3 ms·
The problem with this as a general policy is that it is bad game theory. It means bad actors get to win by threatening to cause more damage fighting than if the
by conjectures 7y ago
The problem with this as a general policy is that it is bad game theory. It means bad actors get to win by threatening to cause more damage fighting than if they win without a fight. You're always hostage to threats from bad actors.
- Ididntdothis 7y agoI know. It’s a very complex situation. But I think we should also not blindly accept a lot of wars as “ necessary “ and better than the alternative. It’s also often not clear who is the good or bad guy. As far as i know in Vietnam for example the main goal was to get rid of the colonialists. If the west had accepted that maybe north Vietnam wouldn’t have aligned with the Soviets. In addition the west also aligned with highly corrupt leaders in the south. We see the same dynamic in the Middle East. Out of short term interests we ally with highly corrupt dictatorial governments there and then we are surprised that things blow up in our face.
- dondawest 7y agoAll animals in the universe are “hostage to threats from bad actors.” Most fights in the animal kingdom are avoided by a simple size comparison between two animals, after which the smaller animal submits. Size is an implicit threat, one that can never be eliminated. How exactly do you propose to eliminate the implicit threat of one animal/group of animals simply being larger than another?
- emiliobumachar 7y agoI would think most fights in the animal kingdom are predation, where the prey faces death and the predator, starvation. Perhaps you had just dominance fights within the same species in mind?
- dondawest 7y agoPredation is an example of a fight that is NOT avoided. I have all species in mind. I am almost directly quoting Dawkins’ “The Selfish Gene.” A raccoon does not attack a grizzly bear because of a simple size comparison. Thus, the lives of both animals are spared and a fight is avoided.
- conjectures 7y agoBecause in reality both animals implicitly know that the conflict policies are somewhat hardwired as: 'If you push me too far, I will fight you on the beaches.' Knowing that that is the policy that is implemented, and that fights are always risky, whether a fight occurs will be determined by the reward size and the predictability of the outcome.
- dondawest 7y agoYes, and both creatures deduce the predictability of the outcome primarily from the results of... a simple size comparison.