3 ms·
And what is it that we got after all, that both sides were immoral, and no one won the cold war. The advanced technology you speak of in option 4 pales in compa
by OutOfHere 2y ago
And what is it that we got after all, that both sides were immoral, and no one won the cold war. The advanced technology you speak of in option 4 pales in comparison to what we could have achieved together, which goes to show that your entire argument is bogus. It's not just puppies for everyone in option 1; it's a much higher level of advanced technology than in 4.
- Yawrehto 2y agoAnd it's not just no one spending jail time in the prisoner's dilemma; everyone walks away with half of the prize. Doesn't change that it's more rational to defect. I think everyone in the prisoner's dilemma would think that, say, $500,000 each is way better than, say, 5 years in jail for both of them, but that doesn't change the fact that if both sides are rational, that's what everyone ends up with.
- OutOfHere 2y agoYour premise itself is defective where you're setting up the individuals as prisoners (or enemies) meant for failure. Here is an example of a better win-win premise and result: Sweden and the United States seal a major nuclear energy agreement (6 August 2024) https://energynews.pro/en/sweden-and-the-united-states-seal-a-major-nuclear-energy-agreement/ https://energynews.pro/en/sweden-and-the-united-states-seal-... > Sweden and the USA sign a memorandum of understanding to intensify collaboration in advanced nuclear technologies, including modular reactors and waste management. > The main objectives of the agreement include the joint development of advanced nuclear reactors, such as small modular reactors (SMRs), and improved nuclear waste management. If this can be done with Sweden, then with some extra effort from both sides, it also can be done with Russia. If you then repeat it in a hundred sectors, the equation changes completely.