In political and religious spheres, such a way could be sought between different orientations or even religions. Rough sudden changes encounter huge and mostly insurmountable difficulties. However, small adjustments may be possible, because they can be done in almost unnoticed and thus relatively safe manner. For instance, there are people who showed themselves first as religious, but turned out to be quite different following aims of secularization.

The situation is similar in the arts and in humanities as well as in natural sciences. The focus can be on human rights like at Amnesty International or on ecology and economy.like at Greenpeace or on the young generation and climate like at Fridays for Future, but apparently the balance between different parts of the effort plays an often underestimated role.

So a choice might only be provided between "yes" or "no". Deciding between diverging options, especially relating to deregulation and subsidization, can initially be useful on a punctual basis, but must not be a fixed solution. Therefore why not use these measures temporarily and, for example, having them automatically being reduced? This would be practical by more or less permanent balancing that can be adapted "on the way" to the actual situation.

Similar solutions certainly exist in the other areas mentioned above.