Hacker News Reader

You could just as easily say the opposite though?

It's a pattern I've been noticing a lot lately. It is very tempting for a person who sees a problem to assume it is a political problem, because then it has a political solution. Unfortunately most of the biggest problems are not political problems, they are engineering problems for which there are only engineering solutions.

Geoengineering is not off the table. Reducing or blocking total sunlight by 1% can have dramatic changes to any global warming. Other techniques also exist.

I think people seriously underestimate what engineering can accomplish. They also over-estimate what politics can accomplish.... The climate change deals we were talking about were hundreds of billions of dollars, which can buy quite a lot of R&D.

Besides, if we have any chance of surviving as a multi-planetary species for billions of years, we need to know how to do terraforming.

I agree. Ill extend this. Climate change is an engineering problem, especially when time constraints are not considered. However, if we want to work at a fast rate to reduce climate change, it is certainly a political problem. That is just because the wheels of invention and innovation take time. It is an engineering problem, but because of quick demand for reducing carbon emissions, it is a political problem.

I think that the problem is not that people over-estimate what politics can accomplish, the problem is that people (correctly) believe that they have approximately zero influence on politics, and therefore try to look for alternative solutions.

> But technology is never the problem, politics is.

I agree with you argumentation but I do not see why 'some/many technological problems are political problems' means 'all technological problems are political problems'.

I've also noticed the opposite pattern on HN: Folks arguing that a problem cannot be a technological problem, because in their society/country, it is a political problem. First example that comes to mind is healthcare in the US - just because there's some political debt around healthcare in US, doesn't mean there are interesting technological problems to be had elsewhere.

That line was meant to refer narrowly to the Gadgetbahn example. In public transportation the problem is almost always political because the technology has been mature for more than a century. I won't claim that things are so clear cut in every situation, but I do think this is a common trap.

So the solution sounds like we need more engineers in political power, or to decentralize political power away from those who specialize in obtaining it?

To me, all problems are technical. You could probably fit most political problems in game theory.

Technology often is the problem, or more concretely we can use technology to make the solution cheaper, which makes it more plausible for politicians to implement. Politicians already use x amount of money trying to prevent climate change. If technology was advanced enough that x is enough to prevent climate change completely, we could then solve the problem with a technological solution (assuming politicians are willing).

I don't think the tech is nearly cheap enough yet.

Political problems are when people can't agree on what they want. For example some fraction of the population wants to be on standard time year round, another part wants to be on DST year round, and a third part wants to alternate. What one group would call a solution, the others would call a problem, and the only option is some negotiated consensus.

For real problems though, where the affects are real and calculable, there is no such thing as a political solution. If you find yourself saying "we have the means to do this, but we can't get people to do it" then you should ask why not? It's too expensive compared to alternatives? Use technology to reduce costs. It's not safe enough? Use technology to add safety systems. It requires too much effort? Use technology to make it easier. And so on and so forth.

Politics can't make a real problem go away, it can only avoid or hide the issue. Forcing people to use a more expensive power source doesn't solve the cost problem, it just chooses to ignore it. Maybe with subsidies you can reduce the cost on the books, but that just hides the cost elsewhere in a more easily ignored form. Banning something may avoid the costs, but it also removes the benefits. If you distribute the problem out over enough people, or concentrate the problem on a sufficiently small and isolated minority, you can reach a point where most of society doesn't care about the problem, but it's still there and unsolved.

Thinking of things as political problems leads to innaction. It is easy to scapegoat the persistence of a problem on the other side refusing to cooperate, rather than addressing the shortcomings of your proposal. Further, there is a strong incentive never to actually fix the problem as once you do, the issue that unites your constituency behind you will no longer be present. Finally, political solutions promote false dichotomies - our solution is better than theirs so you should support our solution, and any criticism of our solution will just be cannon fodder for the other side to use to promote theirs.

Yes, many people will sometimes propose technical solutions that are dumb and in no way an improvement over the current situation, but that does not mean technical solutions do not exist. A monorail isn't a better public transit option than a train, but the fact is there are real, unsolved technical issues with public transit that make construction and operation in many cases expensive and inconvenient, and just waving a pen won't make it inexpensive and convenient. I don't know what a better solution will look like, but it is entirely rational to search for one.

But because in practice people will flake, the only alternative may be a technical solution. If you can't fix "stupid", Plan B may be to engineer around it.