Sometimes an imperfect solution is better than waiting for a perfect one.

The nirvana fallacy (aka the “perfect solution fallacy”) is when you compare an imperfect option to an idealized perfect option. Basically it’s when you dislike/reject an option just because it isn’t perfect. Rather than weighing the merits of realistic (albeit flawed) options, you pit realistic options up against unrealistic perfect options.

Something is better than nothing

In the world of COVID we see this with wearing masks. When you board a plane or enter a restaurant you have to wear a mask, you can remove your mask to eat or drink, but then you have to put your mask back on. This leads some to think “Well why even bother wearing the mask if we’re just going to take it off?”, but this is fallacious. The perfect solution would be to stay at home or to wear your mask all the time, but this is unrealistic. Even though temporarily removing your mask is flawed, to wear your mask at all is still better than never wearing a mask. The imperfect solution is better than not even attempting a solution just because it isn’t perfect (which, spoiler, the perfect solution neither exists nor will it ever exist).

The nirvana fallacy frequently finds its way into public policy debates. When some policy doesn’t fully solve a problem its political opponents will attack it for its flaws. However, no realistic solution will ever go far enough to satisfy all critics. Good governance is choosing the best possible available solution knowing that all options will be flawed.

When weighing your options don’t reject an option just because it isn’t perfect — all options will be imperfect. By holding out for the perfect option you can do more harm than good. Doing something is frequently better than doing nothing at all.