4 ms·

As you hinted in your edit, you are describing the essence of a collection action problem. Ultimately, we measure the success of our capitalist economies in to

As you hinted in your edit, you are describing the essence of a collection action problem. Ultimately, we measure the success of our capitalist economies in total receipts, and optimise accordingly. Our markets (and our cultures) prioritise consumption over repair or even abstention. That last point might seem contentious but truth be told, most of us would rather buy something new than repair something broken unless it is prohibitively expensive or repair is easy. In short, if we changed the yardstick to determine progress then the matter becomes much simpler to solve. However, this is not likely to change so we are forced to look for solutions within our economic framework. There are plenty of ways to correct these market failures but they must stem from government and have the support of the people. Private initiatives have nowhere near the influence or the scale to tackle such problems. Tax on goods and services could be proportional to how damaging it is to the environment. Regulations on animal welfare could be broadened and prioritised. Creative solutions exist for almost every issue, the problem is that they are not part of the public discourse. For instance, while I personally abhor hunting, I feel we should encourage regulated African trophy hunting, where older animals are auctioned off so that the money can be reinvested to protect current populations from poaching. In places like Africa where money is the only thing that matters, it is of the utmost importance that conservation look to market solutions to assist wildlife, as we might as well nuke the poor bastards if their survival depended on African governments. The biggest hurdle to overcome is the relentlessness of special interests to dictate policy around the globe. In fact, this is the root of the majority of global economic issues. I would imagine the only feasible way to do this is for the people to engage with these issues, which means we are most likely doomed.

intended 8y ago
As you pointed out, one of the issues is special interests. But in a rational world, it is obvious that people will use whatever tools at their disposal to improve their chances. So by definition, any sentient and rational society will have lobbying - anywhere in the universe. So this is not a bug but a feature. In theory these lobby groups will be dragged to a stale mate by counter lobby groups, but practically the more unethical group will win just because of operational flexibility. I don’t see any way this worst case out come doesn’t come to pass because of these very issues. The collective action problem can’t be solved.
- boombust 8y ago
  I am not sure I agree with your insistence on using the word rational. What is rational depends entirely on the perspective of the agent observing and is not a useful assumption, in my opinion. I want to touch on what you said about lobbies and give you my take on it. The characteristics of successful lobbies have three key properties. Within any dispute/issue the most important quality that determines influence of a group/cause is organisation. An organised faction will always triumph over the disorganised masses. Then, the second most important factor is possession of any tactical advantages to advance their goal over their adversaries. These can be anything from superior methods to a willingness to do things that the other side is not. The last, and least important, is the size of the group. Each factor is meaningless without the preceding one. As a consequence, I would agree that other groups would 'win' in this case. But they wouldn't actually need to win, they would just need engage in dirty tactics such as proliferation of fake news, muddying public discourse, bribe political officials, etc. Humanity would face the greatest difficulty dealing with the lengths that special interests are willing to go to to wield undue influence and stagnate progress. However, I do not share your abject and defeatist view. I concede that humanity is facing a battle in the trenches to ensure the health of our ecosystems. We all must take responsibility for what is coming because to do nothing is to allow bad actors to get away with being shitheads. Given that the survival of our species and many others on Earth is at stake this should not be acceptable to any one with a shred of empathy to possible future generations.
  - intended 8y ago
    Great points on lobbying. I believe there’s an economics paper on the effects of lobbying out there, so it might be of interest to you. Sadly I don’t know it’s name :/. By the way, If the issue is with my tone or perceived attitude, please note that this is my question- what precisely is the path to success? I don’t get the issue with the term rational, I mean it in the same way you define it. Locally solutions may not result in a global solution to the climate problem (because of externalities). What the issue with rational in this case ?
    - boombust 8y ago

intended 8y ago

As you pointed out, one of the issues is special interests. But in a rational world, it is obvious that people will use whatever tools at their disposal to improve their chances. So by definition, any sentient and rational society will have lobbying - anywhere in the universe. So this is not a bug but a feature. In theory these lobby groups will be dragged to a stale mate by counter lobby groups, but practically the more unethical group will win just because of operational flexibility. I don’t see any way this worst case out come doesn’t come to pass because of these very issues. The collective action problem can’t be solved.

boombust 8y ago
I am not sure I agree with your insistence on using the word rational. What is rational depends entirely on the perspective of the agent observing and is not a useful assumption, in my opinion. I want to touch on what you said about lobbies and give you my take on it. The characteristics of successful lobbies have three key properties. Within any dispute/issue the most important quality that determines influence of a group/cause is organisation. An organised faction will always triumph over the disorganised masses. Then, the second most important factor is possession of any tactical advantages to advance their goal over their adversaries. These can be anything from superior methods to a willingness to do things that the other side is not. The last, and least important, is the size of the group. Each factor is meaningless without the preceding one. As a consequence, I would agree that other groups would 'win' in this case. But they wouldn't actually need to win, they would just need engage in dirty tactics such as proliferation of fake news, muddying public discourse, bribe political officials, etc. Humanity would face the greatest difficulty dealing with the lengths that special interests are willing to go to to wield undue influence and stagnate progress. However, I do not share your abject and defeatist view. I concede that humanity is facing a battle in the trenches to ensure the health of our ecosystems. We all must take responsibility for what is coming because to do nothing is to allow bad actors to get away with being shitheads. Given that the survival of our species and many others on Earth is at stake this should not be acceptable to any one with a shred of empathy to possible future generations.
- intended 8y ago
  Great points on lobbying. I believe there’s an economics paper on the effects of lobbying out there, so it might be of interest to you. Sadly I don’t know it’s name :/. By the way, If the issue is with my tone or perceived attitude, please note that this is my question- what precisely is the path to success? I don’t get the issue with the term rational, I mean it in the same way you define it. Locally solutions may not result in a global solution to the climate problem (because of externalities). What the issue with rational in this case ?
  - boombust 8y ago