TED Conversations

• patron anejo
• Atlanta, GA
• United States

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

CONSIDER THE EFFECT of a solution on the cost of other solutions when prioritising them. Optimise their order and minimise total expenditure

IF YOU INTEND to solve more than one problem on the list, it is erroneous to compare the immediate cost of each solution against the others. The overall cost of solving every problem on the list is minimised by optimising the order in which they are solved, such that solving one problem makes the next easier to tackle.

SUCH A CASCADE effect depends on a long-term global commitment to a sequentialised approach. Acute disrutptions--regional conflicts, meteorological volatility--are likely inevitable. The greater vulnerability is systemic: parties to any global solution will necessarily be political bodies. The tendency of political systems is toward permanence through renewal--they survive by the will of the governed, refashioning policy as is expedient. lf the United States' leadership continues to swing ever more wildly from left to right--and China continues to thrive on cheap labour (i.e., overpopulation) and cheaper resources (i.e., inadequate environmental controls)--there is little hope for a sustained global will to pursue costly solutions.

A MORE ROBUST--if less efficient--approach would be to compile a list of every affordable solution that would also empower humanity to dispatch remaining issues more easily; starting with the cheapest solutions, they could be knocked out quick-and-dirty--wherever and whenever the body politic is willing and the economy is able. With any luck, completion of the first round would reduce the cost of enough remaining solutions to comprise a second round...and so on.

IN ANY EVENT, it is absurd to discuss the efficient allocation of resources without considering knock-on effects. In any long-term plan, the first step is but a fraction--and must therefore be designed to optimise the steps that follow.

IT IS ERRONEOUS to subject a solution to cost-benefit analysis without first subtracting the amount by which it reduces the cost of other solutions. Prioritise available solutions based on such revised cost-benefit analysis.