Some systems continue not because they work well, but because people get used to them. Over time, expensive contradictions begin to feel normal. Governments promise climate transition while still heavily subsidising fossil fuels. Technology companies warn about AI risks while aggressively lobbying to slow regulation. None of this is hidden. In fact, most of it happens openly. As a result, the bigger question may no longer be whether these contradictions exist, but why societies continue accepting them.

Breakdown:

The article describes these contradictions as modern “white elephants.” Historically, a white elephant referred to something costly, inefficient, and difficult to challenge publicly. Today, the term fits entire systems that continue operating despite their visible flaws. Fossil fuel subsidies and AI lobbying are two major examples. In both cases, concentrated industries frame restraint as dangerous to jobs, growth, or national competitiveness, while quietly shifting long-term costs onto the public.

The numbers around fossil fuels are especially striking. According to IMF estimates referenced in the article, global fossil fuel subsidies crossed 7.4 trillion dollars in 2024 when accounting for both direct and indirect support. This includes not only explicit subsidies but also the cost of pollution, climate damage, and public health burdens that governments effectively absorb instead of pricing properly. At the same time, many countries publicly commit to climate goals under agreements like the Paris Accord. Consequently, policy signals and financial incentives increasingly point in opposite directions.

The article argues that these contradictions survive partly because of human psychology. People naturally respond more strongly to immediate visible losses than distant future risks. Economists call this loss aversion. Similarly, the availability heuristic makes people focus on immediate and tangible concerns rather than abstract long-term damage. Industries understand these tendencies well. As a result, they frame fossil fuel dependence as “energy security” while portraying climate transition as economic risk.

The same pattern is now emerging around AI. A handful of technology firms increasingly control the infrastructure required to build large-scale AI systems, including chips, cloud infrastructure, data, and capital access. At the same time, lobbying activity around AI regulation is accelerating rapidly. The article notes that major AI and technology companies spent over 100 million dollars on lobbying in the United States during 2025 alone. Meanwhile, regulatory systems are still struggling to define accountability around issues such as bias, copyright, safety, and environmental impact.

Another concern is automation bias, where people increasingly trust machine outputs more than human judgment. As AI systems become embedded into hiring, healthcare, finance, and public services, societies may start accepting machine decisions before regulators establish proper accountability systems. This creates a dangerous combination of concentrated infrastructure, weak regulation, and growing public dependence.

The article’s deeper point is not simply about fossil fuels or AI individually. It is about how modern systems sustain themselves through behavioural conditioning. People gradually normalise contradictions because confronting them feels harder than adapting to them. Over time, the abnormal becomes operationally invisible.

Why this matters:

This reframes how power works in modern economies. Control is no longer exercised only through laws or direct influence. It also operates through behavioural framing, narrative control, and psychological bias. Companies and institutions also shape public acceptance by influencing how people perceive risks, trade-offs, and priorities.

The Big Picture:

More broadly, societies are entering a period where technology, capital, and behavioural influence are becoming deeply interconnected. AI, energy, infrastructure, and regulation are no longer isolated policy areas. They are converging into systems where a small number of actors can shape both economic outcomes and public perception at massive scale. Over time, the real challenge may not be identifying contradictions, but maintaining enough collective attention to challenge them before they become irreversible.

The Crunch:

Most systems do not survive because they make sense. They survive because people slowly stop questioning them.