The older I get, the more I see that humanity tends to act in predictable ways, and the more I see that how a system is set up, the rules by which it functions, are what determines the outcomes for a society.
The problem is, the world seems to be populated by a large chunk of people who don't get this. And they persistently argue for case by case intervention rather than seeing society as a system that reacts to changes to reach a new equilibrium. I guess it boils down to whether you see the forest or get stuck looking at the trees.
As an example of how this difference plays out, I have some raccoons that live near my house, and they prowl around and try to eat our outdoor cat food all the time. Now -- it's not that cat food is particularly expensive. I don't mind them eating it. In fact I like seeing them. The problem is, that if we provide them with a new and steady food supply, they will breed more and begin to be a problem for the neighbors. I am aware of this because I understand that how many raccoons live in a particular area is dependent on food supply. Normally those unable to forage effectively die, and some of the babies die as well. That's how nature keeps the raccoon population healthy, by allowing the weak to die.
So -- what do I do to the raccoon population when I suddenly provide them with a steady supply of an extra amount of food? More of them survive, and they reach a new equilibrium population. An equilibrium which then must go back to its previous, lower number when I stop feeding them. So feeding them doesn't really "prevent" raccoon death -- it just trades some raccoons not dying today for more dying in the future.
This cyclical, systemic viewpoint -- seeing society and the economy and the environment as a dynamic system that seeks equilibrium -- has implications for how we think about the effect of subsidies, and government aid, and debt. And I'm baffled as to why society doesn't talk about the long term effects of trying to subvert the outcomes of causality.
