It’s all game theory. If I do everything right, restrain my reproductive urge, reduce my resource consumption etc., if most others don’t chime in, it will achieve nothing. The gasoline I’m not using means our oil reserves worldwide will last two seconds longer, but it will still all be burned.
Even if every single human being on earth would be willing to join a covenant to save the environment, there is no one to orchestrate it, and therefore the majority despairs over humanities stupidity and can’t do anything.
The same is on government level: If one state did everything right, globally the other governments would use up the saved resources. And therefore the electorate won’t elect a really environment-friendly party because it only results into the own country reducing the standard of living, increasing it for others temporarily.
The only solution would be a global alliance. We surprisingly managed it for the ozone hole, but we won’t this time.
I still try to live environment friendly, but in my heart I have no hope of humanity solving this chrisis, and a lot will go to shit in my lifetime still (next 30 years). Maybe enough will survive to maintain the species.
I too feel like that a lot of the time. The problem with using game theory, is that game theory only works for a zero sum game. This isn’t a zero sum game. Making us believe that is part of the propaganda. Helping someone else to a better life does not make your life worse. Our whole success as a species is proof plenty of that. A group of people helping each other is more successful than being alone and trying to fend for yourself. The propaganda is trying to make us forget that. Unfortunately, our whole economic system is built like it is a zero sum game and that is reflected in the values of society and the US is perhaps the most clear cut example of this. It is all lies. We must, however, widen the scope of our thinking. The community isn’t just your little patch of dirt. It is the whole world. Helping another part of the world or other people will make it better for you as well in the long run. Even if it temporarily inconveniences you, welcoming people who can’t survive in their patch of dirt to yours, will strengthen you in the long run. Even better is to stop exploiting other people so they can have a good life at home and doesn’t need to work 18 hour shifts to make plastic shit we don’t even need. It’s not a zero sum game and we need to stop believing that it is.
You are probably right about game theory working for zero sum games, but in this game, there is only one player. Us. Humanity as a whole. The two outcomes in that game are so trivial that we don’t need game theory to figure out which outcome is most beneficial.
We pretty much already know what needs to be done to win this game, or at least give it our best shot. Game theory is what holds us back from doing that, because we are wrongly applying it to try and find local best outcomes. Unfortunately, there is no point in looking for local best outcomes in this game, because they won’t matter if the whole game is lost.
I think there are a lot of things that could mitigate this, if we are lucky, such as:
solar and/or other power sources becoming more efficient and cheap to the point that it becomes the most practical and cheapest solution, not just the most environmentally friendly one. This also is appealing from a geopolitical perspective for nations because it reduces or removes dependence on foreign oil.
the production of microbial-based, artificially grown meat and dairy (milk, cheese) that is indistinguishable from the real thing and much cheaper than it (see also: most rennet in cheese is now microbial rennet, rather than rennet harvested from calves, because it’s cheaper), plus the expansion/improvement of alternative non-dairy/meat products.
the fact the most environmentally friendly parties currently are also in favor of standard of living improvement policies like universal healthcare, etc.
the fact the youngest generations of voters are growing up exposed to the consequences of climate change and will expect to be alive to see it get even worse
dramatic climate events like the recent India heatwave that had a high death toll because it was above the highest temperature humans can survive in.
It is also currently only a handful of countries that produce the vast majority of the problem, to the detriment of everybody else, so the agreement need not initially include every country in the world.
I do think we need better methods of carbon sequestration (taking it back out of the atmoaphere vs putting less of it in) urgently at this point however.
Edit: I do not think there is any feasible long term solution that doesn’t include ditching capitalism as it currently exists. A circular econimics model might work, but the current “line goes up forever, don’t ask when it ends” system is inherently unsustainable on every level.
Some suggestions that might actually help, huh? Novel idea, that. Not trying to put you down, It was more of a comment about what the rest of this conversion’s been about.
I think you are pretty much right on in your reasoning and we need more people to realize this and get angry enough to demand action. Even the most stubborn denialists will start to figure out that there is something not quite right about the weather phenomena we are seeing more and more frequently and with larger amplitudes than ever before. Question is if they realize soon enough. Because some serious action needs to happen like yesterday if we want to stop this. As much as I would like to implement space communism, it is a tough sell and it it needs to happen slowly. Otherwise we’ll just be making another Stalin/Mao-type society and that’s not really ideal to say the least. Regardless of what the tankies in lemmygrad would have us believe. I don’t really have an easy solution on hand, I’m pretty much winging it as I go. Easy solutions to complex problems rub me the wrong way as well, even if they are an easier sell. This is why it is so important to have discussions like this. Crowd-source a solution, if you will. But mainly to raise awareness and gain buy-in from as many people as possible. Corporations been pretty successful in dumping all the responsibility on us and therefore avoiding a lot of costs in cleaning up. Take bottles for example. In the later Cambrian period when I was young, soda came in glass bottles and soda companies were responsible for the whole life cycle of the bottle. This is a lot more expensive than letting the customers take the responsibility for the trash, but more importantly, they’re off the hook for all the plastic bottles that’s dumped everywhere. They can even have campaigns telling us to be responsible with the trash they produce and not having to deal with it themselves. Win-win. We need to shift the responsibility back to the corporations again. Don’t fall for the old “we just give customers what they want”-routine. It is just trying to shift the blame for their lack of responsibility while producing the goods we buy. I’d they can’t make their products without fucking the world up, they shouldn’t make them at all. I’m quoting from memory here, so correct me when I’m wrong. Just one hundred companies are responsible for over 30%(?) of the world’s CO2 emissions and they tell us we need to save the world by recycling? Give me a break. And ducking (autocorrect, but I’m keeping it) abolish Citizens United already. The US isn’t a democracy even on paper anymore.
Slightly off topic - I saw a pretty interesting video by Abagail of Philosophy tube about the morality and legality of protests and the examples that were used was based on a protest on a coal mine in Germany some years ago. This is likely preaching to the quire in this community, but if you’ve not seen Philosophy tube before, you really should check it out. I’m a proud patron there, myself. 😊 Sorry to make you use google to find it, but that’s how lazy I am. To come clean, some of the butchered points above may originally be from her. I think. I have a terrible memory for who said what.
You are right about all of that, and particularly the first one is actually an immediate advantage. We had a flourishing renewable energy industry in Germany ~15 years ago. With a little subsidy we could have been technological leaders.
Unfortunately, the conservative politicians at the time were “advised” (bribed) by “industry leaders” from coal and nuclear industry, and saving existing jobs by pumping money up their asses was the better strategy to secure the next election than creating thousands of new jobs by supporting the new industries.
The second one (lab meat), but I expect there will be a lot of in-fight between environmentalists, some opposing it for not being natural and others embracing it for being environment friendly. In the EU, there isn’t even a permission requested to be able to sell it.
The younger generation might be more motivated, but they have the same problem if they save resources, others will waste it in their place.
The disaster in India doesn’t change anything, it just proves what we already knew. The numbers are shocking to a rational thinker, but emotional stories like the Titan submarine still grab the headlines.
I think the main problems are the fully industrialised nations, but developing nations are catching up, and they won’t want to be held back in their development by wealthy nations telling them to.
It’s all game theory. If I do everything right, restrain my reproductive urge, reduce my resource consumption etc., if most others don’t chime in, it will achieve nothing. The gasoline I’m not using means our oil reserves worldwide will last two seconds longer, but it will still all be burned.
Even if every single human being on earth would be willing to join a covenant to save the environment, there is no one to orchestrate it, and therefore the majority despairs over humanities stupidity and can’t do anything.
The same is on government level: If one state did everything right, globally the other governments would use up the saved resources. And therefore the electorate won’t elect a really environment-friendly party because it only results into the own country reducing the standard of living, increasing it for others temporarily.
The only solution would be a global alliance. We surprisingly managed it for the ozone hole, but we won’t this time.
I still try to live environment friendly, but in my heart I have no hope of humanity solving this chrisis, and a lot will go to shit in my lifetime still (next 30 years). Maybe enough will survive to maintain the species.
I too feel like that a lot of the time. The problem with using game theory, is that game theory only works for a zero sum game. This isn’t a zero sum game. Making us believe that is part of the propaganda. Helping someone else to a better life does not make your life worse. Our whole success as a species is proof plenty of that. A group of people helping each other is more successful than being alone and trying to fend for yourself. The propaganda is trying to make us forget that. Unfortunately, our whole economic system is built like it is a zero sum game and that is reflected in the values of society and the US is perhaps the most clear cut example of this. It is all lies. We must, however, widen the scope of our thinking. The community isn’t just your little patch of dirt. It is the whole world. Helping another part of the world or other people will make it better for you as well in the long run. Even if it temporarily inconveniences you, welcoming people who can’t survive in their patch of dirt to yours, will strengthen you in the long run. Even better is to stop exploiting other people so they can have a good life at home and doesn’t need to work 18 hour shifts to make plastic shit we don’t even need. It’s not a zero sum game and we need to stop believing that it is.
Traditional game theory did, current game theory doesn’t
This situation has some similarities with the Prisoners dilemma, although not entirely
You are probably right about game theory working for zero sum games, but in this game, there is only one player. Us. Humanity as a whole. The two outcomes in that game are so trivial that we don’t need game theory to figure out which outcome is most beneficial.
We pretty much already know what needs to be done to win this game, or at least give it our best shot. Game theory is what holds us back from doing that, because we are wrongly applying it to try and find local best outcomes. Unfortunately, there is no point in looking for local best outcomes in this game, because they won’t matter if the whole game is lost.
I think there are a lot of things that could mitigate this, if we are lucky, such as:
solar and/or other power sources becoming more efficient and cheap to the point that it becomes the most practical and cheapest solution, not just the most environmentally friendly one. This also is appealing from a geopolitical perspective for nations because it reduces or removes dependence on foreign oil.
the production of microbial-based, artificially grown meat and dairy (milk, cheese) that is indistinguishable from the real thing and much cheaper than it (see also: most rennet in cheese is now microbial rennet, rather than rennet harvested from calves, because it’s cheaper), plus the expansion/improvement of alternative non-dairy/meat products.
the fact the most environmentally friendly parties currently are also in favor of standard of living improvement policies like universal healthcare, etc.
the fact the youngest generations of voters are growing up exposed to the consequences of climate change and will expect to be alive to see it get even worse
dramatic climate events like the recent India heatwave that had a high death toll because it was above the highest temperature humans can survive in.
It is also currently only a handful of countries that produce the vast majority of the problem, to the detriment of everybody else, so the agreement need not initially include every country in the world.
I do think we need better methods of carbon sequestration (taking it back out of the atmoaphere vs putting less of it in) urgently at this point however.
Edit: I do not think there is any feasible long term solution that doesn’t include ditching capitalism as it currently exists. A circular econimics model might work, but the current “line goes up forever, don’t ask when it ends” system is inherently unsustainable on every level.
Some suggestions that might actually help, huh? Novel idea, that. Not trying to put you down, It was more of a comment about what the rest of this conversion’s been about.
I think you are pretty much right on in your reasoning and we need more people to realize this and get angry enough to demand action. Even the most stubborn denialists will start to figure out that there is something not quite right about the weather phenomena we are seeing more and more frequently and with larger amplitudes than ever before. Question is if they realize soon enough. Because some serious action needs to happen like yesterday if we want to stop this. As much as I would like to implement space communism, it is a tough sell and it it needs to happen slowly. Otherwise we’ll just be making another Stalin/Mao-type society and that’s not really ideal to say the least. Regardless of what the tankies in lemmygrad would have us believe. I don’t really have an easy solution on hand, I’m pretty much winging it as I go. Easy solutions to complex problems rub me the wrong way as well, even if they are an easier sell. This is why it is so important to have discussions like this. Crowd-source a solution, if you will. But mainly to raise awareness and gain buy-in from as many people as possible. Corporations been pretty successful in dumping all the responsibility on us and therefore avoiding a lot of costs in cleaning up. Take bottles for example. In the later Cambrian period when I was young, soda came in glass bottles and soda companies were responsible for the whole life cycle of the bottle. This is a lot more expensive than letting the customers take the responsibility for the trash, but more importantly, they’re off the hook for all the plastic bottles that’s dumped everywhere. They can even have campaigns telling us to be responsible with the trash they produce and not having to deal with it themselves. Win-win. We need to shift the responsibility back to the corporations again. Don’t fall for the old “we just give customers what they want”-routine. It is just trying to shift the blame for their lack of responsibility while producing the goods we buy. I’d they can’t make their products without fucking the world up, they shouldn’t make them at all. I’m quoting from memory here, so correct me when I’m wrong. Just one hundred companies are responsible for over 30%(?) of the world’s CO2 emissions and they tell us we need to save the world by recycling? Give me a break. And ducking (autocorrect, but I’m keeping it) abolish Citizens United already. The US isn’t a democracy even on paper anymore.
Slightly off topic - I saw a pretty interesting video by Abagail of Philosophy tube about the morality and legality of protests and the examples that were used was based on a protest on a coal mine in Germany some years ago. This is likely preaching to the quire in this community, but if you’ve not seen Philosophy tube before, you really should check it out. I’m a proud patron there, myself. 😊 Sorry to make you use google to find it, but that’s how lazy I am. To come clean, some of the butchered points above may originally be from her. I think. I have a terrible memory for who said what.
Need an Italian to play a caricature of an American Indian to guilt you into it? Plastic makes it possible!
Yep, that’s the one. I saw this argument someplace on youtube, but I’m a bit uncertain as to where so I can’t give credit to whoever came up with it.
You are right about all of that, and particularly the first one is actually an immediate advantage. We had a flourishing renewable energy industry in Germany ~15 years ago. With a little subsidy we could have been technological leaders.
Unfortunately, the conservative politicians at the time were “advised” (bribed) by “industry leaders” from coal and nuclear industry, and saving existing jobs by pumping money up their asses was the better strategy to secure the next election than creating thousands of new jobs by supporting the new industries.
The second one (lab meat), but I expect there will be a lot of in-fight between environmentalists, some opposing it for not being natural and others embracing it for being environment friendly. In the EU, there isn’t even a permission requested to be able to sell it.
The younger generation might be more motivated, but they have the same problem if they save resources, others will waste it in their place.
The disaster in India doesn’t change anything, it just proves what we already knew. The numbers are shocking to a rational thinker, but emotional stories like the Titan submarine still grab the headlines.
I think the main problems are the fully industrialised nations, but developing nations are catching up, and they won’t want to be held back in their development by wealthy nations telling them to.