4 ms·

And 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 def

And 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 ago
Your 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.