Even worse, there are no “solutions” in the sense of definitive and objective answers.

From way back in 1973.  From Dilemmas in a general theory of planning by Horst W. J. Rittel & Melvin M. Webber.  From the Abstract

The search for scientific bases for confronting problems of social policy is bound to fail, becuase of the nature of these problems. They are “wicked” problems, whereas science has developed to deal with “tame” problems. Policy problems cannot be definitively described. Moreover, in a pluralistic society there is nothing like the undisputable public good; there is no objective definition of equity; policies that respond to social problems cannot be meaningfully correct or false; and it makes no sense to talk about “optimal solutions” to social problems unless severe qualifications are imposed first. Even worse, there are no “solutions” in the sense of definitive and objective answers.

Very aligned with work I am doing on complex, dynamic, evolving systems with Pareto effects, and multiple interconnections with other, systems with similar characteristics.  We can specify outcomes from stables processes.  We can predict outcomes from dynamic systems with stable variability.   

Further, if there is human interaction within the evolving dynamic system, it is further complicated by human reluctance to prioritize goals and aversion to making necessary trade-off decisions.  These human traits make the system yet more inherently unpredictable.  

But what can we do with those evolving complex systems?  I think there are some useful answers, but we are not yet well versed in discussing them.