3 ms·

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 imp

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
    Neither your tone or attitude were an issue. I just wanted to note that the idea that there is absolutely no way out of this mess is too negative a view, in my opinion. Until we reach the point of no return, people need to keep engaging in discourse. The path to success is simply education. It is not a sexy suggestion by any means, but I would point to how successful bad education is at stopping progress as evidence that it is the determinant factor. It is not a quick or a guaranteed solution. But by staying informed and engaging in conversation with people, this can have a knock-on effects on others. Further, key moments in contemporary human history show that shifts can occur seemingly out of nowhere. Will it be enough? Who knows? Realistically, this is our only play left and to squander it to apathy is not acceptable. Re: rational. I guess this becomes a semantic issue, which means it is a non-issue to begin with as we are in agreement. I personally just feel that the word doesn't add much to the discussion as it is implicitly understood that economic actors will be driven to certain decisions by their own self-serving motivations. Using the word rational, while I agree that if we were to take your definition would be absolutely correct, connotes the notion that they are acting in absolute self interest, which is not the case in this example as that would mean individual actors would find a way to cooperate given that the existence of humanity is at stake. So, despite the fact that there is nothing wrong with the word, I avoid using it as I find it to be quite confusing. My opinion on the matter probably reflects quite well on why I switched out of an economics degree :)
    - intended 8y ago

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
  Neither your tone or attitude were an issue. I just wanted to note that the idea that there is absolutely no way out of this mess is too negative a view, in my opinion. Until we reach the point of no return, people need to keep engaging in discourse. The path to success is simply education. It is not a sexy suggestion by any means, but I would point to how successful bad education is at stopping progress as evidence that it is the determinant factor. It is not a quick or a guaranteed solution. But by staying informed and engaging in conversation with people, this can have a knock-on effects on others. Further, key moments in contemporary human history show that shifts can occur seemingly out of nowhere. Will it be enough? Who knows? Realistically, this is our only play left and to squander it to apathy is not acceptable. Re: rational. I guess this becomes a semantic issue, which means it is a non-issue to begin with as we are in agreement. I personally just feel that the word doesn't add much to the discussion as it is implicitly understood that economic actors will be driven to certain decisions by their own self-serving motivations. Using the word rational, while I agree that if we were to take your definition would be absolutely correct, connotes the notion that they are acting in absolute self interest, which is not the case in this example as that would mean individual actors would find a way to cooperate given that the existence of humanity is at stake. So, despite the fact that there is nothing wrong with the word, I avoid using it as I find it to be quite confusing. My opinion on the matter probably reflects quite well on why I switched out of an economics degree :)
  - intended 8y ago