Two thoughts on this article.
1. Priorities. Is this policy better for this generation of voters (read: selfish me) or every generation after?
A person led by feelings and greed would opt for the former, reason and true altruism the latter.
2. It appears to think the decline is reversible. A noble aim to contain the damage, sure, but the system has been ambling along for some time now and scrapping followed by a dedicated restructuring is more effective to ensure the longevity sought. I could be mistaken, and they infer local grassroots rebellion to preserve one’s own theed from the damage and self-sustenance to wait it out, which is a prudent course, but I didn’t see it detailed.