The cost to "punt" is zero, and it is what we are doing today. It is what we will continue doing until there is a perfect magical technology solution with no side effects and very low costs. Something like a 100kW power plant that runs 24/7, creates no emissions, requires no fuel or maintenance, and can be set up in your backyard for $99.

There is no crisis coming that will be severe enough (in the developed world) to change this. Politicians don't care, because people don't care. Climate change doesn't even make the top 10 priorities of most US voters. Not even the people in Florida whose houses will be going underwater care.

I wonder how long we will be waiting for easy button-press perfection with no downsides?

I wonder how dire the consequences of our waiting will be?

> Politicians don't care, because people don't care.

Maybe(!) it's for a similar reason to why most of these people also don't do calculus, or juggle, etc: they do not know how to, because they were never taught how to.

I'm not sure what effort to teach about this has been spared in the past couple decades.

One big problem is that half the country has also been taught climate change is a hoax concocted for partisan political gain.

My point is rather abstract: if you are not pleased with the behavior of the agents in your simulation, it may be worth actually teaching them skills that are known to be beneficial, rather than just talking about it (and we often don't/can't even get this far).

As one example (and I genuinely don't mean it as an insult):

> One big problem is that half the country has also been taught climate change is a hoax concocted for partisan political gain.

This is not actually known, and is unknowable (to any substantial degree of accuracy). And yet: consider how often one encounters such claims, including in genuinely intelligent communities like HN.

If I could make a list of just three "stop doing this" rules, "premature formation of epistemically unsound beliefs (and seeding of those viral beliefs into the memeplex)" would definitely be one of them.

> I doubt that most of them even believe this, but it's illustrative of... some deeper issue, for sure.

This, on the other hand, is not only excellent, but it is also highly anomalous (I propose).

I guess it depends on your definition of "taught". I do think that some large percentage of the population, probably at least 30%, have received the hoax message repeatedly from popular conservative sources such as Fox News, Donald Trump's former Twitter account, and the TV show Tucker Carlson Tonight.

Now, all these sources don't care in the slightest whether what they're saying is true, and would happily say the exact opposite seconds later if it suited them. And their audiences may at some level understand this. It's not really about what is being said, it's about the way it affirms the in-group.

So there is perhaps room for genuine teaching - but I'm not sure what it would take to dig out of where we are today.

> I guess it depends on your definition of "taught".

Indeed - there are the labels we apply to things, and then there is what lies underneath. And then there is the question of whether we form a distinction between the two (or, the degree to which we [are able to] form a distinction, and whether this is a constant or varies under different conditions, and the degree to which and ways in which it varies, etc).

> I do think that some large percentage of the population, probably at least 30%, have received the hoax message repeatedly from popular conservative sources such as Fox News, Donald Trump's former Twitter account, and the TV show Tucker Carlson Tonight.

> Now, I tend to think that all these sources don't care in the slightest whether what they're saying is true, and would happily say (and even believe) the exact opposite seconds later if it suited them.

1. Do you believe that it is only conservative sources and conservative people who can be objectively observed engaging in this behavior:

a) on a relative scale?

b) on an absolute scale?

2. Same question, but replace "believe" with "think it is necessarily and comprehensively true (in a formal, Justified True Belief sense)".

Re 1 and 2, both sides do it, but I find the whole "false equivalence" and "which side is worse" discussion nauseating and refuse to compare the two on the same scale. I think it suffices to say that neither can be neglected in understanding the current situation.

Stereotypically, right-wing propaganda seems to manipulate through brute force, and left-wing propaganda through selective negligence of cognitive biases. But even this perception is influenced by who does the fact-checking and how.

I can certainly understand your frustration, and I share it...but if we are really serious about climate change and various other issues, shouldn't we not only be willing, but strongly desire to determine with certainty whether the methods we use to govern our behavior (which were designed in relatively archaic times) are adequate to face the challenges of the 21st century?

If this was any other kind of project, the quality of leaders and design of systems of leadership would absolutely be brought into question by most people - does it not seem more than a little weird that the political realm [1] is treated as if it is radioactive, beyond even simple discussion?

Does this seem rational?

[1] Well, ours that is - we seem to be more than happy to overthrow ones we do not like, and even consider it righteous.

Doomsday fear tactics doesn't move the needle. It's bad messaging and no one will ever fill fulfilled by following it. Change the message you might get more action.