This suggests that, as longtermists, when trying to improve society’s values, we should focus on promoting more abstract or general moral principles or, when promoting particular moral actions, tie them into a more general worldview. This helps ensure that these moral changes stay relevant and robustly positive into the future.

This last point—that we need to structure global society so that cultural evolution guides the world towards better values and better societal structures—highlights an issue facing the design of a morally exploratory world that I’ll call the lock-in paradox. We need to lock in some institutions and ideas in order to prevent a more thoroughgoing lock-in of values. One challenge is that these institutions and ideas will be morally controversial; for example, from many fundamentalist religious perspectives, the idea that we would encourage or even allow a diversity of worldviews might be regarded as abominable. Similarly, the idea that the path to the correct moral view is via reflection and good-faith debate, rather than studying the scripture of a holy book, is not one that everyone would accept.

The lock-in paradox thus resembles the familiar paradox of tolerance— the necessity for liberal societies to defend themselves against intolerant views that would undermine their freedom, even if doing so requires curtailing the very tolerance they want to preserve.

I don’t want to get rid of lawyers. Rather, I want to help lift the engineers (and also their technocratically minded brethren, the economists) back up. Not to raise them onto a pedestal but to elevate them so that there are other voices in the mix. The United States could use fewer lawyers who devote their careers to litigating the life out of government agencies and more lawyers of the dealmaker bent who are interested in working out how to deliver better services. Law professor Nick Bagley concluded his seminal paper on proceduralism (which I referenced in the first chapter) with a polite, but deceptively powerful, proposition that I want to echo: Lawyers should consider whether they could achieve more by stepping out of the way.

To succeed, the United States doesn’t need to adopt China’s means of construction. This book has detailed how the engineering state’s approach has wrought horrors and is no longer fit for purpose even in China. Rather, the United States can look toward other Western countries, like Spain, Germany, and Japan, which strike a better balance between public consultation and environmental review on the one hand and getting stuff built on the other.

To achieve all of this, I propose— very gently— to unwind the dominance of lawyers in the United States. That will require us to confront the proceduralism that exists inside government and broader society. And it will require us to renew our faith in government institutions to deliver essential services.

The path forward demands that we reclaim a sense of optimism: an ability to make plans and deliver on them. The United States has to do two things to overcome the lawyerly society.

First, it has to remember that the country has a heritage of engineering. America built beautiful cities full of monumental buildings. Throughout the nineteenth century, it filled these cities with engineering marvels: the world’s then longest suspension bridge connecting Brooklyn and Manhattan (later superseded in length by the Golden Gate Bridge), the world’s first skyscrapers in Chicago, subway lines in New York City that ranked with any in Europe.