Is THIS the Problem ?

'Government Overreach', but not draconian imo.

That's a typical rhetorical strategy from 'extremists'. For example, Nick Fuentes' more 'controversial' views aren't discussed with folks like Tucker. He saves most of his vileness for his own podcast for the most part. (n.b. I'm not suggesting that NutNut's views are vile in any way)

My 'extremist' views are largely hidden from 2p2 readers unless they are familiar with my prior account. (And it's gonna stay that way.)

From my perspective, my relatively limited goals are less a product of biology and more the result of a realistic assessment of how much I can reasonably expect to influence the world.

I should have put a finer point on my comment. I highly doubt that your broad confidence in your ability to make complex decisions across a dizzying array of topics is justified.

Pop-science can often distort understanding of human endeavor and behavior. It is an intellectual arena filled with "experts" which overstate their field's importance when it comes to understanding human behavior. A lot them overly eager to explain why genes, the brain, the body, hormones, neurology, evolution, environment, learning, culture, society or economics is the primary or only way to understand what makes us tick.

A good way to undress these claims is to realize that while they can explain anything, they power to predict is slim. That doesn't mean that the underlying disciplines are rubbish, they are not. It just means human behavior is a complex thing, most people who study these phenomena know that. Once we go beyond the most basal of behaviors, attempts at reducing it to simplistic mechanisms fail for that reason.

Our own social understanding of the world, on the other hand, is often a fairly solid tool for predicting human behavior. Things like "I know John is a trustworthy co-worker, John will deliver the work on time" is good stuff.

But he's a scientist.

My conversations with these "experts" (Sklansky is an example) often follow a pattern. They throw out of bunch of provocative ideas. I express skepticism about practical implementation, collateral consequences, or public enthusiasm for the ideas, which leads them to say either (i) "I'm the big ideas guy. Why are you raising petty concerns about whether my ideas will actually work in the real world?"), or (ii) "OK, big shot. If you don't like my big ideas, then propose your own big ideas."

The conversation eventually ends with me thinking the "expert" is egotistical and the "expert" thinking that I am a naysayer who is only interested in proving that ideas won't work.

As someone who is guilty of throwing out the occasional "big idea", I'd say it definitely can be about promoting oneself; "Hey look at me, I dare say controversial things, also I might be smart!". Other times it might reflect a genuine underlying ideology, but with a desire to make it land harder in a discussion or to create enough of a stir to make people think.

It is important to recognize that big ideas are easy. Even if you throw them out with the genuine intent to change things, we still have to recognize that ideas are the honey-moon part of getting things done. Going from idea to policy is really tough work, and going from policy to measure can be extremely tough. It is easier to muse about how to solve the challenges to the human race than it is to go get a road-sign put up.

And lastly, let us not forget that in an idealized setting, where we assume the intentions of someone with a big idea and a naysayer are genuine, their interaction can be both necessary and crucial. "We should do this"->"We shouldn't do it like that" is the type of interaction that actually makes it possible to go from concept to implementation.

I agree, and I don't mean to discourage big ideas. But as you say, turning that big idea into viable policy isn't some sort of trivial form of low art. It is more often the hard part than the easy part.

FDR made the decision to pursue the Manhattan Project despite not being a scientist. He trusted the experts which led to Oppenheimer being assigned to successfully run the project.

Smart people don't elect leaders because they know the answer to every question. They elect them for the following reasons.

1) Values .... the guide to what the leader intends to accomplish.
2) Judgement .... the ability to discern between who and what makes sense and who and what does not.
3) Trust .... is this person honest ?
4) Fortitude ..... can this person handle the heat ?

You are pivoting to a false narrative. You are choosing to argue against an omniscient leader when no is proposing an omniscient leader.

Your assessment of how much you can expect to change the world is a product of your biology.

From my perspective, the people who made the movie "Don't Look Up" captured the essence of what I'm trying to articulate. In my opinion, environmental alteration is similar to an incoming meteor strike.

I'm trying to bring attention to the meteor whose impact is going to harm all of us and all of our descendants.

I'm interested in having a conversation about generational legacy.

But wouldn't that be true for everyone? (Given any form of Naturalistic Reductionism.)

Yes.

If our assessments are determined by biology, then that would seem to make discussion pointless.

Where did I say that no one should lead? I obviously understand that no one is omniscient.

I am not interested in a discussion that centers around the premise that our thoughts are inalterably and inevitably dictated entirely by our biology.

We are living in one of the great 'Age' defining times. Happening in real time. Mainstream politics doesn't see it's job as to do anything. That's it

People are just people but the times are a blowin in the wind

Then you aren't interested in truthful discussion. Thoughts are biological manifestations.

Your belief that you don't make a difference in the big scheme of things is simply a reflection of your normal survival imperative. If you believed that you mattered, then you might be compelled to stick your neck out and put yourself at risk.

My belief that I might make a difference is simply a reflection of some kind of neurodivergence which results in risk taking.

I disagree completely. We don't all have the same biology and politics is about choosing people with the biology we prefer.

Do we want someone with a biology like Trump or Hitler .... someone programmed to divide the people against each other in order to effect a population reduction ? Do we want someone like Obama or Clinton who are programmed to be popular and a sycophant for wealthy people in order to enrich themselves? Or do we want someone like Sanders or FDR who is programmed with compassion for the experience of the more vulnerable members of the tribe ?

Given your Biological-Reductionism , I was predisposed from birth to disagree with you. Hence, why a conversation between you and me is literally meaningless (per your own worldview).

I guess I need to go find someone with my "biology" to talk to.

There are environmental influences on biology. It's not all determined at birth. Epigenetics address the relationship between environment and gene expression.

The best teams are diverse and complimentary.

Frankly, I don't see any scientific support whatsoever for an aspect of humans and our behavior which is not biological.

We are all machines whose general design orbits around our ability to survive. We constantly face risk / reward decisions.

It is not normal to seek to rule the world. There's a great and accurate quote from Game of Thrones .... "when you play the game of thrones, you win or you die". It's a high risk behavior which involves competing with the world's most ruthless people.

Ruthlessness is not an option when it comes to the people running the world. It is impossible to manage a massive population without the people having some disincentive to break the rules.

The question is simply ..... what do you want the people to be ruthless about ?

The people in power today are ruthless about subdividing us into groups which fear and hates each other. I would be ruthless about focusing on issues which we all have in common.

We all want security. We all live on an Earth with limited resources. Our current governance model evolved during an era where we were incapable of overwhelming the planet's ability to support us. That governance model must adapt in order to recognize Earth limits and have an intelligent discussion about them with the public. A public which is not educated about these things can be said to be ignorant.