To illustrate, instead of using a simple example, I’m going to use a highly complicated example: nuclear power.
Over the years, high-profile accidents such Chernobyl and Fukushima have pushed public policy away from nuclear energy, making us increasingly reliant on fossil fuels, which one could argue are collectively more dangerous than nuclear power. This shift has minimized use of our most powerful and efficient source of energy.
In Sweden, for example, the country has long had expensive labor but for many years had access to cheap energy, in the form of nuclear power. That has changed, and now Sweden has expensive labor and expensive energy, not a good situation.
An objective person who is willing to think differently might conclude that:
1. We should take another look at nuclear energy.
2. We should look at nuclear energy both in terms of large power plants as well as smaller floating platforms that could be built elsewhere, anchored offshore near countries that lack infrastructure, and thus resolve chronic problems with lack of development and/or corruption. (The floating platform could be maintained and managed independent of the local authorities).
In other words, sometimes a solution society has rejected can turn out to be the best solution… once times have changed.