[MysteryGuitarMan (OP)]

Hi all,

Why are we usually more reactive than proactive? What do you think?
Please share your views! Thanks loads!

Best
MGM

[CliffordK]

Often it is easier to see the signs that should have predicted something to happen in hindsight than it is to actually use them to predict a future event.

This is in part due to sampling issues..

For example, consider the 9/11 attacks.  The FBI and CIA would have had thousands of "threats".  Choosing which ones to believe is like choosing a needle in a haystack.  Of course, that is their job.  But, it is much easier to see the consequences, then go back and find the individual threats that were ignored.  And, even with finding the early signs, they likely were so non-specific as to have done little to prevent the attacks.

As far as Carbon Dioxide, Over Fishing, Loss of Habitat, and etc.  We've been aware of a growing global population crisis for over a half a century.  Yet few governments are willing to make the tough choices to resolve the crisis.  And those that have made those choices are stigmatized.  And now, we're still just trying to ameliorate the consequences of the over-population without actually fixing the root cause.

And, even so, there is a large sentiment that it isn't my problem...  until it is too late.  The potential for climate changes could be traumatic for some cultures...  but, beneficial for others.  And, current models seem to be ineffective at predicting where we will stand.

I suppose that is true with many things.

It isn't my problem... until it actually IS MY PROBLEM.

[peppercorn]

I suppose that is true with many things.
It isn't my problem... until it actually IS MY PROBLEM.

Hence the NIMBY movements...
Could climate change be described as a NIMBY?
ooops forget I said that!

[yor_on]

I would expect that to be more of a SEP peppercorn?
There will always be CAVE People of course.

ahem.