4 ms·

This isn't a flaw in the species. It's a consequence of game theory and evolution and would likely be found in any species that was a product of evolution.

• amelius 9y ago
  Yes, this is one of the explanations of the Fermi paradox.
  • api 9y ago
    I was discussing that with a friend once and I argued that a more intelligent species might fare worse in these matters. It would more rapidly and aggressively exploit its environment due to higher intelligence and would therefore run a greater risk of triggering catastrophic environmental events. The problem is that there is no game theoretic advantage in cooperating to reduce CO2 unless everyone cooperates. If one large player (e.g. USA or China) or many small players do not cooperate then the incentive flips and it's actually in everyone's best interest to defect. If catastrophic climate change is going to happen anyway then you are better off burning as much CO2 as you want to build up your economy so you have a better chance of mitigating the damage. It's basically a variation on the prisoner's dilemma scenario.
    • CountSessine 9y ago
      I guess someone didn't like hearing what you said, but you're absolutely right. Global agreements are coordination problems; there's an incentive to violate them, discretely at least. And there's a cost to genuinely comply with the agreement while others are clandestinely violating it.
  • Florin_Andrei 9y ago
    It took me a couple seconds to realize how utterly pessimistic that statement is.
• baddox 9y ago
  Perhaps a singular consciousness could evolve that wouldn't have the inherent game theoretical problems that groups of conscious individuals have.
  • flukus 9y ago
    A colony species would also be free from these problems, they look remarkably like a singular consciousness from the outside. At the moment we're a tribal species that builds colonies, we just haven't evolved to fit into them yet.