3 ms·

You don't need to worry about the Nash equilibrium. What happens in many cases is that short-term rationality trumps the long-term rationality. When neighbors a

You don't need to worry about the Nash equilibrium. What happens in many cases is that short-term rationality trumps the long-term rationality. When neighbors are making more money; when neighbors are sending their kids to good schools; when neighbors are doing better; it is irrational of one to harvest rain water to recharge groundwater.

hosh 6y ago
Thank you for your view. I am trying to practice keeping an open mind, or at least, think through things from different perspectives. It also helps me to communicate better. I think another point that the Nash equilibrium brings up is that all actors are non-cooperative. I thought I was making a point that self-interest would make rainwater harvesting rational. I think rainwater harvesting is rational, having seen good designs, and what it can do. It may even cost less than the solar panels, pump, digging out a reservoir, and the drilling... but I don’t think I know the exact numbers to make that kind of comparison. There is also an assumption that you choose between one or the other, rather than a succession, where one method is employed in the small scale and gradually replaces the other. Another issue is whether it would scale. I had not even brought up how specific soil amendments and practices can greatly increase the water retention ability of the water —- which is also a part of rainwater harvesting. I don’t know how well rainwater harvesting scale to industrial agriculture. I _think_ it can be scalable. Looking at the harvesting practices, you are scarring the head and collecting the sap. So it probably does not require planting in a way to optimize for using a combine to harvest. Finally, I also recall the farmer’s mindset. I was watching this show about American farmers. One thing they say a lot is how they make gambles. Sometimes it pays off and sometimes it does not. (Which I can say a lot about with regenerative agriculture that is also resilient against a single point of failure). So introducing new practices is risky for the farmer, and they would probably rather build on what they know works. As such, they would narrow their perceived viable choices, and it gets to the conditions for the Nash equilibrium.
- raincom 6y ago
  Yes, it is non-cooperative. Cooperation works when there is cooperation in every other area, not just rainwater harvesting. Will the neighbor's child, who has become a multi-millionaire, help another neighbor, whose kids are not as fortunate as that kid? I ask this question, not to bring in some silly contrast. There is a deeper issue, since Arrow's impossibility theorem is shown to be equivalent to a special case of the Nash Equilibrium. As a consequence, Arrovian dictator (in social choice framework) is equivalent to shared compromise in Nash cooperative game. Unless there is a dictator to force cooperation, it is just a talk. In an extreme, where everyone is poor and struggling for drinking water, you can see some cooperation. As long as the gravy train runs, one just milks it.
  - hosh 6y ago
    I think that depends on the mindset on what wealth is, and that the current, prevailing mindset has been conditioned. It isn’t as if such conditioning can cannot change. I think there will always be some people who are going to be ruthless, but by and large, I think without that conditioning and given the choice, many people would prefer doing things that are fair for other people.
    - krageon 6y ago
      > I think without that conditioning and given the choice, many people would prefer doing things that are fair for other people. It's interesting that you think this, as there really isn't a large body of strong examples of this behaviour. The person you were responding to came pretty close to something optimistic (there are solutions) but still realistic (most people are not nice to strangers).

hosh 6y ago

Thank you for your view. I am trying to practice keeping an open mind, or at least, think through things from different perspectives. It also helps me to communicate better. I think another point that the Nash equilibrium brings up is that all actors are non-cooperative. I thought I was making a point that self-interest would make rainwater harvesting rational. I think rainwater harvesting is rational, having seen good designs, and what it can do. It may even cost less than the solar panels, pump, digging out a reservoir, and the drilling... but I don’t think I know the exact numbers to make that kind of comparison. There is also an assumption that you choose between one or the other, rather than a succession, where one method is employed in the small scale and gradually replaces the other. Another issue is whether it would scale. I had not even brought up how specific soil amendments and practices can greatly increase the water retention ability of the water —- which is also a part of rainwater harvesting. I don’t know how well rainwater harvesting scale to industrial agriculture. I _think_ it can be scalable. Looking at the harvesting practices, you are scarring the head and collecting the sap. So it probably does not require planting in a way to optimize for using a combine to harvest. Finally, I also recall the farmer’s mindset. I was watching this show about American farmers. One thing they say a lot is how they make gambles. Sometimes it pays off and sometimes it does not. (Which I can say a lot about with regenerative agriculture that is also resilient against a single point of failure). So introducing new practices is risky for the farmer, and they would probably rather build on what they know works. As such, they would narrow their perceived viable choices, and it gets to the conditions for the Nash equilibrium.

raincom 6y ago
Yes, it is non-cooperative. Cooperation works when there is cooperation in every other area, not just rainwater harvesting. Will the neighbor's child, who has become a multi-millionaire, help another neighbor, whose kids are not as fortunate as that kid? I ask this question, not to bring in some silly contrast. There is a deeper issue, since Arrow's impossibility theorem is shown to be equivalent to a special case of the Nash Equilibrium. As a consequence, Arrovian dictator (in social choice framework) is equivalent to shared compromise in Nash cooperative game. Unless there is a dictator to force cooperation, it is just a talk. In an extreme, where everyone is poor and struggling for drinking water, you can see some cooperation. As long as the gravy train runs, one just milks it.
- hosh 6y ago
  I think that depends on the mindset on what wealth is, and that the current, prevailing mindset has been conditioned. It isn’t as if such conditioning can cannot change. I think there will always be some people who are going to be ruthless, but by and large, I think without that conditioning and given the choice, many people would prefer doing things that are fair for other people.
  - krageon 6y ago
    > I think without that conditioning and given the choice, many people would prefer doing things that are fair for other people. It's interesting that you think this, as there really isn't a large body of strong examples of this behaviour. The person you were responding to came pretty close to something optimistic (there are solutions) but still realistic (most people are not nice to strangers).