[ako]

Problem is that democracy doesn’t seem to work in bad times, voters only want to hear that they have more, more, more. More jobs, more income, more houses and cars. No politician will win the election by stating voters will have to work longer hours, for less payment, have to pay more taxes, and send their kids to the army to protect our freedom. As soon as that is necessary, populist politicians will gain votes by stating all of that is not needed.

[lucianbr]

If you think democracy is a system for obtaining good outcomes, then yes, it doesn't work too well. Actually I think we don't have any system for obtaining good outcomes consistently.

If you think democracy is a system for getting the government to do what the people want, then it's working as designed in many places.

The problem is not politicians, the problem is not democracy. We are the problem, we the people who want more more, and do not accept the consequences of our actions. We vote for cheap gas, then shift the blame wherever we can: to politicians, to democracy, to other countries etc.

[tux3]

>We are the problem, we the people who want more more, and do not accept the consequences of our actions

Ask why. Consider why it is that people do that. Is it really human nature? Can't we imagine a world, or even a country, where the cultural zeitgeist is different?

We certainly can have smaller communities where people accept the consequences of their actions, where people will hear about what else happens besides "more" when you ask for more. It's not that the human brain floating in a vacuum is incapable of understanding that actions have consequences. We develop that skill pretty early!

I think it's interesting to look at what separates these smaller groups from the bigger groups. I don't think it's people themselves being built of a different stuff. It's the inputs and the norms that differ.

I can certainly think of norms for a group that result in worse outcomes. I also don't think we're necessarily at an optimum in epistemics, looking around me. So optimistically, candidly, there's room to do somewhat better.

[ako]

Yes, it would help if we would be more careful with our choices. But it would also be nice if politicians could be held accountable: if they say global warming is fake, and it turns out to be true, they should get some sort of penalty. Same with allowing pollution, you’re responsible for the health impact.

If a politician doesn’t think global warming is true, at least be open to the fact they might be wrong and be careful with their choices. The environment is a fragile balance, better to be careful and limit things that might impact this fragile balance.