3 ms·

Treaties in general aren't the best way to deal with anything. At best they're virtue signaling, at worst they're just misleading. The countries which benefit

Treaties in general aren't the best way to deal with anything. At best they're virtue signaling, at worst they're just misleading. The countries which benefit the most from ignoring the paper will ignore it in the shadows, then in the light, to the point they just unilaterally denounce it and do their own thing. You can't "stimulate" a country's representatives to care about something unless you give them an equally important incentive, carrot or stick. The stick doesn't work with powerful countries, and the carrot is usually too expensive. So the methods employed to negotiate and agree on a treaty's text are even less meaningful.

willguest 1y ago
> You can't "stimulate" a country's representatives to care about something unless you give them an equally important incentive, carrot or stick. I agree with this statement, and the reasons why they don't work, but also see it as lacking a systems perspective. Incentives are the result of system dynamics and, regardless of how they are wielded, do little to affect the protocols and structures that formed them in the first place. My suggestion is that, by redefining the structures within which such discussions take place, new incentives will appear. This is anything but trivial and requires a solid understanding of both social psychology and international relations, but it is also not impossible. If we consider consensus to be counterproductive, we must seek alternatives. Of the top of my head, one route could be to leverage the tendency for friend-shoring. This could involve grouping countries such that immediate impacts to profits are no longer shouldered by single interests. Those countries who possess both wealth and a greater sense of urgency could make side-agreements that allow for a kind of liquid-democracy within the final vote, similar to the way that coalitions form in countries that use proportional representation. Another options might be to structure trade agreement such that externalities are re-internalised, forcing countries engaged in extractive processes to confront the impact that their activies make. Carbon credits have worked to do the opposite, acting as a lubricant that allow emission to be easily localised elsewhere and enabling an "out of sight, out of mind" mentality.
brookst 1y ago
I just don’t understand the “this approach is imperfect therefore we should do nothing” mindset. Yet it’s so common these days. Is it just nihilism? Learned helplessness? By all means go solve plastics some other way and educate us all. But there really isn’t any value in just declaring entire methodologies useless because they don’t always produce unmitigated good outcomes. For grounding, here are treaties that made a material difference: - The Montreal protocol made a huge difference in reducing CFCs and other ozone destroying chemicals. If you’re old enough to remember “the ozone hole”, this is why you don’t hear it now. Google for reductions in skin cancer attributed to the treaty. - Conventional on Tabacco Control is only 20 years old but has made huge reductions in tobacco addiction and cancer reduction - High Seas treaty is even newer but already reducing overfishing in almost half of the ocean Do you really want to give up and throw those kinds of things out just because some jerks put on a sham treaty show in this instance?
jancsika 1y ago
> Treaties in general aren't the best way to deal with anything. Ok, I'll bite. What's the internationally recognized alternative to treaties?
- SAI_Peregrinus 1y ago
  Killing shitloads of people, mostly young men, remains popular. I wouldn't call war a better alternative, but it is undeniably an internationally recognized alternative.
bawolff 1y ago
> Treaties in general aren't the best way to deal with anything. At best they're virtue signaling, at worst they're just misleading. Treaties are just the end result of negotiations. The piece of paper itself is meaningless. The agreement it represents is meaningful. The treaty is just a symbol of the important work.

willguest 1y ago

> You can't "stimulate" a country's representatives to care about something unless you give them an equally important incentive, carrot or stick. I agree with this statement, and the reasons why they don't work, but also see it as lacking a systems perspective. Incentives are the result of system dynamics and, regardless of how they are wielded, do little to affect the protocols and structures that formed them in the first place. My suggestion is that, by redefining the structures within which such discussions take place, new incentives will appear. This is anything but trivial and requires a solid understanding of both social psychology and international relations, but it is also not impossible. If we consider consensus to be counterproductive, we must seek alternatives. Of the top of my head, one route could be to leverage the tendency for friend-shoring. This could involve grouping countries such that immediate impacts to profits are no longer shouldered by single interests. Those countries who possess both wealth and a greater sense of urgency could make side-agreements that allow for a kind of liquid-democracy within the final vote, similar to the way that coalitions form in countries that use proportional representation. Another options might be to structure trade agreement such that externalities are re-internalised, forcing countries engaged in extractive processes to confront the impact that their activies make. Carbon credits have worked to do the opposite, acting as a lubricant that allow emission to be easily localised elsewhere and enabling an "out of sight, out of mind" mentality.

brookst 1y ago

I just don’t understand the “this approach is imperfect therefore we should do nothing” mindset. Yet it’s so common these days. Is it just nihilism? Learned helplessness? By all means go solve plastics some other way and educate us all. But there really isn’t any value in just declaring entire methodologies useless because they don’t always produce unmitigated good outcomes. For grounding, here are treaties that made a material difference: - The Montreal protocol made a huge difference in reducing CFCs and other ozone destroying chemicals. If you’re old enough to remember “the ozone hole”, this is why you don’t hear it now. Google for reductions in skin cancer attributed to the treaty. - Conventional on Tabacco Control is only 20 years old but has made huge reductions in tobacco addiction and cancer reduction - High Seas treaty is even newer but already reducing overfishing in almost half of the ocean Do you really want to give up and throw those kinds of things out just because some jerks put on a sham treaty show in this instance?

jancsika 1y ago

> Treaties in general aren't the best way to deal with anything. Ok, I'll bite. What's the internationally recognized alternative to treaties?

SAI_Peregrinus 1y ago
Killing shitloads of people, mostly young men, remains popular. I wouldn't call war a better alternative, but it is undeniably an internationally recognized alternative.

bawolff 1y ago

> Treaties in general aren't the best way to deal with anything. At best they're virtue signaling, at worst they're just misleading. Treaties are just the end result of negotiations. The piece of paper itself is meaningless. The agreement it represents is meaningful. The treaty is just a symbol of the important work.