Humans are surprisingly bad at understanding that some solutions have to be maintained to keep the problem(s) they addressed from coming back.
I get it in the case of organizational rot but sometimes it can be staring people in the face and they still don't get it, e.g. in the case of vaccines—who needs them, when nobody gets those diseases anymore?
> vaccines--who needs them, when nobody gets those diseases anymore?
If a disease becomes rare enough that the probability of getting it if you're not vaccinated, is less than the probability of harmful side effects from the vaccine, then it is rational for an individual not to get vaccinated.
The proper response to this at a societal level is to further reduce the risk of harmful side effects from vaccines (for example, by using refrigeration more aggressively as an alternative to preservatives which have a small, but nonzero, risk of harm), not to brand people who don't want to get vaccinated against rare diseases as crackpots.
This is actually an illustration of the more general problem we have as a society: we have forgotten that there are objective criteria we can use to evaluate things, and that as conditions change, we need to re-evaluate based on those criteria instead of just assuming that things that worked in the past will continue to work. In the case of the 737 MAX, Boeing failed to realize that relaxing engineering standards was a bad idea because the company had been taken over by a different corporate culture, and a regulatory regime that had grown to trust airframe manufacturers based on past information that showed they were worthy of that trust failed to see the change in incentives that made them less worthy of trust than before.
> If a disease becomes rare enough that the probability of getting it if you're not vaccinated, is less than the probability of harmful side effects from the vaccine, then it is rational for an individual not to get vaccinated.
>The proper response to this at a societal level is to further reduce the risk of harmful side effects from vaccines (for example, by using refrigeration more aggressively as an alternative to preservatives which have a small, but nonzero, risk of harm), not to brand people who don't want to get vaccinated against rare diseases as crackpots.
Why is it so hard for people to look at the system instead of just themselves? This inability or unwillingness also seems particularly widespread in the US.
First instincts are survival of yourself and your family. The corollary is that no system or bureaucracy will ever care about you more than you care about yourself. These things drive our motivations.
Care in the emotional sense, perhaps not. But it's worth noting that bureaucracies can and do take better care of people than they do themselves. There's a reason we have mandatory seatbelt wearing, restrictions on tobacco and alcohol sales, and child protection services.
> it's worth noting that bureaucracies can and do take better care of people than they do themselves
I strongly, strongly disagree with this statement.
First, even in cases like mandatory seat belt wearing, where the benefit is obvious, the rule would be better enforced by private entities like insurance companies. Get in an accident and not wearing your seat belt? Your insurance company won't pay your medical bills. People are more likely to respond to such incentives than to nanny state laws, however well intentioned. Also, once you've passed one nanny state law, it gets easier to pass more; even proponents of such laws admit that most traffic laws, for example, are just revenue sources for local police departments and have no meaningful effect on safety.
Second, restrictions on tobacco and alcohol sales are mostly aimed at not allowing sales to people, like minors, who are presumed not to have developed the full capacity to evaluate the consequences of their actions. They don't stop adults from dying from lung cancer due to smoking or becoming alcoholics. People who really want to poison themselves with drugs or alcohol will find a way to do it: just look at the rising popularity of vaping. The law cannot stop people from doing it and shouldn't try; the US should have learned that lesson with Prohibition.
Third, citing child protective services as an example of bureaucracy taking better care of people than people do themselves is laughable. Anyone who has had personal experience with CPS can tell you horror stories, and what statistics are available do not paint a pretty picture. Based on my own and my wife's experiences (my wife was a social worker for 20 years), I would say that roughly 80 to 90 percent of children who are taken from their families by CPS are worse off than they would have been had they been left with their families, however imperfect those families were. I suspect most people who have had personal experience with CPS would give a similar figure.
> Why is it so hard for people to look at the system instead of just themselves?
Vaccines were never intended to benefit the system at the expense of individuals. Every vaccine was a net benefit to individuals when it was first made available. That is why there was never any serious objection to widespread adoption of vaccines.
There are cases where people might have to sacrifice their own welfare for the good of society, such as military service in combat. But I don't think vaccination is, or should be, one of those cases. If a person believes their risk of harm from a vaccine outweighs the benefit, they should have the right to choose not to take it.
There are also cases where people might have to forgo short-term benefits for the long-term good of society. I think far too little attention is paid to such cases, to the detriment of all of us. But vaccines are not such a case; no one is forgoing a short term benefit by taking a vaccine. Individuals gain a benefit from a vaccine, the question is whether that benefit for the individual is worth taking the small risk of harm from the vaccine.
What does seem like a case where people should forgo a (perceived) short-term benefit for the long-term good of society, is trying to justify things like forcing people to get vaccinated on the basis of flawed arguments and distortions of the facts. And of course Boeing with the 737 MAX is another such case.
I get it in the case of organizational rot but sometimes it can be staring people in the face and they still don't get it, e.g. in the case of vaccines—who needs them, when nobody gets those diseases anymore?