For example the most workable solutions to environmental damage would be at the cost of the poor (take for example petrol tax which is hugely regressive) and would thus increase poverty. Alsao almost any drastic change to how the economy works would result in poverty as the system adjusted.
Similarly a extremely progressive tax system (for example one that resulted in us all earning the same wage plus or minus 30%) would result in certain types of people going overseas and others not coming here unless you could force your neighbors to have similar tax policies. NZ doesn’t have much chance of being directly involved in a war but that is in a large part because we have strong allies and buffer states (and quite a bit of water). But in he wider scheme of things one needs some sort of system that prevents war from being profitable and that comes down to other countries being willing to go to war if required.

> It is entirely reasonable to worry that our failure to solve these problems, and soon, will spell the collapse of human civilization.

I can see how the war option might cause this. It would seem to depend on one of two things
1) The invention of a new super weapon and that weapon falling into the hands of someone very nasty.
2) China deciding it wanted to annex the USA or equivalent

I don’t think the poverty one can cause that problem and the environmental damage probably can’t either because at worst we would just have to wear various things to protect us from the results of the pollution.

With all the sound and fury of our political process, it manages to happen that no one ever seriously addresses the most pressing problems of our age. We fight endlessly over how to manage those problems, but rarely give even lip-service to solving them. And when we do give lip-service, that’s the end of it. (Talk is usually intended to replace action, because within our political culture they are generally interchangable.)

Though I have some power as a citizen over political outcomes through the electoral process, voting provides no leverage whatsoever over the political culture itself, which is deeply flawed and fundamentally non-democratic. If no viable candidate is proposing real solutions to our most pressing problems, and anyone who does is completely marginalized by the political culture, then our system denies me the only options I would consider worth voting for. Meanwhile, if I get drawn into the fractious fray of politics-as-usual I allow myself to get distracted by the hubbub and lend my support, at least in principle, to the charade.

The classic objection to this line of reasoning argues that if people with important ideas and powerful solutions don’t participate in the electoral process, things will only get worse, not better. But this argument overlooks a key fact: the system itself is heavily biased against solving the world’s most pressing problems. At best, we will become more adept at managing those problems, but we will never seriously approach solving them.

This is true for the simple reason that elites (who, by definition, have most of the power) have organized our system to maintain their own hold on power. Solving the most pressing problems directly threatens their hold on power. Predictably, elites will do (and have done) everything they can to resist and subvert those kinds of solutions. Of course, this line of logic scathingly condemns our system as, at best, a poor cousin to real democracy–and, so, runs counter to the mythology we have relentlessly drummed into our heads since childhood.

What are the most pressing problems? To keep it simple, I reduce it to three (though this is quite an over-simplification, of course): poverty (sharp disparities of wealth), war (epidemic violence), and ecological negligence. No one in power in this country has spoken seriously about solving the problem of poverty, ending war, or radically reducing our impacts on the environment. Anyone who does is considered some kind of fruitcake and is immediately dismissed (if ever acknowledged in the first place).

Nevertheless, the price of not solving these problems continues to rise, and has become perilous. It is entirely reasonable to worry that our failure to solve these probelms, and soon, will spell the collapse of human civilization. At the very least, it’s pure folly to pretend we are at no serious risk. But never mind, the political culture that serves our elites continues to churn away, as we remain oblivious to the tsunami of troubles mounting at our backs.

In this context, my power as a citizen to choose politicians who have no intention of solving these problems, or to choose well-meaning but ineffectual candidates, fails to impress. Instead, I am choosing to remain above the fray. My message to you (and to power, were they listening (they’re not)): we don’t need smarter politicians or better initiatives, we need a different system, one that solves key problems and subverts the accumulation of power into the hands of relatively small and unfailingly greedy elites.