7 ms·

Strong suspicion you've never studied game theory, or even Adam Smithian economics. "Everybody just agree to what is best for everyone" pretty much never works.

Strong suspicion you've never studied game theory, or even Adam Smithian economics. "Everybody just agree to what is best for everyone" pretty much never works. People don't work like that. Frankly, it is hopelessly naive of the human condition and akin to saying "why don't we all stop wasting money on locks and just all of us agree to stop stealing?" Or "why do we need money? Can't we just all do our part and only take what we need?" Or "why can't we agree to end wars?" People tend to (mostly) calculate what is best for them. Most people would just say "the only thing I can control is what I do, not what everyone else does. The best outcome for me is to live like I want to live, regardless of what everyone else does." Some people have more awareness of what is good for all than others, but very few will make huge individual sacrifices for the sake of making a hard-to-detect positive impact on the common good. See "prisoners' dilemma", "tragedy of the commons", "invisible hand", and so on. A government, on the other hand -- especially one as big as the US government -- is generally the only way to address this sort of thing. I'm not saying this is a great plan, but I suspect things like this are worth looking into.

kelnos 4y ago
Hell, we couldn't even get people in individual countries (let alone across the world) to agree on what to do with a global pandemic that was hospitalizing and/or killing people in droves. Climate change is unfortunately still -- even with all the obvious weather changes that are already happening -- too abstract to get a lot of people to even admit it's a problem, let alone agree on what should be done.
- prottog 4y ago
  > all the obvious weather changes that are already happening All the obvious weather changes that are doing what, exactly? The way that global agricultural output has increased over time[0]? The way that England is a degree or two warmer on average in the past five hundred years[1] (somewhere between the difference in going from London to Paris and London to Bordeaux, quelle horreur)? The change is there, sure, but in what way is the problem pressing enough that dealing with it is clearly better than the cost of dealing with it? Because remember, every bit of time and resource we spend on climate change could be alternatively spent in other uses that might also benefit humanity. [0]: https://ourworldindata.org/food-supply https://ourworldindata.org/food-supply [1]: https://i0.wp.com/judithcurry.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/slide03.png?ssl=1 https://i0.wp.com/judithcurry.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11...
  - ornornor 4y ago
    I guess you haven’t heard of the floods in India earlier this year for instance[0]. Or maybe it doesn’t matter because we don’t live there and it’s nice if the winter is a little warmer whenever we go skiing; no need to wear a pesky hat anymore. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_South_Asian_floods https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_South_Asian_floods
    - Aerroon 4y ago
      It was really cold the other day. I guess that means global warming is called off, right? If you attribute random weather events to global warming, then random weather events to "disprove" it also count.
    - prottog 4y ago
      There were no floods prior to the Industrial Revolution, I take it?
  - robbrown451 4y ago
    Do you want people to explain why climate change is urgent, here in a comment? Your links don't say "climate change isn't a problem," they just have a tiny bit of data out of context, that very few people here have the ability to fully understand as to how they may or may not relate to climate change. Do you really think the fact that agricultural output has increased over time says much about climate change, vs. technology and population and such? Or that a 2 degree temperature change in England is a) not a problem, just because a 2 degree temperature change seems minor, or b) is really going to give non-scientists a good perspective on something like this? Unless you understand all the things involved, you really need to let the scientists do an analysis on the data, rather than your seat-of-the-pants approach. If you don't want to trust the scientists, great, but just showing a tiny bit of data and extrapolating a conclusion based on intuition probably doesn't cut it. The below is just pasted from Wikipedia, but it's a great starting point. You can follow the citations if you go to the article. Sure, it's a politicized issue so you'll always find a few on the other side. But the vast majority of scientists agree with this: Due to climate change, deserts are expanding, while heat waves and wildfires are becoming more common. Increased warming in the Arctic has contributed to melting permafrost, glacial retreat and sea ice loss. Higher temperatures are also causing more intense storms, droughts, and other weather extremes. Rapid environmental change in mountains, coral reefs, and the Arctic is forcing many species to relocate or become extinct. Climate change threatens people with food and water scarcity, increased flooding, extreme heat, more disease, and economic loss. Human migration and conflict can also be a result. The World Health Organization (WHO) calls climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century. Even if efforts to minimise future warming are successful, some effects will continue for centuries. These include sea level rise, and warmer, more acidic oceans.
- mistermann 4y ago
  > Hell, we couldn't even get people in individual countries (let alone across the world) to agree on what to do with a global pandemic that was hospitalizing and/or killing people in droves. "Why won't this code compile!!?? Computers are stupid!"
evandijk70 4y ago
The existence of tipping in the US contradicts this theory. Why tip 20% as a non-returning customer, when it is in your own best interest to tip 0%? Still, nearly everyone does it. Luckily, empathy and/or social pressures are important for most people, which causes them to make choices that are not 'game theory optimal', but better for society.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  I don't think this example translates to global maxima, or at least not without further explanation.
hnbad 4y ago
These are all very good ways to handwave the fact that the impact of "cutting back on consumption" is distributed extremely unevenly to the point that a single billionaire living like a middle class person would have a bigger effect than most of the middle class living like paupers. The prisoners' dilemma arises from the prison. The tragedy of the commons arises from the replacement of mutual social structures with competitve market incentives. These are not neutral facts of life, they're describing emergent properties of the systems they exist in. Those systems are arbitrary and we can change them. There's actually a number of "one percenters" (i.e. multi-billionaires) who lobby for raising their own taxes. Few of them understandably want to simply give away their wealth but they're okay with paying a fairer (read: significantly larger) share as long as others in their class have to do so as well. They're trying to lower the ceiling, to literally change the system so the emergent properties of it change for the better. What you're describing is an extremely individualistic approach favored by Austrian economics. It's not apolitical objective truth. It relies on intentional design choices of the economic system that can be changed. Much like feudal lords before the French revolution, however, those currently benefiting from it are largely disinterested in changing it and too powerful to overrule. We can hope "the government" addresses this, but as long as we accept narratives about individual responsibility and "everyone doing their part" I see no hope for legislators seriously reining in the actual polluters, especially in a country where the second anyone proposes it a skilled orator will insist that this will single-handedly destroy America as we know it. Of course convincing an economist that the system could be changed in a way that doesn't incentivize the destruction of our habitat would be as outlandish as convincing an aristocrat in 1322 that the system could be changed so the king is continuously elected by the common folk instead of being destined by his bloodline and divine right: It is hopelessly naive of the human condition to imagine that an ordinary mortal like you or I could assume the power of God to pick a new lordship like we are picking out pigs to slaughter. Even if it wasn't blasphemy, surely it is only right and best for us if our lord is born into his destiny and raised from a young age by experts in his future affairs do be a good lord for us and make his choices we are too ignorant to judge fairly.
- ejb999 4y ago
  >>There's actually a number of "one percenters" (i.e. multi-billionaires) who lobby for raising their own taxes. Complete BS virtue signaling - everyone of those supposed 'multi-billionaires who lobby for raising their own taxes', can already voluntarily pay as much extra taxes as they want - how many are? Why is it that these people will only do what they believe is morally correct, but only if the law forces them do it? The answer is, because they don't really believe what they say they believe in - they are virtue signaling. Just like all the celebrities flying around in their private jets, giving speeches about global warming, and collecting their global warming awareness achievement awards.
hutzlibu 4y ago
" "why don't we all stop wasting money on locks and just all of us agree to stop stealing?" Or "why do we need money? Can't we just all do our part and only take what we need?" Or "why can't we agree to end wars?" We can and do so - in small societies, like inner family and close friends - where trust exists. So in thery maybe this trust can grow to eventually connect all humanity, but I really would not count on it. So wouldn't it be nice, if we are all nice to each other? Yes but we ain't. Not with these existing tensions. Know what the poor world thinks? "The west got rich by polluting and now we are supposed to stay poor, because polluting is not allowed anymore? Not fair." And I think they have a point. When you are starving, you cannot afford to care if the gasoline and coal you are using is causing more long term problems. You are happy, that you have the coal in the first place, if you are cold or need power. So yes, idealism likely will not solve anything. But it can help make the transition to a sustainable economy. And I rather would distribute low tech solar cookers and high tech solar panels on scale, than mess with the atmosphere.
- grive 4y ago
  > And I think they have a point. They may have a point, that won't change the reality of the situation: letting them do exactly what the developed countries did, will kill them. That's not fair, that's life. > So yes, idealism likely will not solve anything. But it can help make the transition to a sustainable economy. No, idealism by definition will produce idealistic solutions that won't amount to anything. You are advocating for controlling a system by considering that with enough ingenuity, trust or whatever, we can do it. No, controlling a complex system is done by understanding its baseline or attractors and tweaking its inputs carefully to bring it and maintaining it there. It means indeed that injecting aerosols in the atmosphere to control the climate is a foolish errand, and the practical approach is energy sobriety. But don't go advocating this position by talking of ideals and fairness, you won't convince anyone.
  - hutzlibu 4y ago
    "No, controlling a complex system is done by understanding its baseline or attractors and tweaking its inputs carefully to bring it and maintaining it there." Idealism is trying to do this, targeting the human motivation attractors. Doing (subjectivly) good things gives a good feeling. And if it would not work, there would not be so many vegans for example. Intrinsic motivation is a strong attractor, you can reach with idealism. But we agree, that in this case on a global scale - it will never be enough. But each person convinced that things must be done, is (ideally) one more person working on the problem.

kelnos 4y ago

Hell, we couldn't even get people in individual countries (let alone across the world) to agree on what to do with a global pandemic that was hospitalizing and/or killing people in droves. Climate change is unfortunately still -- even with all the obvious weather changes that are already happening -- too abstract to get a lot of people to even admit it's a problem, let alone agree on what should be done.

prottog 4y ago
> all the obvious weather changes that are already happening All the obvious weather changes that are doing what, exactly? The way that global agricultural output has increased over time[0]? The way that England is a degree or two warmer on average in the past five hundred years[1] (somewhere between the difference in going from London to Paris and London to Bordeaux, quelle horreur)? The change is there, sure, but in what way is the problem pressing enough that dealing with it is clearly better than the cost of dealing with it? Because remember, every bit of time and resource we spend on climate change could be alternatively spent in other uses that might also benefit humanity. [0]: https://ourworldindata.org/food-supply https://ourworldindata.org/food-supply [1]: https://i0.wp.com/judithcurry.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/slide03.png?ssl=1 https://i0.wp.com/judithcurry.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11...
- ornornor 4y ago
  I guess you haven’t heard of the floods in India earlier this year for instance[0]. Or maybe it doesn’t matter because we don’t live there and it’s nice if the winter is a little warmer whenever we go skiing; no need to wear a pesky hat anymore. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_South_Asian_floods https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_South_Asian_floods
  - Aerroon 4y ago
    It was really cold the other day. I guess that means global warming is called off, right? If you attribute random weather events to global warming, then random weather events to "disprove" it also count.
  - prottog 4y ago
    There were no floods prior to the Industrial Revolution, I take it?
- robbrown451 4y ago
  Do you want people to explain why climate change is urgent, here in a comment? Your links don't say "climate change isn't a problem," they just have a tiny bit of data out of context, that very few people here have the ability to fully understand as to how they may or may not relate to climate change. Do you really think the fact that agricultural output has increased over time says much about climate change, vs. technology and population and such? Or that a 2 degree temperature change in England is a) not a problem, just because a 2 degree temperature change seems minor, or b) is really going to give non-scientists a good perspective on something like this? Unless you understand all the things involved, you really need to let the scientists do an analysis on the data, rather than your seat-of-the-pants approach. If you don't want to trust the scientists, great, but just showing a tiny bit of data and extrapolating a conclusion based on intuition probably doesn't cut it. The below is just pasted from Wikipedia, but it's a great starting point. You can follow the citations if you go to the article. Sure, it's a politicized issue so you'll always find a few on the other side. But the vast majority of scientists agree with this: Due to climate change, deserts are expanding, while heat waves and wildfires are becoming more common. Increased warming in the Arctic has contributed to melting permafrost, glacial retreat and sea ice loss. Higher temperatures are also causing more intense storms, droughts, and other weather extremes. Rapid environmental change in mountains, coral reefs, and the Arctic is forcing many species to relocate or become extinct. Climate change threatens people with food and water scarcity, increased flooding, extreme heat, more disease, and economic loss. Human migration and conflict can also be a result. The World Health Organization (WHO) calls climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century. Even if efforts to minimise future warming are successful, some effects will continue for centuries. These include sea level rise, and warmer, more acidic oceans.
mistermann 4y ago
> Hell, we couldn't even get people in individual countries (let alone across the world) to agree on what to do with a global pandemic that was hospitalizing and/or killing people in droves. "Why won't this code compile!!?? Computers are stupid!"

evandijk70 4y ago

The existence of tipping in the US contradicts this theory. Why tip 20% as a non-returning customer, when it is in your own best interest to tip 0%? Still, nearly everyone does it. Luckily, empathy and/or social pressures are important for most people, which causes them to make choices that are not 'game theory optimal', but better for society.

robertlagrant 4y ago
I don't think this example translates to global maxima, or at least not without further explanation.

hnbad 4y ago

These are all very good ways to handwave the fact that the impact of "cutting back on consumption" is distributed extremely unevenly to the point that a single billionaire living like a middle class person would have a bigger effect than most of the middle class living like paupers. The prisoners' dilemma arises from the prison. The tragedy of the commons arises from the replacement of mutual social structures with competitve market incentives. These are not neutral facts of life, they're describing emergent properties of the systems they exist in. Those systems are arbitrary and we can change them. There's actually a number of "one percenters" (i.e. multi-billionaires) who lobby for raising their own taxes. Few of them understandably want to simply give away their wealth but they're okay with paying a fairer (read: significantly larger) share as long as others in their class have to do so as well. They're trying to lower the ceiling, to literally change the system so the emergent properties of it change for the better. What you're describing is an extremely individualistic approach favored by Austrian economics. It's not apolitical objective truth. It relies on intentional design choices of the economic system that can be changed. Much like feudal lords before the French revolution, however, those currently benefiting from it are largely disinterested in changing it and too powerful to overrule. We can hope "the government" addresses this, but as long as we accept narratives about individual responsibility and "everyone doing their part" I see no hope for legislators seriously reining in the actual polluters, especially in a country where the second anyone proposes it a skilled orator will insist that this will single-handedly destroy America as we know it. Of course convincing an economist that the system could be changed in a way that doesn't incentivize the destruction of our habitat would be as outlandish as convincing an aristocrat in 1322 that the system could be changed so the king is continuously elected by the common folk instead of being destined by his bloodline and divine right: It is hopelessly naive of the human condition to imagine that an ordinary mortal like you or I could assume the power of God to pick a new lordship like we are picking out pigs to slaughter. Even if it wasn't blasphemy, surely it is only right and best for us if our lord is born into his destiny and raised from a young age by experts in his future affairs do be a good lord for us and make his choices we are too ignorant to judge fairly.

ejb999 4y ago
>>There's actually a number of "one percenters" (i.e. multi-billionaires) who lobby for raising their own taxes. Complete BS virtue signaling - everyone of those supposed 'multi-billionaires who lobby for raising their own taxes', can already voluntarily pay as much extra taxes as they want - how many are? Why is it that these people will only do what they believe is morally correct, but only if the law forces them do it? The answer is, because they don't really believe what they say they believe in - they are virtue signaling. Just like all the celebrities flying around in their private jets, giving speeches about global warming, and collecting their global warming awareness achievement awards.

hutzlibu 4y ago

" "why don't we all stop wasting money on locks and just all of us agree to stop stealing?" Or "why do we need money? Can't we just all do our part and only take what we need?" Or "why can't we agree to end wars?" We can and do so - in small societies, like inner family and close friends - where trust exists. So in thery maybe this trust can grow to eventually connect all humanity, but I really would not count on it. So wouldn't it be nice, if we are all nice to each other? Yes but we ain't. Not with these existing tensions. Know what the poor world thinks? "The west got rich by polluting and now we are supposed to stay poor, because polluting is not allowed anymore? Not fair." And I think they have a point. When you are starving, you cannot afford to care if the gasoline and coal you are using is causing more long term problems. You are happy, that you have the coal in the first place, if you are cold or need power. So yes, idealism likely will not solve anything. But it can help make the transition to a sustainable economy. And I rather would distribute low tech solar cookers and high tech solar panels on scale, than mess with the atmosphere.

grive 4y ago
> And I think they have a point. They may have a point, that won't change the reality of the situation: letting them do exactly what the developed countries did, will kill them. That's not fair, that's life. > So yes, idealism likely will not solve anything. But it can help make the transition to a sustainable economy. No, idealism by definition will produce idealistic solutions that won't amount to anything. You are advocating for controlling a system by considering that with enough ingenuity, trust or whatever, we can do it. No, controlling a complex system is done by understanding its baseline or attractors and tweaking its inputs carefully to bring it and maintaining it there. It means indeed that injecting aerosols in the atmosphere to control the climate is a foolish errand, and the practical approach is energy sobriety. But don't go advocating this position by talking of ideals and fairness, you won't convince anyone.
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  "No, controlling a complex system is done by understanding its baseline or attractors and tweaking its inputs carefully to bring it and maintaining it there." Idealism is trying to do this, targeting the human motivation attractors. Doing (subjectivly) good things gives a good feeling. And if it would not work, there would not be so many vegans for example. Intrinsic motivation is a strong attractor, you can reach with idealism. But we agree, that in this case on a global scale - it will never be enough. But each person convinced that things must be done, is (ideally) one more person working on the problem.