Have we complicated a sitution to the point we can no longerr deal with anything effectively?

Answer 1

I'm not sure which type of situation you refer to, but in general I would say there certainly are many issues which we appear incapable of dealing with.

Our democratic political process is so encumbered with requirements for consultation, analysis and consideration of special interests that many of the intractable issues of today are essentially unresolvable in anything short of geological timeframes ... and unfortunately we haven't got that long.

I sometimes wish for there to be someone in charge so that there could be a decision and we could get on with implementing the chosen solution. Of course, the question is how do you ensure the "person in charge" actually makes the "right" decision, and what happens if it isn't? Certainly the US political system of checks and balances appears increasingly inadequate to deal with major issues. I would suggest it is actually a large part of the problem.

I could go on at length about what the problems are with the "system", but let's use a single example -- energy.

It is clear that future availability of fossil fuel is going to be problematic ... we are running out of it and yet demand is increasing. There are no viable substitutes available to replace fossil fuel (hydrogen isn't, neither are solar, wind, nuclear or geothermal ... at least in the 10 -15 year timeframe involved). It IS possible to replace fossil fuel in the LONG RUN through a combination of nuclear (and possibly in the very long term, fussion) and other sources (geothermal, solar, wind) BUT ONLY if a decision is taken essentially immediately.

The likelihood of this is low, given the conflicting pressures which would have to be resolved. Just a few of the factors which would need to be be resolved or handled include:
- education of consumers to the problem and the critical need for a lower energy "lifestyle"
- acceptance of the consequences of a lower energy footprint in terms of the viability of many areas of the world (including, for example, the SouthWest of the US which are only viable now because of high use of energy for airconditioning)
- environmental concerns regarding any possible solution
- what would have to be given up to find the massive amounts of capital required
- resolving sources of supply for raw material and specialized supplies like steel when production is no longer available in the US
- economic disruption as existing industries phase out to be replaced with more relevant ones in a new low energy economy
- managing legal challenges
- managing decreasing supply in the 10-20 years (minimum) required to build the replacement (e.g. wars over existing oil and gas, starvation and disease spreading from less developed countries).

The fundamental issue is that "the system" does not facilitate decisionmaking on difficult / contentious issues. Special interest groups, short term perspective of politicians, economic and enviromental assessment requirements, etc, etc. all ensure anything major (except possibly a decision to go to war) gets studied and lobbied and delayed. In our current world important decisions take years, even decades, to get resolved and fundamental issues regarding survival will never get decided because we won't be able to agree on the problem (e.g. climate change, enviromental sustainability) never mind a solution.

So ... long answer ... yes! At least as far as any substantive issues are concerned.

Answer 2

Which situation as been made too complicated? This is a broad sweeping statement.

Answer 3

Absolutely! Our government doing what it does best - promoting discord in our country and foreign lands.

Answer 4

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!