We are used to ranking significant issues by priority which could look something like:

Under some set of values,

\(priority = magnitude * time\ sensitivity\) .

This is what dominates the rational public conversation. There is a finite amount of public thinkspace and we try to push the issues that are most important to us. Ideally, putting values aside for a moment, we could evaluate each problem and rank order them by sheer priority (magnitude x time). Even if we could do this there are certain types of problems that would float to the top. The problems at the top would be characterized by: a clear and present threat, personal consequences for society at large, and achievable in a binary, all or nothing sense. Let me explain with a potential example: A giant meteor is headed toward earth and upon impact will definitely wipe out humanity. This sort of problem is a “superhero problem”, the premise is clear, the narrative arc is set and all that’s left is for us to solve for x. If only all our problems looked like that today, in fact almost none of them look like that.

Types of problems the brain is ill-equipped to deal with:

  • Depersonalized: doesn’t affect me
  • Abstract: not clear and present
  • Remote: Too far away (spatially or temporally)
  • Gigantic: Too large of a problem, just give up now.

Significant societal problems sorted by the difficulty for the human brain to appreciate.

  • climate change: 10
  • poverty: 6
  • pandemic: 2

Take the framing of this list away and it looks absurd. It is obvious that in our current situation the most pressing issue to address is our pandemic (although it’s becoming less of a global issue). By theory, this is almost the perfect problem for society to approach; the threat is clear and personal and so is the solution. The narrative arc is almost too cliché for a movie. And yet we’ve blundered it. Mostly due to challenges unique to this problem, specifically; pure and unadulterated, mass coordination of every single human being.

Almost none of the problem characteristics of a global pandemic match the problem characteristics of climate change. There is nothing sexy about this goal we are trying to achieve: keep atmospheric CO² levels below 600 ppm and global temperature average from rising more than 3℃. Not only is it difficult to understand these numbers’ significance, it is emotionally difficult to care. The only thing that isn’t abstract or remote here is the certainty for which our end game here is an utter disaster. Who wants to work on a problem like that?

We are on a lifelong quest of discerning the issues that are most important. We do well in continuing to learn and search out the problems that are not just close to us but are morally pressing. Some issues are more romantic than others. While we think we are ranking issues by sheer priority, our choice of problem is often characterized by its emotional valence. Actively acknowledging the characteristics of a problem that make it more or less appealing to us will help order society’s dashboard of significant issues.

To refute everything stated above in one sentence: There is no substitute for passion; more important than asking which problem is asking how much are you willing to commit to any problem.