[tpetricek]

I think a useful reference here is the idea of "wicked problems", which is a kind of problem where the structure of the problem makes it hard to solve - because you cannot even know what a solution is until you make your problem statement more precise (but by that point, you have already determined a solution). This is not the case for all "large" problems, but it's definitely a case for organizing a liberal democracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem

[marniewebb]

I think this is an excellent point. There’s a big difference between large problems and wicked problems. Large problems often benefit from being broken down; wicked problems may not. They may need to remain a system and often require a wide variety of expertise.

I think you also have to consider why you are working on the problem. Is it genuinely to “solve” it? Or is it to think it through so you understand your own position? Is it so you can advocate and work within or against a system?

All of those have different tools. As a side note, almost all start with research.

The example question has a lot of effort put towards it. From philosophers, government think tanks, NGOs, novelists, etc.

And a lot of applicable real life situations — from Brazil remaking their currency to stop rampant inflation [0] to Chile’s efforts to rewrite their constitution [1] to the UN’s nation building work in Somalia [2].

With all that in mind, my personal efforts at this kind of thinking often revolve around building a defensible point of view with the goal of meaningful participation. I start by collecting and reading material, using progressive summarization, and once I get to a point of view, I try to find and join allies.

And then I see what comes next.

[0] https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2010/10/04/130329523/how-...

[1] https://www.vox.com/21534338/chile-constitution-plebiscite-v...

[2] https://peacekeeping.un.org/mission/past/unosom1backgr2.html