4 ms·

I think the problem is that it's not possible (or rather, extremely difficult) to choose in any global sense, due to co-ordination problems. A very interesting

I think the problem is that it's not possible (or rather, extremely difficult) to choose in any global sense, due to co-ordination problems. A very interesting (though long and occasionally whimsical) essay called "Meditations on Moloch" dwells on this problem: "A basic principle unites all of the multipolar traps above. In some competition optimizing for X, the opportunity arises to throw some other value under the bus for improved X. Those who take it prosper. Those who don’t take it die out. Eventually, everyone’s relative status is about the same as before, but everyone’s absolute status is worse than before. The process continues until all other values that can be traded off have been – in other words, until human ingenuity cannot possibly figure out a way to make things any worse." http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ So, basically we can't choose your former path above because we're stuck in one of these "multipolar traps." I recommend checking out the entire essay. It's long but rewarding.

spodek 12y ago
Sounds like a Nash equilibrium. I think you're saying the path of using up non-renewable resources and maximally populating is a Nash equilibrium so stable we can't get out of it, I admit it could be a possibility.
Daishiman 12y ago
One of the purposes international treaties and organizations attempt to solve is this very coordination problem. The fact that such organizations have had a certain level of success as far as deweaponization (as far as biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons), commerce treaties, and pollution control guidelines means that a global framework for reducing carbon emissions and increasing land conservation efforts is possible. A minor example of this is the UNESCO World Heritage Sites, which have a certain protected legal standing, which has been fairly effective in its goal. Maritime laws and emissions control for large ships is another one where global legal frameworks have worked.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- Brakenshire 12y ago
  If you wanted coordinated global action on climate change, with teeth, you would make it a prerequisite of the trade treaties.
  - Daishiman 12y ago
    We might be getting there, since the Chinese have most of the parts in place for a carbon tax framework. The only question is whether it's too little, too late.
- graeme 12y ago
  So far the emphasis has been on the wrong end --≥ final emissions. Don't get me wrong, those have to stop. But all current treaties, carbon taxes and unilateral actions have focussed on emissions from trackable sources. I think the only reliable way to stop emissions is to stop extraction at the source. So far, our global policy appears to be to extract every fossil fuel we can economically extract. At the other end, debates go on about whether to tax this emission or ban that emission. But there will always be leaks. Tax one type of emission, and fossil fuels will flow to other sources that aren't taxed. Markets are very good at this. Make it more expensive for a car to burn gasoline, the price of gas falls, and it becomes economical to use gas in some way that wasn't covered in the regulation. Shut down the oil field and the refinery, and you have an effective solution. An effective solution we are making no efforts to pursue. You'll know something has changed when the policy is no longer "extract all that can be extracted".
7952 12y ago
If you assume that the basic intent of human life is to grow population then we self organise very effectively. The only way we will ever make room for nature is if population growth becomes dependant on other forms of agriculture that do not need large amounts of land and sunlight.
angersock 12y ago
That quote is a perfect summation of all software engineering projects.
qq66 12y ago
Obligatory: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/01/why-john-j-mearsheimer-is-right-about-some-things/308839/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/01/why-john...

spodek 12y ago

Sounds like a Nash equilibrium. I think you're saying the path of using up non-renewable resources and maximally populating is a Nash equilibrium so stable we can't get out of it, I admit it could be a possibility.

Daishiman 12y ago

One of the purposes international treaties and organizations attempt to solve is this very coordination problem. The fact that such organizations have had a certain level of success as far as deweaponization (as far as biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons), commerce treaties, and pollution control guidelines means that a global framework for reducing carbon emissions and increasing land conservation efforts is possible. A minor example of this is the UNESCO World Heritage Sites, which have a certain protected legal standing, which has been fairly effective in its goal. Maritime laws and emissions control for large ships is another one where global legal frameworks have worked.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Brakenshire 12y ago
If you wanted coordinated global action on climate change, with teeth, you would make it a prerequisite of the trade treaties.
- Daishiman 12y ago
  We might be getting there, since the Chinese have most of the parts in place for a carbon tax framework. The only question is whether it's too little, too late.
graeme 12y ago
So far the emphasis has been on the wrong end --≥ final emissions. Don't get me wrong, those have to stop. But all current treaties, carbon taxes and unilateral actions have focussed on emissions from trackable sources. I think the only reliable way to stop emissions is to stop extraction at the source. So far, our global policy appears to be to extract every fossil fuel we can economically extract. At the other end, debates go on about whether to tax this emission or ban that emission. But there will always be leaks. Tax one type of emission, and fossil fuels will flow to other sources that aren't taxed. Markets are very good at this. Make it more expensive for a car to burn gasoline, the price of gas falls, and it becomes economical to use gas in some way that wasn't covered in the regulation. Shut down the oil field and the refinery, and you have an effective solution. An effective solution we are making no efforts to pursue. You'll know something has changed when the policy is no longer "extract all that can be extracted".

7952 12y ago

If you assume that the basic intent of human life is to grow population then we self organise very effectively. The only way we will ever make room for nature is if population growth becomes dependant on other forms of agriculture that do not need large amounts of land and sunlight.

angersock 12y ago

That quote is a perfect summation of all software engineering projects.

qq66 12y ago

Obligatory: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/01/why-john-j-mearsheimer-is-right-about-some-things/308839/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/01/why-john...