> human beings may be individually smart (compared to some other species) yet the collective intelligence of humanity is rather poor (which translates to the un

> human beings may be individually smart (compared to some other species) yet the collective intelligence of humanity is rather poor (which translates to the unability to solve collective problems such as sustainable management of our finite natural resources (e.g. oil) or of the consequences of our activity (e.g. biodiversity fall and climate change)). This makes a big assumption: that our inability to solve these problems is rooted in a lack of intelligence (collectively or individually). I don't think that's the case at all. Solutions to these problems are widely known, and most educated people support them, at least in theory. The problem isn't with our intelligence, it's with our incentives. Climate change is a tragedy of the commons (as are other environmental degradation issues, such as loss of biodiversity). Each of us would benefit if everyone cooperated (a nice environment for each of us), but each of us also benefits when we individually defect (cheaper energy for our various needs). As a result, we predictably end up with the suboptimal outcome of (almost-)everybody-defects. What's the way out of the dilemma? It's clearly not a matter of getting smarter. I don't think it's an issue we can solve with moral pleading either: we've been trying that for decades. But what if we could change the game and remove the incentives to defect? * We could implement a carbon tax, incentivizing firms and consumers to use carbon-neural energy sources. * We could subsidize clean energy, incentivizing the same. * We could invest as much money as possible in reducing the cost of clean energy sources, eventually removing the need for ongoing tax/subsidy policies. If non-polluting energy sources are cheaper, more widely available, and easier to use than polluting sources, no one would ever choose the latter. No heightened intelligence required.