Do you need an explanation of the difference between "impossible" and "challenging?"

These are two completely different things. One thing is solving the problem for the world as a whole. That’s the ideal scenario, the one we should aim for. It might get resolved, it might not, but it will definitely take a good amount of time, maybe a very long time.

The other issue is your personal situation. If you're living in a country with intense conflict or in a war zone, you can’t just try to survive for 40 years while “waiting” for the country to make progress. You move, and that’s it.

Plus, given that people’s freedom is constantly increasing, and they have more and more options available, expecting that everyone will autonomously choose a healthy lifestyle is like waiting for Santa Claus—unless you plan to take that freedom away from them.

I’ll repeat:

All 3 seem to be going swimmingly so far!

There is no material difference between impossible and challenging if the thing doesn’t actually happen.

It’s like Kramer saying he could have levels in his apartment it’s just that he doesn’t want them.

Hard problems are hard, and not impossible.

Well if they never get solved are they hard or are they impossible?

What’s the difference between, “It was hard and we didn’t solve it” and “It was impossible”?

You are aware that no problem was solved before it was solved, right?

Well no, you often can actually. You can have positive information about the impossibility of something, for example the prospect of winning a chess game after losing your king. You don't need to play billions of games of chess to see whether it's possible.

Zoning changes happen all the time. Tax changes happen all the time. Subsidy changes happen all the time.