[bastawhiz]

The scientists aren't journalists. Convince a politician to start planning for national security considerations. Tell them how it'll affect supply chains. Frame it in a way that literally anyone who has a vested interest in doing something would care about.

[ordu]

It is easier said than done. Politicians do not like to be disturbed by some pesky experts. Mentor Pilot discusses 2025 D.C mid-air collision[1], and finds the most disturbing reason for it: experts tried to escalate issues with too much traffic for years, but they were repeatedly told that it was "too political", so, in other words "just shut up and deal with the traffic, don't bother congressmen and congresswomen, they are too important to be bothered with limits of possible stemming from physics or engineering".

Politicians thought (and some think to this day) that climate warming is "too political" to listen to experts. Most of them will think that Atlantic current is too political, till it stops.

It is easy to say "convince a politician", but it is hard to do. Politicians think politics, and you have to be a genius among politicians to transform a game field, so some concerns of scientists became a political issue that is not possible to ignore. Geniuses among politicians as as rare as in any other discipline, the most of them will just play existing games, without even thinking of rewriting the rules of the game. BTW, when they try to rewrite, the boring old "play by the rules" might start to look pretty good.

Politics is the hardest unsolved problem the humanity faces. We could send humans to the Moon, or it seems increasingly likely we can create an AGI, but we can't make politicians to listen to the reason.

[1] https://youtu.be/41UYPeTr96s

[munksbeer]

> but we can't make politicians to listen to the reason.

You're stopping too early. Politicians exist for one reason only, to get elected. If they don't get elected, they're not a politician, so everything they do is is selected with that as their fitness function.

So why won't they listen about climate change? Because the public doesn't want to be told they have to make their lives slightly worse. There are "politicians" in the UK who constantly warn about climate change. Guess what? They won't get elected.

In other words, you're blaming the symptom, not the cause. The general populous is the real reason.

[joquarky]

> Because the public doesn't want to be told they have to make their lives slightly worse.

Especially right now when everything seems to already be declining.

[bastawhiz]

Convincing politicians might be hard, but at least it's not as pointless as trying to convince the general public. See: the last thirty years.