Chater & Loewenstein commendably urge behavioral scientists interested in helping solve society's problems to shift the traditional focus from individual (i-frame) interventions toward “value-creating system-level change” (s-frame). Unfortunately, attempts at incremental change from within, through such s-frame policies as regulation and taxation, are unlikely to be of much use if the problems we face arise from the very nature of the system, which, moreover, is designed to resist any reform – as is arguably the case.

The system, which we have collectively allowed to come to dominate public and private life virtually everywhere on the planet, is capitalism, defended and perpetuated by political oligarchy through the repressive apparatus of the state. This characteristic fits well the big nation-state players – including the self-styled “democratic” capitalist West, the state capitalist People's Republic of China, and the kleptocratic capitalist Russian Federation – as well as the smaller ones, whether they hew to one of the big blocs or are nominally non-aligned.

This system is inherently hostile to s-frame interventions for the public good because it exists to serve the interests not of the general public but of power elites. In the West (the tacit focus of the target article) it makes a mockery of democracy by shutting out of the political process, by means of miseducation (Freire, Reference Freire1974; hooks, Reference hooks1994), propaganda (Herman & Chomsky, Reference Herman and Chomsky2002), and personal and structural violence (Graeber, Reference Graeber2006; Hirschfield & Simon, Reference Hirschfield and Simon2010), movements that seek to disrupt or even just weaken the corporate oligarchy. As a result, even if some interventions succeed, the traditional power elites – including corporations that literally, and entirely legally, don't care about human life or well-being (Mulgan, Reference Mulgan2019) – have their way more often than not (Gilens & Page, Reference Gilens and Page2014).

As an aside, it is worth noting that sustained corporate propaganda (Kavanagh & Rich, Reference Kavanagh and Rich2018; MacLeod & Chomsky, Reference MacLeod, Chomsky and MacLeod2019) permeates the public discourse not only in the traditional and newer social media, but also in scientific communications. It is exemplified by the unquestioning use in the social sciences literature (including the target article; no blame for what clearly is a systemic ill) of expressions such as “polarization,” which hides the fact that one of the two poles, represented in the United States, the United Kingdom, and several other “democracies” by major political parties, is unvarnished fascism; “healthcare industry,” which deflects attention from the atrocity of abandoning people's health to moneyed interests, as does the seemingly innocuous phrase “cost of living” (see Edelman, Reference Edelman2023, Ch. 4); and of course “public relations,” a euphemism for corporate and state propaganda.

To see how “society's most pressing problems” (using a phrase from the target article, long abstract; also sect. 3, para. 5) are inherent in the nature of the system that propaganda shields from scrutiny, it is worth rehearsing the “specific ways in which capitalism is bad,” as listed by Brighouse (Reference Brighouse2021): Capitalism perpetuates eliminable forms of human suffering; blocks human flourishing; perpetuates eliminable deficits in individual freedom; violates egalitarian principles of social justice; is economically inefficient in certain crucial respects; promotes consumerism; threatens important values; corrodes community; limits democracy; in a world of nation states, fuels militarism and imperialism; and is environmentally destructive (see also Graeber, Reference Graeber2006; Harman, Reference Harman2010; Sullivan & Hickel, Reference Sullivan and Hickel2023).

The catastrophic effect of capitalist hegemony on the environment (Armstrong McKay et al., Reference Armstrong McKay, Staal, Abrams, Winkelmann, Sakschewski, Loriani and Lenton2022) is probably the most pressing issue on the social sciences’ agenda at present. It is also the strongest argument against settling for incremental policy adjustments that leave the system in place: We simply cannot afford to wait and see whether trying to change the system from within will work.

Interestingly, in both notable exceptions to the global political order – the Zapatista autonomous areas in Chiapas, Mexico (Anderson & Springer, Reference Anderson and Springer2018; Maldonado-Villalpando, Paneque-Gálvez, Demaria, & Napoletano, Reference Maldonado-Villalpando, Paneque-Gálvez, Demaria and Napoletano2022) and the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, or Rojava (Dirik, Reference Dirik2022; Piccardi & Barca, Reference Piccardi and Barca2022) – the people place environmental protection and justice at the top of their political agenda.

This positive aspect of anarchist praxis can be contrasted with the persistent failure of environmental policy initiatives in the “democratic” West. This should not surprise us: per David Graeber's (Reference Graeber2004, p. 9) Against policy (a tiny manifesto),

Perhaps other societal problems too, which we all face together, can be dealt with better if the present global political-economic system is replaced with one that would have the people take charge of their lives. To that end, social and behavioral scientists can help by describing historical and anthropological alternatives to the present order (cf. Graeber & Wengrow, Reference Graeber and Wengrow2021), by promoting education for critical consciousness (Freire, Reference Freire1974; Suissa, Reference Suissa, Levy and Adams2019), and by studying and teaching effective organizing for true freedom and social justice – long-standing goals of liberation psychology (Martín-Baró, Reference Martín-Baró1996) and humanistic sociology (du Bois, Reference du Bois1983).