2 ms·

> People keep posting things like this and I legitimately do not understand how anyone can think that this is an actual option. When the alternative appears to

> People keep posting things like this and I legitimately do not understand how anyone can think that this is an actual option. When the alternative appears to be the collapse of civilization and the possible extinction of humanity, how can it NOT be an option?

mdp2021 4y ago
> how can it not be an option Because there is no central government, no central decisor. It's a game theory context of actors spread all over.
- marssaxman 4y ago
  What is your position, then - simply fatalism? You don't seem to be disagreeing with the author's premises, or his conclusions. Even if the situation does turn out to be hopeless, that point of view does not seem to offer anything useful. Better to try and fail, at least!
  - netsharc 4y ago
    I'm not the above commenter, but I subscribe to the fatalism... even with a deadly disease that could (for a small sub-percent of "could") kill you within 2 weeks, people got into denial as one of the excuses why they shouldn't follow what society wanted them to do.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    "Your solution doesn't work" != "I have a solution that works". I don't have to have a solution that works to be able to point out that your solution doesn't work. Also, "I don't know of a solution that works" != fatalism. If the problem is important enough to solve, it's important enough to not waste time trying a solution that won't work.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    > Better to try Who is supposed to «try», and what? The issue can only be resolved (in terms of political intervention) by a sound, sensible plan acceptable by enough parts. You want to fix the problem, you have to facilitate that somebody formulates a proposal that enough governments will be available to subscribe to. No, the fear of annihilation is factually not enough to convince a policymaker - first, guts to head, because of ethology, and second, because of game theory. "Ethology" being a well-dressed encapsulation for "that's how it is - see and evaluate", and "game theory" implying that for a player not to grab the loot a number of reassurances must be in place.
- fulafel 4y ago
  We have lots of experience in the cat herding of international collective action. Often the results aren't perfect but still good enough. Nuclear nonprofileration, UN security council resolutions, enacting US/western industry preferred trade policies everywhere (eg IPR legislation), COVID response, water rights... As long as you have a good majority the rest of the countries can be mostly carrot-and-sticked to join the ranks.

mdp2021 4y ago

> how can it not be an option Because there is no central government, no central decisor. It's a game theory context of actors spread all over.

marssaxman 4y ago
What is your position, then - simply fatalism? You don't seem to be disagreeing with the author's premises, or his conclusions. Even if the situation does turn out to be hopeless, that point of view does not seem to offer anything useful. Better to try and fail, at least!
- netsharc 4y ago
  I'm not the above commenter, but I subscribe to the fatalism... even with a deadly disease that could (for a small sub-percent of "could") kill you within 2 weeks, people got into denial as one of the excuses why they shouldn't follow what society wanted them to do.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  "Your solution doesn't work" != "I have a solution that works". I don't have to have a solution that works to be able to point out that your solution doesn't work. Also, "I don't know of a solution that works" != fatalism. If the problem is important enough to solve, it's important enough to not waste time trying a solution that won't work.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- mdp2021 4y ago
  > Better to try Who is supposed to «try», and what? The issue can only be resolved (in terms of political intervention) by a sound, sensible plan acceptable by enough parts. You want to fix the problem, you have to facilitate that somebody formulates a proposal that enough governments will be available to subscribe to. No, the fear of annihilation is factually not enough to convince a policymaker - first, guts to head, because of ethology, and second, because of game theory. "Ethology" being a well-dressed encapsulation for "that's how it is - see and evaluate", and "game theory" implying that for a player not to grab the loot a number of reassurances must be in place.
fulafel 4y ago
We have lots of experience in the cat herding of international collective action. Often the results aren't perfect but still good enough. Nuclear nonprofileration, UN security council resolutions, enacting US/western industry preferred trade policies everywhere (eg IPR legislation), COVID response, water rights... As long as you have a good majority the rest of the countries can be mostly carrot-and-sticked to join the ranks.