I see three levels at which we could try to fix cultural drift: specific cultural trends, cultural evolution process parameters, and meta mechanism/institutions.First, we could try to (A) identify specific cultural trends over the last few centuries that seem plausibly maladaptive, and then try to advocate for their reversals. Second, we could try to (B) identify ways in which the cultural evolution process today has bad parameters and then try to advocate for changes that would improve those parameters. Third, we could try to (C) assign the whole problem to governance mechanisms that we find or make that seem competent enough to actually solve it. Poll popularity of these options: A 28%, B 20%, C 31%, none or not work solving 21%.Of course all the higher level approaches must include the lower levels in some ways. The issue is whether those of us trying to solve this problem should try to directly attack those lower levels, by discussing them and coming to a consensus on them and then pushing for that consensus, or if we should discuss, agree on, and push for higher level choices, and then let the lower level outcomes fall where they may.Re the highest level approach, I’ve previously talked about handing the problem over to futarchy, a governance mechanism that is plausibly far more competent that existing ones. This would require a big community to assign to futarchy a goal inconsistent with civ collapse, and treat that goal sacred so they are proud to sacrifice for it and ashamed to abandon it. Here are the top six goals found in two sets of polls:Alas, as futarchy is only now, after 25 years, undergoing small trials, it is a big ask for this mechanism to be proven, widely adopted, and then applied to this key problem.On the mid level approach, trying to fix parameters of the cultural evolution process, it is estimates of these parameters today, compared to centuries ago, that is our primary evidence that we might have a big problem. The 4 key params are: (A) sel