> What they don’t tell you is that we already have solutions for a lot of problems, we just don’t use them. Sometimes this is because the solution is too expensive, but usually it’s because competing interests create a tragedy of the commons.
If you have a solution that can't be used because it costs too much money or other societal concerns, then you don't have a solution.
Part of making a solution is finding something that works in the real world and not an idealized world.
There’s a difference between “too expensive given the budget constraints we have imposed on ourselves” and “too expensive for any society to afford”. The author is asking us to step outside of the current political constraints and simply question whether these problems are truly as insurmountable as our political system makes them.
As for “other societal concerns” there are always societal concerns with anything. There were societal concerns with Social Security and free education for kids. Turns out those are good ideas despite the fact that they’re not free. In fact if you suggested them today a lot of people would shoot them down as infeasible. I don’t have any kids but I pay for other kids to learn to read. I’m not retired but I pay into social security.
It's not that it costs too much money, in many cases. The money's there. The problem is that the solution is not profitable compared to other actions, which is a different thing entirely.
For example, it is much more profitable to sell recurring treatments than it is to sell cures. You can only sell a cure once per instance of disease, after all, whereas selling a recurring treatment means you have an indefinite stream of revenue. (Similar logic applies to selling software as a subscription instead of as a one-off license.)
When something is "not profitable", that does not mean it costs too much. It means that the thing is not as profitable as other options, which is sometimes a result of excessively costly processes, but is at other times a result of having "do nothing" as an option (which by definition costs nothing, and depending on the field can make quite a lot of money).
Another example of something being "not profitable", but not because it costs more, is public goods. Public transportation, for instance. It is undeniable that good public transportation is a boon to society, but public transport is often framed as a business rather than a public good, and in the context of a business, public transport is simply not as profitable as something like a toll road. Running a toll road is close to "do nothing" compared to running a bus line or train line, since everyone brings their own car instead of using the publicly-provided transportation. The catch is, this is actually MORE costly overall--because many more vehicles have to be fueled and maintained, and cars are relatively inefficient compared to trains. But, because the cost is distributed to the users of the road, the toll road is "cheaper" for the people operating it, and thus more profitable--so if you run government like a business, the toll road is the thing you go with.
“costs too much money or other societal concerns“
Uhh you coupled these together which is a little odd, since societal concerns might be more addressable than the basic fact of resource scarcity is.
"costs too much money" isn't resource scarcity. It's at best a synthetic proxy for the general concept of resources (and at worst, the scarcity is entirely artificial)
Sure “costs too much money” is an umbrella term that includes scarcity as a cause but can include other things. When its a consequence of something other than scarcity, the purpose of the article is to point that fact out. Unlike issues of scarcity, societal problems are often solvable but for lack of widespread will, and awareness that solving that underlying societal issue could solve a more obvious and important problem we’re interested in solving is useful because it helps rouse that will.
I don’t think it’s fair to mark some parts of the argument “not the real world” when the argument is a whole block. The societal changes being discussed in the article are the main proposed path to a solution, not the particular cancer cure. Yes it involves some changes in the amount of profit some people will make. Yes potentially even destabilizing capitalism somewhat. These kinds of changes might not be comfortable or free of risks, but we have done similar changes in the past. Sometimes without even killing people in the process. The are definitely part of “the real world”.
Changes can be made, but that has to be discussed as part of the solutions not as something extra.
Problems are not purely technical, they always have a social component.
If you have a solution but its too expensive, that's not a full solution, that is half a solution. Maybe the other half is government grants or whatever, but you can't just talk about it as if the problem is solved. The social factors are just as much a part of the problem to be solved as the scientific part. Someone needs to figure them out. It is hard work that needs to be done and is how problems actually get solved.
That argument could be applied to prohibition too for example. If we just changed society enough... we could be alcohol free! Same for drug usage. But the thing is, if you have to literally change society to do something maybe it's not such a practical or useful idea.
If you have a solution that can't be used because it costs too much money or other societal concerns, then you don't have a solution.
Part of making a solution is finding something that works in the real world and not an idealized world.