In many cases, self-optimization by individuals is nefast in a socio-economic environment that actively seeks out concentrating benefits and externalizing detri

In many cases, self-optimization by individuals is nefast in a socio-economic environment that actively seeks out concentrating benefits and externalizing detriments. Let's take cars as an example. For every 'individual' owning a car is better than not owning a car. After all, whether you own a car or not, you live in the same pollution and discomfort caused by everyone else having cars. So you might as well part-take in the benefits rather than only suffer the downsides. HN readers are a smart analytical crowd so they are not afraid of models and numbers. Here goes: Take a toy world with 1000 'people'. In this toy world, you get 500 'enjoyment' points from owning a car, a huge benefit, and you get -1 'enjoyment' points from someone else owning a car, a small detriment. It is clear that when nobody would own a car, the aggregate sum of all 'enjoyment' points would be 0. Nobody cares about the aggregate as each 'rational' consumer is trying to optimize their own benefit. For each and everyone, the 'optimal' decision is to get a car, even if they might notice at first the small negative impacts, as it immediately ups their 'enjoyment' by a serious amount. Sure, some other people buying cars brought my enjoyment to a small negative number, but getting one myself immediately offsets that. It is not until fairly late in this cycle, in this model when the number of cars exceeds 500, that the individual perception that the world was better off without cars altogether might set in. However, even when this occurs, the 'rational' decision for every consumer is still to buy/own a car. If everyone has a car, then everyone's enjoyment sits at an abysmal -500, yet getting rid of your own car immediately brings you enjoyment down to -999. These systemic 'race-to-the-bottom' scenarios exist in many forms in the real world, and are the underlying mechanic in many of the most detrimental situations we find ourselves in, environmentally, but also socioeconomically. They can only be curbed by collective restriction on 'freedoms', something that is blasphemy to many, I know, and nearly impossible to achieve through our current political organization. There are no easy answers to this. However, every time you hear someone utter things like 'vote with your wallet' when you object to the negative externalities something has , know that they are promoting a system that inherently leads to disaster.