I found the Andreesen article interesting in the first few paragraphs, where he says, essentially, that you need to look beyond your own city, state, or national government, since all of Western society was caught unprepared for this. Then he spends almost the entire rest of the essay talking about aspects of America specifically, as if they were an explanation for the problem. It's like he didn't read the start of his own essay. Whatever the source of the problem, it cannot be something uniquely American, as France, the U.K., Italy, Spain, Belgium, etc. all had the same (or greater) state of unpreparedness, as measured by per capita mortality.
But, if you look at countries like South Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, etc. that had far lower per capita mortality, it's not clear what they have in common. I think it is more important for us to be asking "why were those countries better off, what do they have in common?" than to be trying to answer what we should be doing different. You can't find the right answer until you've asked the right question.
Most of the things that Andreesen says we should be building (like many more nuclear reactors, or mile-higher skyscrapers to increase population density) are, to say the least, not something for which there is a consensus. I wouldn't want to see most of what he lists. Including, by the way, flying cars, which would make our current fatality rate from transportation even higher.
We are larger and more diverse. It's like the difference between a lean small company and a bloated corporation. The reasons why SmallCo A and MegaCorp B are different could be infinitely variable, but at the population level, it's generally agreed that the differences between the small company and mega corporation populations are simply due to scale.
But, if you look at countries like South Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, etc. that had far lower per capita mortality, it's not clear what they have in common. I think it is more important for us to be asking "why were those countries better off, what do they have in common?" than to be trying to answer what we should be doing different. You can't find the right answer until you've asked the right question.
Most of the things that Andreesen says we should be building (like many more nuclear reactors, or mile-higher skyscrapers to increase population density) are, to say the least, not something for which there is a consensus. I wouldn't want to see most of what he lists. Including, by the way, flying cars, which would make our current fatality rate from transportation even higher.