[ToucanLoucan]

The fact that so many people are so mystified at the idea of designing a society we want to live in is so much more depressing than any of the problems we face as a collective.

We do not need tech innovators, corporations or pioneering extroverted CEOs to market-innovate solutions to the problems we have. We can simply lean on expertise and scientific consensus and mandate that it apply to various industries and our world as a whole, and drive society forward. The legal pen has power too and we can use it for more than just ensuring Disney has infinite copyrights, and in fact, should.

It's not going to fix everything, of course. But a lot of major issues could see huge improvements if we simply used our Governmental processes to demand them. We KNOW how to make vehicles more efficient. We KNOW how to reduce other emissions. We KNOW that certain building practices and city policies are making numerous social ills worse. We know all of these things and we know how to stop them, but our politicians are content to ride out the collapse and cash their checks in the meantime and retire before the world falls apart.

[RandomLensman]

Could we better, for sure. But some enlightened dictatorship will not solve our problems. I really don't understand how these old and defunct dreams of the new society and the new human can still be that attractive.

None of these problems are really new and have been looked for millennia by now.

[ben_w]

That this conversation went:

"Let's ban advertising" "How?" "Laws" "It's depressing people can't think of this" "Enlightened dictatorship isn't going to help"

…suggests thinking in a false dichotomy. We don't need a dictatorship, enlightened or otherwise, to have laws.

[RandomLensman]

The suggestion was some expert based system...

[ben_w]

Name a government which doesn't use experts when determining the law.

(No Brexit jokes allowed :P)

[ToucanLoucan]

Well if you expand that slightly to "Name a government which use experts who don't have ties to the private sector they stand to benefit from by watering down regulations" the number of governments drops substantially.

[ben_w]

Only if that's "no experts with any ties" rather than "any experts with no ties". And the governments generally know about this risk too.

(Whether they care about the risk or see it as an opportunity for enriching themselves, that's a separate matter).

[RandomLensman]

Their impact is often low or even ignored. They are not in charge.

[ben_w]

That would still be the case; I don't see what justification you could have for describing the suggestion above a dictatorship.