# Is there a hard problem without a simple solution? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 27, 2011, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-hard-problem-without-a-simple-solution/604265 "2011-11-27T19:34:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Typo\_Knig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@Typo\_Knig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Knig)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2011, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-hard-problem-without-a-simple-solution/604265/41 "2011-11-27T23:08:05Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > I don’t know about a 50% cut, but a good start would be the elimination of the Departments of Energy, Education, Health & Human Services and the EPA. That would save a bucket of wasted money. So you’re in favor of: loose nukes; roving gangs of uneducated, unemployed, sickos; and cancer. 😉 Off the top of my head if we eliminated Social Security, Medicare, and the DoD we might get a 50% budget reduction. And an unmitigated disaster. This is why solving real-world political problems is hard. To you, the EPA is a pain in the ass and a waste. To me, fond as I am of breathing, it’s a necessity. To many conservatives, DoD is untouchable. While DoD (indirectly) pays my salary, I am confident that cuts can be made with minimal affect on readiness. It will “just” take a lot of careful re-thinking of priorities and procedures. A lot. Former Secretary Gates talked about this, but he’s gone. None of it is going to be easy, when you’re talking a out taking someone’s “rice bowl” away. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Controvert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dec6dc/32.png) [@The\_Controvert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Controvert)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2011, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-hard-problem-without-a-simple-solution/604265/42 "2011-11-27T23:15:57Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > For poverty? Education, a job market that promotes upward mobility, cheap and effective birth control, infrastructure improvements including ubiquitous high-speed internet, and a health care system that isn’t designed to cause bankruptcy. > > Poverty isn’t one problem, a panapoly of issues and situations create it. It looks like you’ve offered a one-line solution to the problem (at least for solving it in your mind). Remind you of anything? ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2011, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-hard-problem-without-a-simple-solution/604265/43 "2011-11-27T23:31:52Z")
> [@scr4](#): > > So what’s the simple solution to poverty? Eat the poor. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2011, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-hard-problem-without-a-simple-solution/604265/44 "2011-11-27T23:38:57Z")
> [@The\_Controvert](#): > > It looks like you’ve offered a one-line solution to the problem (at least for solving it in your mind). Remind you of anything? Well, it’s one line that takes a hard problem and breaks it down into, by my estimate, three other hard problems, and two relatively easy problems (and that’s being very generous). Saying that solving poverty requires fixing education and healthcare isn’t providing an easy solution to the poverty problem. I mean, if that’s all it takes, why don’t we say that the solution to every problem is to fix that problem? Poverty? Fix poverty. War? Get rid of war. Rising health care costs? Stop health care costs from rising. Pollution? Pollute less. (Oh, wait, you actually used that last one.) ---
**Author:** ![The\_Controvert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dec6dc/32.png) [@The\_Controvert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Controvert)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2011, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-hard-problem-without-a-simple-solution/604265/45 "2011-11-28T00:02:44Z")
> [@waterj2](#): > > I mean, if that’s all it takes, why don’t we say that the solution to every problem is to fix that problem? > > Poverty? Fix poverty. > War? Get rid of war. > Rising health care costs? Stop health care costs from rising. > Pollution? Pollute less. > > (Oh, wait, you actually used that last one.) Without reducing pollution, how do you solve that problem? ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2011, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-hard-problem-without-a-simple-solution/604265/46 "2011-11-28T00:04:14Z")
> [@The\_Controvert](#): > > If there were a requirement for parents to fund a trust for each child, then there could not be poverty because the fund would provide for everyone’s basic needs over their lifetime. > … > The choices are “nobody”, “charity”, “government” or “parents”. While I am sure a lot of people are fine with the first choice, poverty would still exist. Charity is unreliable, because not every poor person has a benefactor. Government has the problem I outlined above. What does every person (rich or poor) have? Parents. What the fuck? What if the parents are poor as well? What if people decide to have kids (all it takes are two people and a relatively flat surface) without funding the trust? What do you do, kill the kid? I mean, that’s certainly a possible solution - kill the poor. Simple, too. Would probably work. I don’t think I like it very much, though. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2011, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-hard-problem-without-a-simple-solution/604265/47 "2011-11-28T00:05:13Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > EPA. That would save a bucket of wasted money. [Have a look at these images from the '70s](http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/11/documerica-images-of-america-in-crisis-in-the-1970s/100190/), and then tell me we don’t need the EPA. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2011, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-hard-problem-without-a-simple-solution/604265/48 "2011-11-28T00:10:54Z")
> [@The\_Controvert](#): > > Without reducing pollution, how do you solve that problem? Reducing pollution is obviously necessary to achieve the goal of reducing pollution. Since we accept that pollution is a hard problem, simply saying “solve it” isn’t an easy solution. **How** do you reduce pollution? That’s the hard part. I don’t think there are any easy solutions to that. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2011, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-hard-problem-without-a-simple-solution/604265/49 "2011-11-28T00:23:11Z")
> [@The\_Controvert](#): > > US budget deficitRaise taxes by 10% AND cut spending by 10% Raise whose taxes by 10%, and cut spending on what? Specifically. > [@](#): > > Debt crisis in GreeceGreece defaults and banks deal with it the same way they deal with any risky loan that goes south If this is your solution, what do you think the problem is? Your solution is exactly what everyone is trying to avoid. > [@](#): > > Scarcity of resources such as petroleum, fresh water, arable land, food etc.People are already having fewer children, so just encourage that trend and wait for overpopulation to solve itself People are having fewer children, yes. That does not mean the world population is decreasing, just that it’s increasing more slowly than it was a decade ago. And even if it stayed at approximately the same level for eternity, we’re still going to run out of oil eventually. Incidentally, most people would prefer a better solution than “Wait until the lack of resources causes enough people to die so that equilibrium is reached”. > [@](#): > > PollutionPollute less Oh my god, how come no one thought of this? Could it be that “pollute less” is the hard problem? > [@](#): > > US soldiers being wounded by IEDs in AfghanistanIEDs are planted at night. Declare a curfew. Have special forces hunt IED bombers at night using night-vision and aerial drones. Repeat until no bombers left. No bombers means no IEDs, therefore no soldiers wounded by such. How about we just nuke the whole country? That’s a simple solution too. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2011, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-hard-problem-without-a-simple-solution/604265/50 "2011-11-28T00:23:46Z")
> [@Valteron](#): > > Simple problems (I am thirsty) can be resolved through simple solutions (drink a glass of water). > > The trouble with simple solutions to complex problems is that these solutions, once you examine them closely, tend to be based on questionable assumptions. > > These assumptions are often in turn based on ideologically-induced blindness. > > Two examples, one from the left, one from the right. > > 1. When asked what could be done about the perennial scourge of alcohol abuse among Russians, Lenin reportedly said that people drank to escape the horrors of capitalism and that in the new workers’ paradise alcohol consumption would decline. Throughout the cold war, magazines like Time would often hint that the problem of alcohol abuse in Russia was caused by the oppression of Communism. Now, after 70 years of Communism and 20 of Capitalism, Russia still has the same problem. > > 2. The bumper sticker quoted in one of the postings above says “Cut government spending by 50%”. This is based on the right-wing assumption that government spending is generally wasteful and useless. The underlying assumption is that if the US government cut its spending in half, the country would enjoy wonderful tax cuts, a balanced budget and nobody would be worse off because all of that money was just being wasted on foolishness anyhow. I find it very hard to believe that a 50% cut in of government spending in any modern industrialized country would not have some very undesirable effects on quality of life, social order, peace, safety, child welfare, education, environmental protection, health, etc. I made the cut gov’t spending in half bumper sticker comment to show that the O.P.'s “simple solution” isn’t everyone’s “simple solution” implying it’s not so simple after all. It wasn’t an argument that 50% cuts alone is best. On the other hand, there is waste in all the above areas you mention, and that could be cut out to some extent. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2011, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-hard-problem-without-a-simple-solution/604265/51 "2011-11-28T00:58:25Z")
> [@The\_Controvert](#): > > IEDs are planted at night. Declare a curfew. Have special forces hunt IED bombers at night using night-vision and aerial drones. Repeat until no bombers left. No bombers means no IEDs, therefore no soldiers wounded by such. Have you seen a map of Afghanistan? Are you aware of the size of the place and its baroque topography? Just how many special forces are there to go around? Finally: recruitment. It might take someone with a bit of know-how to make an IED, but probably doesn’t take a huge amount of skill to plant one, and there is no shortage of expendable angry people in Afghanistan, and more are being created every day. **The Controvert** you’re pretty good at [easy fixes](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=9230547#post9230547). Thank goodness you’re never going to be in charge of anything. ---
**Author:** ![Valteron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f17d59/32.png) [@Valteron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valteron)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2011, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-hard-problem-without-a-simple-solution/604265/52 "2011-11-28T01:14:10Z")
> [@David42](#): > > I made the cut gov’t spending in half bumper sticker comment to show that the O.P.'s “simple solution” isn’t everyone’s “simple solution” implying it’s not so simple after all. It wasn’t an argument that 50% cuts alone is best. > > On the other hand, there is waste in all the above areas you mention, and that could be cut out to some extent. Thank you for reassuring me that you are not seriously advocating a 50% cut in government spending. I took you seriously because there ARE people in America who would propose that. As the old saying goes, wasteful government spending is money the government spends on somebody else but me. No, wait a second. That isn’t an old saying. I just now made it up. But I like it:D Seriously, while there might be a few items that all of us would agree are wasteful, you would be amazed how many disagreements there would be. Money for the arts is wasteful you say? An artist might tell you to shut your piehole, that he pays much more in taxes than you do, and that spending on the arts is a damned sight better than buying arms to blow the heads off kids in Afghanistan. What do you think of that? ---
**Author:** ![Valteron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f17d59/32.png) [@Valteron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valteron)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2011, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-hard-problem-without-a-simple-solution/604265/53 "2011-11-28T01:19:13Z")
I am reminded of a sign a guy had on his office wall where I used to work. I believe he was in Information Technology. The sign said: Good Fast Cheap Choose any two! When it comes to problem solving, that about says it all. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2011, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-hard-problem-without-a-simple-solution/604265/54 "2011-11-28T01:23:46Z")
> [@Valteron](#): > > Seriously, while there might be a few items that all of us would agree are wasteful, you would be amazed how many disagreements there would be. Money for the arts is wasteful you say? An artist might tell you to shut your piehole, that he pays much more in taxes than you do, and that spending on the arts is a damned sight better than buying arms to blow the heads off kids in Afghanistan. What do you think of that? His argument is not reasonable. Wasting money on something that is useless might be _less bad_ than wasting money on something that is actively harmful, but that does not mean it is _good_. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2011, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-hard-problem-without-a-simple-solution/604265/55 "2011-11-28T02:29:51Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Hard problem: People grow old and die. > > OK, what’s the simple solution to that one, smart guy? Ice floes. 😃 > [@Grumman](#): > > His argument is not reasonable. Wasting money on something that is useless might be _less bad_ than wasting money on something that is actively harmful, but that does not mean it is _good_. Art is useless? By whose definition? Defining waste by saying “don’t pay for anything useless” just pushes the problem back a step; who gets to define “useless”? ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2011, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-hard-problem-without-a-simple-solution/604265/56 "2011-11-28T02:30:04Z")
There is a reason these “hard problems” haven’t been solved. Think about it for a moment. If it’s because the smartest and brightest on the planet couldn’t think of the solution, _maybe it’s not as simple as you think_. If it’s because the people working on the problem aren’t willing/able to use the solutions proffered for some reason, then that’s its own very real, very serious problem, without a quick fix. For example, raising taxes and cutting spending is clearly the only real solution to the debt crisis in the USA, but at the same time, you have congressmen unwilling to cut spending on things within their own constituencies, and nobody wants to be left holding the bag if we have to cut something like, say, Social Security to make ends meet. Similarly, nobody wants to be the guy who gets slammed as the tax-man. What’s the solution to that? There’s a reason that complex problems with seemingly “simple” solutions are still kicking around: what seems simple and obvious to laymen with no understanding of the subject reveals itself to be an almost unsolvable issue to those who understand the full implications of the problem at hand. “Pollute less” seems like a simple solution, but it’s not one which is simple in any way, shape, or form to really use – this is why it’s called a hard problem in the first place. Such simplistic thinking is simply not a good idea. Yes, we need solutions. But 99% of the time, they’ll be coming from experts, not laypeople. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2011, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-hard-problem-without-a-simple-solution/604265/57 "2011-11-28T02:35:45Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Similarly, nobody wants to be the guy who gets slammed as the tax-man. What’s the solution to that? Make me a congressman. I’ll vote to raise taxes for the good of the country. After I’ve helped put the country on the mend, I’ll be happy to be voted out by the people I’ve helped. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2011, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-hard-problem-without-a-simple-solution/604265/58 "2011-11-28T02:53:03Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Art is useless? By whose definition? Defining waste by saying “don’t pay for anything useless” just pushes the problem back a step; who gets to define “useless”? If you say I can’t define something as “useless”, what gives you the right to define something as “art that deserves to be funded with taxpayer money”? How is this any better than any other pork-barrel project? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2011, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-hard-problem-without-a-simple-solution/604265/59 "2011-11-28T02:57:24Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > If you say I can’t define something as “useless”, what gives you the right to define something as “art that deserves to be funded with taxpayer money”? The fact that some people agree with me, or at least that it’s good to have government funding of the arts instead of forcing artists to depend wholly on corporations and churches. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2011, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-hard-problem-without-a-simple-solution/604265/60 "2011-11-28T02:59:00Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > If you say I can’t define something as “useless”, what gives you the right to define something as “art that deserves to be funded with taxpayer money”? Zactly. If there is no way to define worthless/useless/less worthy than something else then its just pork barrels all the way down. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-hard-problem-without-a-simple-solution/604265.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-hard-problem-without-a-simple-solution/604265.md?page=4)