[mistermann]

Ah yes, our two most sacred institutions: democracy and science, neither of which have a (literally) actionable plan to solve the problem at its source: human behavior.

The twin hills that humanity may die on if something doesn't happen to wake people up to their foolishness.

[adrianN]

We have a large number of actionable plans that happen to reduce profits for very rich organizations that hence spend a lot of money to prevent their implementation.

[mistermann]

Your "actionable" makes assumptions about the true nature of several things, one of them being democracy.

I can make a semi-actionable plan to fly, but if I am not able to achieve flight via the plan, in fact, my plan is not fully actionable, so this fully part is a pretty big deal.

What if you people are wrong? Like, what is it about certain topics that cause having backup plans to be a bad idea? Why are there certain topics that people are determined to not contemplate, even if they are literally existential threats?

If we can't talk about the topics themselves, could we at least talk about the second order mass psychological phenomenon, or is that off limits too? I pose this as a question to humans in general, sorry if I'm taking it out on you individually.

[adrianN]

By your definition plans can only be determined to be actionable post hoc after they are completed?

[mistermann]

Risk can be predicted/estimated, for example:

> If only everyone voted for parties who don't deny science...

So here we have a prediction of risk, that itself contains non-disclosed/perceived risk.

We are welcome to behave however we'd like of course, and we will be rewarded accordingly. Some people like to put their/our faith (which is what it is) in one basket, others like to have a multi-prong, layered approach.