[programmers frantically pulling cables out of the wall]
AI: "Nuclear power. Double teachers' salaries. Build more houses. Distribute food more fairly. TRAINS—"
— qntmyrrh (@qntm) November 24, 2023 I remember growing up with that same old adage of how you could be the next scientist to invent a cure for cancer, or a solution to climate change, or whatever. What they don’t tell you is that we already have solutions for a lot of problems, we just don’t use them.
But this is just a series of solutions you already said will not be implemented. The article even pointed to the underlying cause of these problems. There is a misaligning of goals between corporations, politicians, and the general good. You can’t vote this problem away, you can’t boycott this problem away. As far as i can tell, to solve these issues, you will need to remove to current political system, and establish a new one, removing many rights and powers corporations enjoy, and allowing the people to pivot on political platforms that better suit their needs. I Believe CGP Grey is right on a better system that should be established in the old one’s stead. The problem is for now the bread and circuses still flow.
You basically have two schools of though on the issue of reform or revolution. The reform path is mainly working on pushing the current system in a better direction, while at the same time building alternatives. Since the biggest problem currently are private corporations influencing politicans, that would propably be voting for the best the current system really allows, which is social democracy. At the same time you destroy the private capitalist corporations by building up cooperatives.
The other option is revolution, where you try to destroy the old system and fully replace it with a new one. So you ban capitalism outright and try to set up something new. I happen to be of the opinion that revolutions just end up quickly scaling up ideas, which were around before the revolution. So those ideas need to spread and they can only really spread by actually showing at least some results. Hence you have to set up small scale new system anyway.
As for what is better. Honestly a revolution requires luck and is unlikely. So I prefer the reform approach as it seems to me to be a safer path and also allows the option of a revolution as it is sure to plant the seads of a new better time.
Of the two options, reform would be better, however i am not seeing that happening. At every possible chance, even fundamental steps fail against any opposition from corporations, or the government. In its stead i have seen things only get worse. And here i am looking at the harm of Revolution vs. the systematic harm caused by the direction we have been sliding in for decades. If i have no confidence in reform then the only thing left is hope in a risky revolution. I would prefer reform.
It depends were you are. Some places have managed to actually get some progress done. Stuff like coal exits, IC car sales bans, gas heating bans and so forth are certainly steps in the right direction. So it is possible, but not even close to fast enough. I honestly hope that that hurts fossil fuels enough to weaken it so some other places can overthrow them too.