[cholantesh]

>Im not interested in steel-manning the position that cultural acceptance of trash translates to bad code

Okay, but quite obviously OP is.

>I am defending the fact that humans do in fact have cultures, and those cultures have real world impacts. You would not see scenes like that in Japan or Singapore, or at least much more rarely.

Indians are such a major presence in Singapore that Tamil is one of its official languages. Littering is also a part of both countries' criminal codes, with hefty fines and, in SG's case, jail time being prescribed. It seems pretty clear, then, that cultural essentiality is at least insufficient as an explanation in these contexts.

[s1artibartfast]

Law and policy is a reflection and product of culture, or at least the dominant culture. There is influence and feedback that goes both ways.

You can ask why Singapore and Japan have harsh fines, and India does not. You can also look at how people behave when there isn't a cop watching them.

At a high level, law is just a tool for enforcing cultural norms, and is only sufficient to police small amounts of deviation on the margin. If the majority, or even a significant minority, of people woke up tomorrow and decided to break the law, there would be little that could be done in any country.

[cholantesh]

>You can ask why Singapore and Japan have harsh fines, and India does not.

Sure, and you can also ask why drawing conclusions from the ether is superior to relying on examining actually measurable parameters.

[s1artibartfast]

Im not opposed to direct measures. You could do observational studies looking at how frequently people litter when nobody is watching or surveys of how bad people feel littering is.

This would help you get a pulse of the comparative culture. That said, observing culture directly IS measurable.

You look at culture that leaves trash everywhere and that itself is a data point.