We can also spice it up with a bit of game theory. Assumption: Most people on both sides genuinely want peace.
Addition: On both sides, fractions exist which benefit from the conflict. They gain from stirring up hate, provoking fights, portraying threats. They lose power and influence when peace talks succeed. They gain power and influence when their "partners" from the other side attack.
So yes, this is a wicked problem to solve, for many reasons.
I heard Israel declared war. It would be odd to deliver electricity to your enemy. Other campaigns target power plants. Short of expecting Israel to bomb their own plants, I would expect them to simply cut power if they can. Not saying they should, just pointing out it's a common thing in war.
I like the idea of replacing school by an unordered collection of qualifications, which you can demonstrate anytime. Can visit classes or watch YouTube, take two weeks or five years.
We expect children and teens to study boring stuff while their hormones are boiling, and to decide how their next five decades should look like. Especially tough for those who quit early to start working "lower" jobs.
That's a matter of proper implementation. Tax & dividend! Distribute the tax revenue to the population per capita.
That means:
If your emissions are average, you pay/earn net zero.
If you emit more than average, you pay. This will affect mostly rich people, since emissions strongly correlate with available money.
If you emit less than average, you net earn. This effectively rewards people with money gained for emissions prevented.
Since money is distributed unequally in society, this means most people will have to pay less in such a system.
The beautiful thing is, the financial incentive to emit less remains even for people who gain more than they pay. It's also an incentive both for buyers and sellers, researchers and investors.
just restrict the sale of cigarettes and make it so burdensome to sell them in shops so most don’t even bother
I think that might help. Increasing friction for an activity makes it less likely to happen (like when your TV remote is in another room).
And do the same for vapes. Vapes are ridiculously easy to buy so stick them in the same locked cabinet that other nicotine products go in
That needs a bit more differentiation, no? After all, there are vapes without nicotine. I would also differentiate between single-use vapes (just ban these, wtf) and refillables. They're also (most probably) much less unhealthy compared to smoking tobacco.
In my country (Germany), vapes are only available in shops, and most sadly only offer single-use vapes. Cigarettes were (are?) also sold in vending machines, on streets or in bars. So from my point of view, vapes are already harder to buy than cigarettes. What situation did you have in mind?
All in all, I think it would make sense to make access to these things harder / price higher based on how harmful they are, and how addictive they are.
I get what you mean, but the analogy does not work so well. Names are inherently individual. We got used to know hundreds of them. So when you're meeting a new person, you expect to learn a "new" name just for that person. Likewise, most people don't make a fuzz if you get their name wrong the first couple of times. It's something which has to be asked, and learned.
On the other hand, gender is mostly inferred, and we used to use only two of them. So when you're meeting a new person, you're expected to already know the correct gender. Likewise, most people react insulted if you misgender them, even if only once. It's something you're supposed to just know.
My point is, many people have a strong social training to correctly guess the gender of a person before talking to them. To suppress this automatism and replace it with an active ask-individually-approach can be stressful, although we have a similar scheme with names already.
Can't label either side as innocent in this conflict.