Why We Can't Solve Big Problems

Recently I read the article Why We Can't Solve Big Problems: http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/429690/why-we-cant-solve-big-problems/

Here are my thoughts on that:
I think LHC is bigger engineering achievement than the Apollo Program. I think there are new significant breakthroughs in many scientific areas. The difference is that it takes longer for them to get into an every day application, and that's mostly because we have taken a lesson from the global warming. Take for example nano materials - we want to make sure they wont cause cancer, before we use them to build cars or houses. Or GMO - people are scared that this will reduce biodiversity. So we are not unable to solve problems, we're just cautious, and it's not necessarily a bad thing.
Information availability is also a factor - it's much harder to impress someone today than 50 years ago. At that time a 300m tower would be an attraction, and today you'd say "Meh" to anything under 1km.
While many of the glorified past achievements were just a matter of engineering at bigger scale, today's issues require changes on sociological level. The issue with the investments is missing the point. Investors will invest in what makes money - that's what they do. It's the consumers who indirectly control where the investment will go, and if people are satisfied with shiny gadgets, that's their problem. Global warming will be solved tomorrow if you convince everyone that taking public transport or bicycle indicates higher social stature than driving 4x4 with 3 liter engine.
One last thing that needs to be noted - in 1960s people consumed half or lees of what a modern day person does (electricity, water, gas, plastic, food, medication), and then the world population was 3 billion. You can make the calculation, to see the overhead in what is needed to sustain the population today. If anything, it is that overhead, that creates problems, and taking tall on the humanity's ability to dream bigger dreams.