Hacker News Reader

There's no reason to make your theory of "civilization improvement" too complex or comprehensive. Most people would probably agree that basic repairing of infrastructure, removal of litter and trash, adding parks, etc. improves civilization. This seems relatively uncontroversial.

View on HN

It is controversial, as infrastructure is not neutral and largely influences the design of cities and therefore impacts who benefits and who suffers. E.g. build streets for cars or public transportation? Build more airports or research for alternative transportation means?

Then come to a democratic solution, like literally every other problem in a democracy?

Free markets are pretty close to democracy, except instead of voting with ballots people vote with their money.

Agreed, that was my point. Which infrastructure to build and maintain, and how, can be complex questions that affect different people in different ways. Hence it is not a thing that could just be done uncontroversially.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com