funding that proved intractable.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/09/moond...

When was the last time somebody stepped on the moon? If that's success criteria, we just need to stick all the homeless in a hotel for a night, declare the problem solved, then kick them out in the morning.

It depends on the kind of problem. An engineering challenge, even a really difficult one, is something that can be attacked with effort. Changing human beings is far far more difficult. Perhaps impossible on timescales less than generations.

We’ve had societies that really wanted to stop people from using mind altering substances, agree with that goal or not it was something that multiple societies choose to try to solve and mostly they failed. The ones that partly succeeded were the ones that used heinously brutal methods.

I don't buy it. Apollo almost failed many times by administrative churn and lack of public support. Apollo was successful because of passionate engineers working on the problem not by public support

Their passion helped, but it consumed 4.4% of the US federal budget at peak and might well have been cancelled if JFK hadn’t been assassinated — for basically the same reason no human has returned there since Apollo or gone to Mars at all, and for the same reason Space Station Freedom was cut back and morphed into the ISS — or if NASAs work hadn’t been deliberately spread through most states to make it a pork barrel for senators looking to boost their own state using the Federal budget.

It’s basically only now that we have a new space race run by absurdly rich space-nerds that we don’t need active public support, merely that the criticism is limited to grumbling.

The engineers did not pay for the project or their salaries. And certainly they weren't working for free or even under market rate.

The salaried engineers worked way more hours than a 9-5 and were not paid overtime AFAIK

Which is almost every company I have worked for for the past 20 years.

Listen, these guys were very good, dedicated engineers.

But to say they did this without public support is stupid, because they were paid for from public money in the first place.

The public support comes in many ways. Just because some people didn't like the idea doesn't mean there was no public support.

The ultimate public support is the government, which is officials elected by... wait for it... THE PUBLIC.

> The ultimate public support is the government, which is officials elected by... wait for it... THE PUBLIC.

Well if that's your definition of "public support", Apollo just barely had enough to succeed. The Lyndon B. Johnson Administration that came after JFK was actively defunding Apollo and trying to dismantle the space program.

Back to my original point, society didn't "collectively decide" to make moon landings happen. JFK made a few bold claims to boost his public image against Russia and his successors tried to dismantle said space program. If it weren't for the tenacious engineers and leaders at NASA, moon landings would not have happened. In other words, if the engineers/leaders at NASA were not passionate enough, LBJ would have succeeded at dismantling Apollo.

Or cancer! Oh oops

5-year survival rates have improved — for some cancers — in adolescents and young adults https://sph.unc.edu/sph-news/5-year-survival-rates-have-impr...

Cancer is many things rather than one, and some of those things have been solved.

So's homelessness.

Cancer is a hugely complex problem. It is not a single attack vector like a virus.

But we are still making great progress on it, just think that the best vaccines for Covid came as fruit of cancer research.