Unsurprisingly the mathematician ignores real world problems: problems we understand but can't be bothered to solve (e.g. hunger, poverty, climate, etc.).
If we don't have a viable solution, do we really understand the problem?
Not being facetious. Saying we know that people are hungry is like saying my computer doesn't do the thing I want it to do. The difficult part is (in both cases) solving the problem. And that INCLUDES the pesky "why can't society just agree to do the good thing" part.
Poverty also not a problem, just a definition (bottom 10-20% producers).
Climate also not a problem. Just the reality of humans paper clipping finite resources. algae did the same thing when it took co2 from 99% of atmosphere down to less than 1%. Now it’s the algae left arm wrestling the human left.
They are all easy to solve if it weren’t for social inertia though. It’s not like there is a fundamental law requiring poverty to exist, we know exactly what is causing these issues and have the resources to deal with them. We just don’t want the inconvenience of it.
