For problems like sewage the argument is often that _now_ we would have done something else in the past. A time machine argument.
For example in London they'll say we should have built a modern sewer system with separate household waste and storm sewers, then you can dump storm sewer overflow into the river without causing health problems or destroying the ecology of the river. Much better in the long run than the Combined Sewer system built by Bazalgette and still in use today.
But nothing like that was possible when the Great Stink happened. So you need to invent a time machine and go back to say, a century or two earlier and begin installing your separate sewer systems then, in time to catch the huge increase in waste from water closets that will eventually cause the Great Stink. Do you _have_ a time machine? No? Then your solution is invalid, don't bring it up.
In a way, though, we do have a time machines - called "imagination". It only "works" (for various values) going into the future. It does have its downfalls. When it does work, though, it can be kinda amazing.
A very good example of it working is that of the "Mother of All Demos":
...during which virtually almost all of the software solutions and systems, and some of the hardware - of the 1980s forward - was pulled back in time by 20 years - which is a long damn time when it comes to computing - comparable to "centuries" for more mundane things.
Granted - and here is one of the downfalls - many of the paradigms and examples from that demo "stuck" - and arguably all this time later has perhaps made us be in a "rut", versus other possibilities. Though a possibility, our systems are still arguably better and work well enough.
We could do this with more mundane (and arguably more pressing) things, if the political will of society were there. We could say "For problem X, what solution Y in the future might be best to mitigate this, and could we build solution Y today?" - and if the answer is "yes" then doing so.
A counter argument could be "What if problem X doesn't happen? Or worse, what if problems A, B or C occur, which solution Y won't address?"
Well - let's instead think of all potential sub-problems or potential problems of the same set as the singular; that is, if the problem is X, attempt to imagine the set which X is a part of, and attempt to imagine a potential solution or solutions to fix that set of problems. You may not get all of them, or you may have to break things up into subsets with individual solutions - but there's a good chance that you'll hit on the majority of them.
Now granted - one could just go up another level and say "what if none of those happen, or what if the solutions don't work?" - reducto-ad-absurdum the whole thing to death. Perhaps "paralysis by choices" (yeah, I know that's been disproven)?
The thing is, likely some or most of those things will help in some regard, depending on the problem. Done right, even if the problem doesn't appear, the solution(s) may help in other ways unforeseen, or they may have effects which interact with other things to create a solution to problems. Yes, they could make things worse.
The gamble is the tradeoff between doing nothing and hoping nothing happens, and imagining solutions and doing something to try to fix those problems. Especially considering for some problems, we have historical data to show that those problems are likely real, and aren't going away, and modelling the effects without doing anything vs doing something tends to fall on the side of "doing something" is better than "doing nothing".
It's one thing if the problem is brand new, with no historical data behind it to show what has happened, what is happening, and what potentially might happen. When that data does exist for a problem or problem(s) - doing nothing, and then blaming someone else when the problems in the future do become bad, is ultimately the wrong way to go about things.
But it does serve to keep one elected and popular (usually, provided the problem doesn't become severe while you are still alive and known for your past decisions or indecisions by the public).
Comments
For problems like sewage the argument is often that _now_ we would have done something else in the past. A time machine argument.
For example in London they'll say we should have built a modern sewer system with separate household waste and storm sewers, then you can dump storm sewer overflow into the river without causing health problems or destroying the ecology of the river. Much better in the long run than the Combined Sewer system built by Bazalgette and still in use today.
But nothing like that was possible when the Great Stink happened. So you need to invent a time machine and go back to say, a century or two earlier and begin installing your separate sewer systems then, in time to catch the huge increase in waste from water closets that will eventually cause the Great Stink. Do you _have_ a time machine? No? Then your solution is invalid, don't bring it up.
In a way, though, we do have a time machines - called "imagination". It only "works" (for various values) going into the future. It does have its downfalls. When it does work, though, it can be kinda amazing.
A very good example of it working is that of the "Mother of All Demos":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mother_of_All_Demos
...during which virtually almost all of the software solutions and systems, and some of the hardware - of the 1980s forward - was pulled back in time by 20 years - which is a long damn time when it comes to computing - comparable to "centuries" for more mundane things.
Granted - and here is one of the downfalls - many of the paradigms and examples from that demo "stuck" - and arguably all this time later has perhaps made us be in a "rut", versus other possibilities. Though a possibility, our systems are still arguably better and work well enough.
We could do this with more mundane (and arguably more pressing) things, if the political will of society were there. We could say "For problem X, what solution Y in the future might be best to mitigate this, and could we build solution Y today?" - and if the answer is "yes" then doing so.
A counter argument could be "What if problem X doesn't happen? Or worse, what if problems A, B or C occur, which solution Y won't address?"
Well - let's instead think of all potential sub-problems or potential problems of the same set as the singular; that is, if the problem is X, attempt to imagine the set which X is a part of, and attempt to imagine a potential solution or solutions to fix that set of problems. You may not get all of them, or you may have to break things up into subsets with individual solutions - but there's a good chance that you'll hit on the majority of them.
Now granted - one could just go up another level and say "what if none of those happen, or what if the solutions don't work?" - reducto-ad-absurdum the whole thing to death. Perhaps "paralysis by choices" (yeah, I know that's been disproven)?
The thing is, likely some or most of those things will help in some regard, depending on the problem. Done right, even if the problem doesn't appear, the solution(s) may help in other ways unforeseen, or they may have effects which interact with other things to create a solution to problems. Yes, they could make things worse.
The gamble is the tradeoff between doing nothing and hoping nothing happens, and imagining solutions and doing something to try to fix those problems. Especially considering for some problems, we have historical data to show that those problems are likely real, and aren't going away, and modelling the effects without doing anything vs doing something tends to fall on the side of "doing something" is better than "doing nothing".
It's one thing if the problem is brand new, with no historical data behind it to show what has happened, what is happening, and what potentially might happen. When that data does exist for a problem or problem(s) - doing nothing, and then blaming someone else when the problems in the future do become bad, is ultimately the wrong way to go about things.
But it does serve to keep one elected and popular (usually, provided the problem doesn't become severe while you are still alive and known for your past decisions or indecisions by the public).