[lambdadmitry]

Indeed. It's also just that people don't remember the issues of the yesterday, they just disappear without much reflection.

Remember ozone layer hole? Acid rains? Leaded petrol? Asbestos causing lung cancers? All sorted out when we realised they are problematic. Not immediately, not without some foot dragging and screaming, but sorted.

We are great at solving problems. We just take a bit of time and convincing to get going.

[titzer]

Just a reminder, but we solved, err, almost none of those things. The ozone layer hole has just barely stabilized, and might recover by 2075, acid rain was never a scientific concept, but a media scare, but leaded petrol did absolutely contaminate the air and water and that lead is still out there, so is most of the asbestos, we just let it be for the most part, as it is really expensive to deal with--I know, I have some in my house.

It's a matter of perspective. Do we solve large problems? Not really. Do we forget about large problems and/or declare victory? A lot. We only have so much attention span.

[lambdadmitry]

The ozone hole stabilising and recovering while we don't emit PFCs anymore is solving the issue. Acid rain is so real it has its own big Wiki article [0] and was solved through sulfur emission controls. Leaded petrol use stopped, asbestos is either phased out or has strict protocols for working with it rendering it harmless. Being "really expensive to deal with" is solving the problem, because the expense if the expense of making it safe.

You just moved the goalposts in every example. I'm not sure why would you do that, what's the underlying narrative you have in mind.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain

[titzer]

Thanks for the link, I didn't realize acid rain was as widespread a problem as it appears to be....which actually reinforces my point, in that the emissions that give rise to acid rain haven't stopped, they've just been reduced.

I haven't moved any goalposts on anything, it's just different standards. When someone says "I've solved problem X" one would assume that X is no longer a problem. That's the common assumption. All of the problems you mentioned and I commented on are still problems. The ozone hole is still a major problem that kills people and is affecting our planet. We project it will be closed, but it ain't closed. (And there have been flare-ups of CFC emissions). It's also a problem then once solved (when both of us are dead probably), will require constant vigilance against.

Your post came off as very rosy, like all these problems are solved and are in the past. Not the case.

[et-al]

I wouldn't be that optimistic. A lot of these problems the developed world "solved" by offshoring production to countries with looser environmental regulations.

And it's not like our new technologies don't bring about new problems. E.g. pesticide use and microplastics everywhere.