why communism has never worked and will never work, unless every individual is a "good actor" global corporatism, is almost the same as global communism, it will not work either, because everybody can see the system is riddled with bad actors, what we "need" is to teach people or some system to teach universal ethics and morality, but alas, one bad actor will exploit the entire globe if everybody is ethically "good" the problem you are referring to is "eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil" it is in Genesis.
@@leo-frank_was-guilty The point of the idea is that if your idea crumbles with one bad actor, you have a really poor idea. For example, that is why we have checks and balances in government (theoretically) to make this impossible. We have the executive, justice and military branches that are all independent so that the one bad actor problem doesn't happen.
@@theravenousrabbit3671 ...I appreciate that you said 'theoretically', though I'd say that the checks and balances are an official failure at this point. Once the 'bad actors' in each sector got together, they found out they only need to present themselves as separate entities to the people, when in reality they're working together behind the scenes. I found it said best as follows... "IN 1991, PERUVIAN NOVELIST MARIO VARGAS LLOSA scandalized the Mexican political establishment by describing Mexico as "the perfect dictatorship." "The perfect dictatorship is not communism, not the Soviet Union, not Cuba, but Mexico, because it is a camouflaged dictatorship," he argued. "It may not seem to be a dictatorship, but it has all of the characteristics of a dictatorship; the perpetuation, not of one person, but of an irremovable party, a party that allows sufficient space for criticism, provided such criticism serves to maintain the appearance of a democratic party, but which suppresses by all means, including the worst, whatever criticism may threaten its perpetuation in power.”" What Mario didn't realize... is it was never just Mexico.
@@theravenousrabbit3671 The three branches are: executive (POTUS), legislative (Congress) and judicial (SCOTUS). The military falls under the office of the presidency.
Instead of working together to protect everyone from the bear, we just accept that someone is going to die. So, we propetually try to outrun each other, hoping that we will live if we can just run faster than the others.
I guess the question becomes at a certain point: how do we ensure everyone is working together to neutralize the bear? Because, if we have say, 6 people and a pile of spears, we can all SEE the other 5 and the spears, we can pass the spears out, we can assume cooperation, even if one person runs we can kind of figure out what happened and that it wasn't malice and the other 4 can deal with the bear. But how do we do that as *countries*? Honestly though, the problem is that Russia (much more so than China) refuses to play by the rules and now they have successfully toppled the US government. Russia could have chosen to play by climate change. Russia could have chosen to play by international order. Either one of which would have offered better outcomes. Similarly, we could have properly opposed Russia (which would have been bad for the Russian people) when it became clear that they had no interest in playing by the rules and were instead angling to make climate change worse. But we didn't. So now the entire world will suffer. Because we cannot halt climate change under a global paradigm where the United States is no longer capable of halting the climate change coming from its territories.
@@petlahk4119 I think we could consider this the reaction side of things, so once the damage starts getting real, entire populations are displaced, food sources are scarce... then we start working harder on ensuring cooperation. It is a reaction to what happens. But until then, everything is in the future. The bear is something we have heard about but is technically, as far as our fear response is concerned, not chasing us yet.
Wrong analogy, it seems to me. There is no nonhuman 'monster' that is threatening us from which we are busy fleeing. We DO have powerful natural enemies (like viruses, microbes, etc., as well as vectors of disease like mosquitoes). We are also threatened by natural disasters of all kinds. But, instead of joining forces to be better prepared for such threats, we are busy wasting our energies and scarce resources trying to create trouble for each other, and/or trying to avoid (possible) harm by our enemies. In addition, many of us are also madly acquiring things that we don't really need, or, at any rate, things that would offer us no protection against our perennial non-human enemies.
The writer James Baldwin has a quote that has always resonated with me: "The world is held together, it really is held together, by the passion and love of a very few people."
@@Grimmlocked While I do agree with your comment to a fair degree, my comment still stands. Various Religions have existed for millennia, are here currently, and will continue to exist into the foreseeable future.
Two questions. Where does 'honor and integrity' come from, and if you don’t think there is a 'where', then why is the obvious fact not recognized, that cooperative effort is infinitely more productive for both parties than adversarial effort? Game theory fails to address what I would assume to be stunningly obvious to any sentient being. OK, a third question. Is it possible that the sentient beings walk among other beings that while being physically the same as the sentient, are actually the mere animals they say we all are?
@@OtterFlys From the code of chivalry is it viewed as a virtue. The point of chivalry is that two possibly dangerous individuals can be cordial to each other and avoid bloodshed. There are various ways that can lead two individuals into fights or worse. Examples include disagreements, arguments, insults, slights, dirty looks, jokes, humiliations, shaming, etc. Chivalry is a way to get men to work together by working aligning people to work together in a religious frame, where any man that acts dishonorable gets treated negatively until he lives up to standards of everyone else in the group. Women don't have chivalry. Women have a fear of male retaliation, which forces them to behave more passively if they want to get male cooperation.
the only way (well, with a reasonably honest government, the only way) that the rich get their money is providing something that the ordinary people want..
Says hes not gonna go into game theory and proceeds to deliver the most clear and applicable explanation of it ive heard in a while...snuck the learning right by me lol
How everyone that is against the current state of society/capitalism, should structure their daily routine/what their habits should ideally be, living trough the current societal lens, and an alternative to that, meaning; how should an anarchist live, knowing well, that they don’t fit into society nor want anything contributed to it, should we start a mass-evacuation from society into the wilderness or something?
Fossil fuel reliance vs sustainability timelines/concerns. Future of work, wages, and AI. Factory farming. The future of food supply and new outcry against harmful substances in food supply. Vaccines/RNA "vaccines"/gene therapies/naming conventions. Middle East/WW3 concerns. Ukraine/Russia/Germany(NordStream). CIA. Election. Duopoly. RFK/Gabbard/Musk/Trump collaboration. Snowden/Assange. Remaining hopeful/resilient in chaotic times/circumstances. Future of Game B/Converting Moloch.
Fossil fuel reliance vs sustainability timelines/concerns. Future of work, wages, and AI. Factory farming. The future of food supply and new outcry against harmful substances in food supply. Big Pharma. WEF. Middle East/WW3 concerns. Ukraine/Russia/Germany(NordStream). CIA. Election. Duopoly. RFK/Gabbard/Musk/Trump collaboration. Snowden/Assange. Remaining hopeful/resilient in chaotic times/circumstances. Future of Game B/Converting Moloch.
Fossil fuel reliance vs sustainability timelines/concerns. Future/timelines of work, wages, and AI. Factory farming. The future of food supply and new outcry against harmful substances in food supply. Health in USA. WHO. WEF. Petrodollar. Middle East/WW3 concerns. Ukraine/Russia/Germany(NordStream). CIA. Election. Duopoly. RFK/Gabbard/Musk/Trump collaboration. Snowden/Assange. Remaining hopeful/resilient in chaotic times/circumstances. Future of Game B/Converting Moloch. YT deleted my OG comment because is used a phrase that rhymes with "Dig Karma" and might make you think of needles. Oh...that reminds me: Censorship in the modern era.
honor and integrity are honor and integrity are not in the American Why of Dealing with People. Americans Lie, Murder, Steal and Rape Women & Children fot Amusemt @ElijahRadioProphet-d1s 0 seconds ago honor and integrity are not in the American Why of Dealing with People. Americans Lie, Murder, Steal and Rape Women & Children fot Amusemt
What is completely left out of kind of thinking is the dialectical forces in the systems we live in, in a material sense. There are clear objective economic laws which create the incentives for people with capital to act in the destructive way they do.
Because we live in a rational world. The culture is much less concerned with the why. Science is rooted in empirical evidence. Your subjective experience is not relevant in traditional science. Even though most societies throughout recorded history placed more value on our internal rather than the external.
@Pimpjit85 i dont know what your Point is. Im Not talking about subjective experience. Im talking about OBJECTIVE forces existing in Economy and society.
@TheLeftPath thanks for the clarification. Probably good to clarify what you mean by dialectical or use the term cirrectly. The term refers to several different things and the least common is OBJECTIVITY
@TheLeftPath yes, the key word being materialism. Just saying dialectics is vague. It just means you're curious about changing paradigms in a system. Not that your specifically focusing on the material changes. I'm not sure why you're so defensive given you obviously were unclear. It's fine. It's just youtube lol.
how is it that 'we' are still thinking that 'we' are creating a future...when we all know how narrowly wealth is concentrated world-wide?! and always has been.
the conflict between the poor & the rich has been professionally studied, & is well-documented; the moral: the poor win, because they vastly outnumber the rich; the problem is: there're many idiots out there, for whom this is too difficult to understand
We could boycott and stop using services that don't ultimately serve us, but we don't for reasons explained here. We would feel left behind and endangered if we stopped consuming the ways we expected to. It's all of our fault. People complain about climate change and pollution all while buying water in plastic bottles and running their air conditioning all summer long.
@@brushstroke3733 we don't decide how the water is packaged, nor obviously, whether we need it. we who lack resources, but need them, decide nothing! of course, we are free to starve to death, which is the only true basis of free will, but when it comes to survival, the elite decided our fate long ago and we only pretend to live in an autonomous here-and-now. wake up.
You may give up your agency but this is a decision you make every day. Go meet your neighbours. Organize work parties. Get shit done there is infinite work to do. Use your imaginations and create the future.
On the upside, almost all the conclusions are demonstrably false. While weapons research is a strategic endeavor that can be modelled by game theory, weapons development is driven by internal political concerns (Russia made weapons regardless of US action and China made no weapons for almost 40 years) ( The US developed hyper sonic weapons 40 years ago and built none). The tragedy of the commons is a cultural and moral failing not an inevitability (cultures with a longer time horizon last longer see native cultures globally). Game theory is a model mostly used to justify behavior and declare things inevitable instead of improving outcomes.
"Depressed about the election"?? Oh, you poor, poor creature...clearly, nobody has helped you understand...we're in a bioholographic simulation! It's all too easy to get deluded by it. Welcome to Earth!
@@SineEyed That's basically what Jesus did. But for we mortals if your enemy's response is to kill you, then you've started the process too late. A better analogy is if someone punches you out of anger, don't escalate. And of course there are always exceptions.
@@WestOfEarth someone punching you _might be_ your enemy, but that won't necessarily be the case all the time. And given that there are always exceptions, it seems to me that the concept of "love your enemy" is effectively incoherent..
@@SineEyed It's not incoherent. If one practices it, the very few exceptions can be identified...and it usually involves a failure to implement 'love they neighbor' at an earlier phase of interaction. It's challenging to follow what Jesus taught. Not going to lie. And few of us would walk willingly to our death to uphold the principle. But that does not mean it's not genius.
Game Theory doesn't account for unlevel playing fields and rigged outcomes. The world's problems flow from the same source and from Top on down. Trickle down corruption.
This Old Fool Is Wrong. John Nash invented Game Theory. A Brilliant Madness. The story of John Nash (2002) HD 140K views 7 years ago George Kalarritis, Clinical Psychologist A Brilliant Madness is the story of a mathematical genius whose career was cut short by a descent into madness. At the age of 30, ... 55:05 Now playing John Nash documentary ||A Brilliant Madness 1.8K views 4 years ago Anshul_K Singh---------------------------------------------------EAT A PEACH ALLMAND BROTHERS
There's one flaw in terms of "multipolar trap" - that every single participant of multipolar system acts alone and in the dark. Multipolar system's advantage is that participants keep each other in check from defecting and if there is a contract of some sort a multipolar system can ostracize the defector which in turn result in huge loss for defector. At the same time a single participant doesn't have to protect himself from all of the others if he upholds the agreements made previously. At the same time participant can still compete but in a more friendly way - you don't see football teams beating other teams up and killing them even though it would eliminate the other team from competition. Because all of the other teams keep each other in check.
Good, basic explanation. That is why power handling and power dynamics are critical, yet we scarcely see responsible individuals that wield it at any societal level.
This is one of the clearest and most articulate descriptions of the core problem facing world governments today. It's depressing, but it's also important for us to think about creative solutions for
I don't think like this nor do I think the majority of the world thinks like this. It's mostly just the west. We cannot be satisfied with a little less. We always want more and more and we step all over the whole world to get what we want. Because of this we are extremely paranoid and think "well if I didn't do it then everybody else will". No, not really, the problem is you.
That's probably why you're on the same social and economic plane as the political and business leaders in any country, right? It seems to me 3 billion people in China and India aren't any different from the west.
I would say this is the US mindset which the rest of the west sometimes have to follow if the US is involved. The rest of the world know the US thinks like this so they have to price in this expensive mindset.
Very cool title. Very cool observation. Daniel is very good at describing the problem at hand. I'd like to see him come up with Kobayashi Maru solutions. Ways to win a game where the only option is failure.
"The fundamental nature of physics and human psychology is such that people can only ever destroy themselves, and the species will never deserve to exist" is something I knew since I was a child, but having it explained so clearly and effectively sure does suck.
cynical much? There are far, far more good people in this world than creeps and criminals. The later get all the attention because of their atrocious behavior. Stop focusing on the creeps and criminals so much - ignore them as best you can and resist them where you can.
Neoliberalism is based on John Nash's game theory called "Fuck You, Buddy". That basically sums up the past 50 years. He later recanted that theory, claiming it to be wrong.
It's bizarre how we can see with certainty that the climate will change no matter what we do, but fail to see the obvious best use for our climate resources - to prepare for a warmer tomorrow and make that adjustment as nondestructive as possible. People are already doing it themselves! Organically collapsing fertility rates are doing more to ease our transition to a warmer future than any international accord has a a prayer of doing.
Coal plants are being built at the rate of one a week in China and one every 3 weeks in India, iirc You can bet in the years ahead that the electricity will be diverted to AI computing. Microsoft is already in process of reactivatingThree Mile Island nuke plant in the US
It's just a logical proposition between long term and short term. Typically on the long run you should never betray, typically be honorable, have integrity, be honest, reliable, and so on. In the short term, you should always betray because you don't know what tomorrow brings, you don't know what your opponent is up to, and if they were to choose to betray, then you'd hit the zero, which means you ded and they are then free to win forever because you lost. If the roles were reversed, you'd want to be the one that wins and lives on every time, so you set up to betray as a default, because you are not taking the long term in consideration at all. It's like interacting with a stranger as opposed to a loved one or a long term friend, there is no consequence for shafting a stranger, but there is when you shaft a friend. You lose future prospects of mutual benefits in both cases, but with a stranger, they were assumed as negligible to begin with. So the equilibrium is trust but verify or tit for tat with forgiveness. Meaning you should seek to reciprocate and cooperate as a baseline for interaction but you should do so in a smart way where you escalate the favors and build trust over time and whenever there is a betrayal, you stop and shift the approach until the other party has proven worthy of some level of trust again, where you can then build back up from where you left off. You can then see that in any kind of community, your literal best asset is how much other people trust you, because that's how often they are going to contribute with you and help you, also if you are a bad actor, they will try to take you off the board or starve you, that's why narcs and psycos are always extremely friendly and charismatic. The problem lies within the short term segment and people who do not consider long term to be relevant at all, we call those psychopaths and narcissists, their game is strictly limited to the short term, meaning they enter relationship with the idea to betray, that's they sole purpose for them, what can you do for me, what do you bring me, and it's perfectly logical too. If you knew when a game is going to end, say we play 100 turns of prisoner's dilemma then we tally the score and declare a winner, then you should betray on the last one, in order to win, however the other guy knows this so he should start betraying the second to last turn to counter. Repeat until you reach the start of the game, meaning you should betray on every single move of any game where the end of the game is already established. In a perfect world we'd be like, a 100 turn relationship, nice, let's both get 100 points then go our separate ways, but that's not what usually happens, because of the bad actor problem, you basically gave 100 ammo to someone who wants to steal your 100. So you can clearly see that if you both cooperate forever that's what generate the most wealth for both parties, however if you are worried that there is a bad actor, then you can't because that bad actor wants to end you and take your stuff, so it's in your absolute interest to keep him small and not allow him the resources necessary he needs to end you. It's very much akin to bankroll management in poker, you do not want to hit zero, it's critical failure, you will do everything in order to not hit that. Then there's this equilibrium with other poker players where if someone is really strong and a menace to your ability to win, then you want to go after him with everything you've got, at every turn, total all out war, because whenever you manage to take him off the board, then you feast. That's how bad actors operate and why you need to be careful with whom you associate with, that's why we write ridiculously ironclad contracts, because we expect that whatever loophole might be left, is going to be exploited, so there need be none left. It's the whole concept of why we lock our doors, it's to keep honest people honest, the dishonest ones will always find a way to go around the lock. That's why we have retaliation for, consequences to your action, so that we may take out the bad apples, otherwise the whole basket is going to rot. So that's why abuse is so prevalent and typically cannot be eradicated, because it's a perfectly logical behavior. Plus whenever there isn't enough for everyone, survival kicks in and all bets are off, the strongest will survive. We all revert back to betrayal as a default until there is enough for everyone, which happens by two ways, either spring comes in and winter ends or we eliminate enough actors that the resources left are enough. At best, you keep the monsters at bay, force them to bite their time, but you can't reform them, their nature is to be a monster, just like a tiger is a tiger, doesn't matter how friendly if you starve him long enough eventually you are looking like a snack. That's why even if we could create the perfect society, the perfect system, you'd still have those who just want to watch the world burns. Because in consciousness itself, the very act of separation, the act of creation, what created us all along with everything, is registered as a trauma, and if you don't deal with it or understand it, then you breed within yourself infinite resentment, you want the world to end so you can go back to the wonderful undifferentiated sleep you were snatched out of, which you didn't agree on to begin with. If you don't see that without separation, nothing can exist, then it is easy to fall into the trap of trauma, birth is the biggest trauma of all, biggest betrayal, mom pushed me out of her warm embrace into a cold world of suffering, how dare she. You didn't ask to be born, and yet, here you are, so make of it what you will, either way, it makes for a great experience. Cheerio!
I am not a game theorist. I have been writing about the criminality, costliness, and stupidity of antagonism among organized human societies since 1980. I did not give up. Some things are better today than in the '80s; but many other things are worse.
Clearly explained in a way that even those with ideological blinders on should find insightful. While some of our problems are probably what one would expect from a sentient species of apex predator primates only 10,000 generations down from the trees in the Rift Valley, the rest seem to be the side effects of the imperatives of economic survival in a fully financialized world of resource extraction, labor exploitation and profit & power maximization. Three doublings of total human population over the last 200 years has created a massive increase in resource provisioning demand that, seemingly, can only be met by a flat out, hypercompetitive utilization of the entire planetary commons. The daily provisioning requirement is so huge that no nation, no company and no producer/consumer can take more than a couple of days off, lest the entire civilizational system collapse under its own weight in a matter of weeks. Given this sobering reality, it is not surprising that increases in renewable energy have not caused a net reduction in the use of fossil fuels, for example. All societies everywhere want more of everything that can be produced, and all workers want a job that will facilitate maximum personal purchasing power. The trajectory is firmly established, economic systems require it, human nature will keep propelling it, and the catastrophic consequences are well known & reasonably predictable. We are like prophetic passengers on the Titanic who know in advance what the outcome will be but are powerless to get those in charge to slow down or the other passengers to take effective action. At this point the most practical course of action is probably to get a seat in a lifeboat or cobble together something that will float. Good luck!
Even a lowering of the amount of humans would not stop the trend, maybe only delay it. Not even considering the moral dilemma there who is allowed to have kids and who isn't to lower total population levels (even though in first world countries the trend goes down it undeniably goes up in 3rd world countries). We will not use less energy in the future. Energy (in the wieder sense, I also put natural resources into this definition) is power and progress and prosperity. To have more prosperity you need more energy. To deny that energy usage would mean to deny prosperity. Another moral dilemma, as climate change in the next 50 years will be determined by rising economy countries around the world where people are still poor with a low standard of living. As they industrialize they will use more energy, much more. The people living there will want to raise their standard of living. Those countries will resort to cheap, available and reliable production of energy, which is fossil fuels (always assume the worst, as was said here, it is a race and nobody wants to fall behind). Who's gonna deny them that? First world countries? It's literally reason for war or mass migration. People there will not care much about the world climate until their standard of living is high enough so they have the luxury to care about a bigger picture.
@@tiberius8390 Agree with everything you said but I think you need to caveat "progress and prospertity" or at least leave them open ended to be challenged. That's the promise and the bribe, but it is rarely fulfilled. I live in a third world "poor" country, my grandmother was a migrant from an arid rural region. There are certain immediate "benefits" but its no where near what the West/Asian tigers experienced when they made similar transitions, and the future prospects are bleak. The tradeoff in loss of food security, individual and community liberty and autonomy, culture etc is huge. All for what, now being "above $1 a day" and being able to afford cheap poison calories in an urban slum? I guess what I'm saying is that the trend and chase you describe is already coercive and violent to the poor. Shifting the incentives (no one is promoting population control or warring with third world countries to stop us from industrializing) would be no more "immoral" or coercive in my opinion. Give people a chance to weigh their options and build a future based in reality, not illusions and empty promises.
This is a great interview, and Daniel does a wonderful job of distilling complexity into simplicity (bravo!). While this in no way detracts from anything said, I did want to mention that there are some who do literally want climate change - the few who are set to (or think they will) profit from the exploitation of fossil fuels and minerals currently difficult to access due to ice, and religious extremists who believe that hastening the end of the world expedites their ascension into heaven (a surprisingly sizeable group in the USA).
Yup. I think we can eventually only survive with some way of alleviating mistrust completely. I hate to say it but its probably going to be some sort of neural product.
@@UA-camCensor When i say neural product im saying a micro chip like device that allows us to communicate at max efficiency. No more lying, teach eachother muscle memory, share memories and ideally eliminate misstrust. Genuinely dosnt seem out of reach within the next 20 30 years
I've recently discovered something to add to that, and it's the drive of humanity for a continuous desire for a Dopamine release (unconsciously) that drives the fear that you mentioned! I guess it might be better summarized as a fear of not being happy!??
@ Better said: the fear of ending what we know or the fear of changing. We always want to save and preserve the past without acknowledging the fact that future will continue that past. Once we throw away the past, future will be entirely new. Here is the key of fear, looked in the continuity of time. The greatest challenge is to perceive truth and act accordingly.
I was listening to a podcast about how we have AI and that with AI we can't stop it now. From what i observed it seems like there's two ways this goes down: one, if we stop all of our activity it'll help the earth but it'll be destruction for humanity. Or 2, we continue to progress down this path and imminent destruction is delayed. There could be a 3, but i feel that would take miracle to happen. Seeing the state humanity is in, we definitely on the latter because we cant stop this. In hinduism they say we live in the kali yuga, the age of darkness and deterioration. It most certainly is the kali yuga, you see it everywhere, rampant selfishness, moral deprivation, materialism, love of money and etc.
humanity would probably survive either scenario. its our civilisation that will die. I think that will come sooner than expected. And from the rubble we rise again And will probably do the same mistakes all over. This is what we have done again and again before. Its the greed, after a long enough time, the greed always destroys what it built.
The winners are those who can convince the right people that they have the solutions & thereby lay claim to the stolen money. Then when they fail, the excuse is always because they didn’t have enough money & power. Wash, rinse, repeat.
2 men are stuck in a cabin in the arctic waiting and hoping to be rescued. They split the food in half, what happens. One eats well while the other severely rations his food… who survives!? 😅 One gets stronger, the other weaker. The strong kills the weak and takes all three food for himself
@@d3j4v00this requires some goverance, and all govt is based on power, to equally distribute the food. And govt must be empowered by the governed to punish pilfering. This idea of self goverance based on punishment has long been accepted. Sailors adrift elect a leader to ration water. They give him the power to toss overboard anyone pilfering water. This is how a crisis is handled. The alternative is the strong man and his henchmen seize power and give themselves the bulk of the water.
Ideally you would prepare one meal at a time and share each meal equally. Don't divide the whole, divide each portion and keep the whole as a shared commodity.
@@ridethebeastwithinyoumaybe the answer is we aren't and the conclusion about game theory presented are demonstrably false. Weapons production is a function of internal politics (Russia produced nuclear weapons despite changes in US production, while China produced zero nuclear weapons for 40 years)(the US created hyper sonic weapons 40 years ago and built none). The tragedy of the commons is not inevitable, but a cultural and ethical failure of short lived societies (see native cultures specifically the management of communal hunting grounds in modern Kentucky). As to climate change, CO2 production can only be reduced through technological inovation or demand reduction. The latter can only be accomplished by preventing industrialization, which prevents all technological development, or depopulation (despite these restrictions per capita emissions have reduced by 40+% since 1970 populations have just increased). Game theory is mostly used to justify bad behavior and declare things are inevitable instead of a tool for producing better outcomes.
Game theory as presented here is a good framework for understanding people in situations where defecting can be rewarding for an individual. But what I think is missing is cultural context. Individuals from cultures where defecting is never praised probably won't defect as often. And the picture at 5:32 that appears to be from Central America is frankly irrelevant; Europeans didn't find a decimated environment when they came to the so-called New World. A discussion of Game theory would be more interesting with real world examples, like back when Iran agreed not to enrich Uranium under the JCPOA but then Trump broke the agreement.
@@breft3416 To start with, obsession with consumption is ultimately voluntary, no one forces us to buy more "stuff" and then dispose with it... Both material things and gadgets, but also entertainment...
Great analysis Daniel, I had a friend/neighbor called Daniel who I could never beat at Chess, the best I could do was draw! You are getting better at these analytical videos, like My friend, who also had a problem with drugs, please keep it together. I have shared your videos with my network, don’t worry people r changing their behaviour 2 protect the environment & their health, it needs more awareness raising etc Cheers 🥂
Game theory fails to address what I would assume to be stunningly obvious to any sentient being: that cooperative effort is infinitely better for both parties than adversarial effort. Is it possible not all men are sentient?
@ I’m pointing out what ought to be common sense, not a ‘secret' formula. I see plenty of ‘coordination' in this world and it’s mostly evil, so that alone is no answer. The monstrous machine coordinating the past 4 years ought to convince anyone able to reason. Can you explain what you mean by ‘coordination'?
EVERYTHING explains the Fermi Paradox. There is NO situation in which "vigorous interstellar commerce and diplomacy" is among the more probable outcomes. Fermi had no data, and his hypothesis was wrong. It happens.
The issue is a bit more basic, there is no shortage of planets with resources to create plant and life, but to reach intellegence of the Human brain could be incredibly rare, researches have found that it took over 1 million years and incredible levels of mutations to create our brains as it developed and changed over time from primitive apes. We as a Human species do not give respect to the incredible formation of our brains and the effort of nature, damage, disease, mutations to form what it is now. So that could really limit the formation of Alien life we can communicate with. Perhaps we are one of a kind, a freak of nature. Who knows. There is also a risk that out of the blue, something changes, a disease, a change in climate, food, something that reduces human brain capacity or function, and just as fast as humans rose to dominate Earth we could disappear. It's the amazing level of unknowns.
6:56 - not exactly, Russia benefits from CC. It's a modest stimulus (lower heating costs for more of their regions) and more crop yields from a longer growing season.
Cuz none of us have a choice in this this is all the 1% of the 1%. The word we is misused so many times it nauseates me. Politicians, media, all misuse the word as if we the collective middle class have any power to change anything.
we do but it takes organizing and collective action on scales we haven't seen in decades. A general strike to shut down world economies would force change, but game theory applies here as well. Most people are too scared to strike because they fear (rightfully) losing their homes and food security. Without mutual aid and support systems for strikers, this won't happen for a long time.
“Tiny margin” 200-Bill in profits in 2022 for oil companies. You can’t leave out greed. If it wasn’t for greed, shifting to solar would happen via fair tax revenues that support cities and individuals with shifting to renewables at large scale. And I loved the video… The other and most important topic missing, is likely the last we Weill address; trauma. Anyone who encourages others suffer so they can stay and grow rich, is in trauma response. If I can be the most powerful and richest person, then I’ll feel loved and seen. It’s really that simple. And the most difficult change us humans will make.
If you accept the loss, the whole destructive spiral stops. You just don’t play that game. You don’t try to correct or punish or try to stay ahead of others. In reality there’s no opponent. There’s no us and there’s no them. There’s no duality. Only flow of events, experiences. You don’t fear death. That’s the ultimate cure.
And yet, as humans, it’s demonstrably provable that we ALL do better thru cooperation. Basically, every tribe, every culture, is just a group of people who recognize they do better collectively than individually. The greatest sin of game theory is thinking the world is a zero sum game. Its not. Raising the minimum wage does NOT take money from others. It literally increases economic participation among the largest class of people, which enriches even those at the top. And yet conservatives treat it as if paying a worker an extra dollar will make them a dollar poorer. When we taxed the rich at a top rate of 93% we used that money to pay blue collar workers to build the interstate highway system. That 20 year infrastructure project enriched the working class, but it also permanently tripled the GDP of the entire nation thru creating new opportunities of economic growth. Today, we can not get conservatives to tax the one group that can most afford it, and so we can not build infrastructure that will actually create new wealth, so the rich are playing a zero sum economic game of taking ever more from the working class, rather than fuel growth by making a working class that can afford more. Our long term survival hinges on us seeing one another as a single tribe. Where only long term cooperation can sustain us all.
One must know the point of the game to win it. Nature likes deceit so that is what you should expect always. Once you understand there are consciousless psychopaths running the show you see the truth of this.
We British know who our masters are and we are loyal to our master no matter how many times they shit on us and betray us. We will still be that loving but abused Labrador 😢
It is interesting to me that one of the happiest married couples I know (and they have been together for 10+ years) have adopted the philosophy of Nihilism and they say that part is key to helping them stay sane in this world.
"No one wants climate change" hmm.. that makes the assumption that climate change is always bad. In the real world, there are trade-offs and climate change could be a net positive. Conversely, climate change could be a net negative, and yet the "fix" could be exceeding negative far outstripping doing nothing at all.
Yes, but could is putting it mildly. The current level of incompetent government is off the hook. The extremist groups are simply ignorant of what they are even asking. So all and any efforts must fail. And fail in human lives being the price. 2 points. 1 natural gas, if not used, is simply directed to a tower near the oil well and lit on fire. That fire will burn for the lifespan of the well. Yet anti natural gas is a thing. 2 1 million EVs on the road today will yield 1 million 1 thousand pound pieces of toxic garbage in 8 to 10 years. What was a toy for the wealthy will be very expensive for everyone very soon. Man made climate change is a HOAX. 🤔🤔🤔😜😜😜🐒🐒🐒😎😎😎
Thing is climate change dramatically increases the odds of extreme weather events, if you look at only that it's already obviously a good thing to fight climate change, let alone all the other bonuses for creating an economy not dependent on new goods from mostly untrustworthy other countries. Plus for most countries healthcare is one of the greatest expenses that will also go down with most climate change policies. Sure some parts are hard in the short term, but just about every policy that combats climate change will be a massive benefit in the long run
@basvriese1934 no you have been convinced by lies about weather events. Here is a fact it's been much warmer in the past. With lower co2 ppm. Warmer does not correlate with more intense or frequent storms. Co2 levels correlate with nothing. It's easier to correlate lower temperatures with volcanic activity than to correlate co2 with temperatures. This game is lost. The general population is not dumb enough to continue the fear propaganda. 🤔🤔🤔😜😜😜🐒🐒🐒😎😎😎
Not everyone sees that phrase the same. We can not agree on what it actually means for us, or where that change is coming from. We certain can not agree on what to do about it. and it's a problem what will likely tear us apart. We are not even allowed to speak openly about, it is a heavily censored and propagandized topic.
These scenarios are paradigm dependent. As long as the governing paradigm reigns, the preemptive race to the bottom will continue. As soon as a paradigm displacement occurs, attention is directed to the new field of play. The tendency remains, but the field changes; this would occur on grand scales with dramatic shifts in energy and resource access systems, for example, which could only bring the game to a halt when there is more availability than we could ever have an affect on....
This Old Fool Is Wrong. John Nash invented Game Theory. A Brilliant Madness. The story of John Nash (2002) HD 140K views 7 years ago George Kalarritis, Clinical Psychologist A Brilliant Madness is the story of a mathematical genius whose career was cut short by a descent into madness. At the age of 30, ... 55:05 Now playing John Nash documentary ||A Brilliant Madness 1.8K views 4 years ago Anshul_K Singh
Schmachtenberger strikes me as far too smart to not question the climate change bogeyman but maybe I'm giving too much credit -- wouldn't be the first time.
@@thejoelrooganexplosion2400 The fact that a detailed response would most likely get censored by YT, shows how suspicious the whole agenda is around that subject.
We need actors in power who can accept defeat on a specific aspect and then instruct their team to focus on how to turn strategic operations around, to address the issues. In other words, stick to the treaty, and honor the agreements, but seek other avenues to address the concerns when they do not suit your desires. Compromise.
People like him have none. Climate disruption will increase prices and the cost of doing things, moving away from fossil fuels will do the same. Decline and some level of collapse will simply happen. Therefore everyone will focus more on their basic interests. Hopefully, automation will also take jobs and one of the most common arguments for immigration away.
I checked the comments before I'm listening to the podcast because I'm just not in favor of gurus at this time of ascension. I believe we are all our own Guru. Yes we listen to others and glean information that we can use. I also will tell you that we're moving into the most glorious time in planetary history together around the world. I don't know what all this Doom and Gloom seems to be about but I'm not going there. I certainly believe that all of us get to agree to disagree. I'm just not having any of the Doom and Gloom because I know it is not the direction we're headed. Much joy and love to all
so you haven't done any studying on catastrophic and existential risks but you come to the conclusion the "doom and gloom" is not going to happen becuase of your biased intuition and naive optimism
I'm not a 'believer' in any religion, but I understand that is is something that nobody can get rid of. Complain all you want atheist, you will not stop religion, not at all. There is more going on in the universe than anyone thinks. You may not believe what they believe, but you will never stop them believing.... never.
This is also called the one bad actor problem... if your system can't deal with one bad actor then your system doesn't function.
why communism has never worked and will never work, unless every individual is a "good actor"
global corporatism, is almost the same as global communism, it will not work either, because everybody can see the system is riddled with bad actors,
what we "need" is to teach people or some system to teach universal ethics and morality, but alas, one bad actor will exploit the entire globe if everybody is ethically "good"
the problem you are referring to is "eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil" it is in Genesis.
One? lol
@@leo-frank_was-guilty The point of the idea is that if your idea crumbles with one bad actor, you have a really poor idea.
For example, that is why we have checks and balances in government (theoretically) to make this impossible.
We have the executive, justice and military branches that are all independent so that the one bad actor problem doesn't happen.
@@theravenousrabbit3671 ...I appreciate that you said 'theoretically', though I'd say that the checks and balances are an official failure at this point. Once the 'bad actors' in each sector got together, they found out they only need to present themselves as separate entities to the people, when in reality they're working together behind the scenes. I found it said best as follows...
"IN 1991, PERUVIAN NOVELIST MARIO VARGAS LLOSA scandalized the Mexican political establishment by describing Mexico as "the perfect dictatorship." "The perfect dictatorship is not communism, not the Soviet Union, not Cuba, but Mexico, because it is a camouflaged dictatorship," he argued. "It may not seem to be a dictatorship, but it has all of the characteristics of a dictatorship; the perpetuation, not of one person, but of an irremovable party, a party that allows sufficient space for criticism, provided such criticism serves to maintain the appearance of a democratic party, but which suppresses by all means, including the worst, whatever criticism may threaten its perpetuation in power.”"
What Mario didn't realize... is it was never just Mexico.
@@theravenousrabbit3671 The three branches are: executive (POTUS), legislative (Congress) and judicial (SCOTUS).
The military falls under the office of the presidency.
Instead of working together to protect everyone from the bear, we just accept that someone is going to die. So, we propetually try to outrun each other, hoping that we will live if we can just run faster than the others.
The Red Queen race happens more than we'd like to admit
I guess the question becomes at a certain point: how do we ensure everyone is working together to neutralize the bear?
Because, if we have say, 6 people and a pile of spears, we can all SEE the other 5 and the spears, we can pass the spears out, we can assume cooperation, even if one person runs we can kind of figure out what happened and that it wasn't malice and the other 4 can deal with the bear.
But how do we do that as *countries*?
Honestly though, the problem is that Russia (much more so than China) refuses to play by the rules and now they have successfully toppled the US government.
Russia could have chosen to play by climate change. Russia could have chosen to play by international order. Either one of which would have offered better outcomes.
Similarly, we could have properly opposed Russia (which would have been bad for the Russian people) when it became clear that they had no interest in playing by the rules and were instead angling to make climate change worse. But we didn't.
So now the entire world will suffer.
Because we cannot halt climate change under a global paradigm where the United States is no longer capable of halting the climate change coming from its territories.
@@petlahk4119 I think we could consider this the reaction side of things, so once the damage starts getting real, entire populations are displaced, food sources are scarce... then we start working harder on ensuring cooperation. It is a reaction to what happens. But until then, everything is in the future. The bear is something we have heard about but is technically, as far as our fear response is concerned, not chasing us yet.
... only there is nowhere to run this time ... well, if you do not own a mega yacht plus shadow fleet, that is 😂😂😂
Wrong analogy, it seems to me. There is no nonhuman 'monster' that is threatening us from which we are busy fleeing. We DO have powerful natural enemies (like viruses, microbes, etc., as well as vectors of disease like mosquitoes). We are also threatened by natural disasters of all kinds. But, instead of joining forces to be better prepared for such threats, we are busy wasting our energies and scarce resources trying to create trouble for each other, and/or trying to avoid (possible) harm by our enemies. In addition, many of us are also madly acquiring things that we don't really need, or, at any rate, things that would offer us no protection against our perennial non-human enemies.
This method of thinking is so alien to me. I always struggled to comprehend why many act the way they do, but this explains it well. thanks.
he totally left out the religious aspect of it. obviously, i dont know if that was intentional or not.
The writer James Baldwin has a quote that has always resonated with me:
"The world is held together, it really is held together, by the passion and love of a very few people."
it helps if you play crusader kings, that game will turn you into a psychopathic narcassist within a few playthroughs.
@@Gizziiusareligion is just a justification for things people wanted to do anyway post action
@@Grimmlocked While I do agree with your comment to a fair degree, my comment still stands.
Various Religions have existed for millennia, are here currently, and will continue to exist into the foreseeable future.
This is why honor and integrity are so important.
The problem is the world runs on loyalty and forgives breaking the other 2 in exchange for not doing it to the group we are loyal to.
It doesn't work well in the social world, where people are trying to be liked more than being moral.
Women in the workplace/politics do not help us with this aspect.
Two questions. Where does 'honor and integrity' come from, and if you don’t think there is a 'where', then why is the obvious fact not recognized, that cooperative effort is infinitely more productive for both parties than adversarial effort? Game theory fails to address what I would assume to be stunningly obvious to any sentient being.
OK, a third question. Is it possible that the sentient beings walk among other beings that while being physically the same as the sentient, are actually the mere animals they say we all are?
@@OtterFlys From the code of chivalry is it viewed as a virtue. The point of chivalry is that two possibly dangerous individuals can be cordial to each other and avoid bloodshed.
There are various ways that can lead two individuals into fights or worse. Examples include disagreements, arguments, insults, slights, dirty looks, jokes, humiliations, shaming, etc.
Chivalry is a way to get men to work together by working aligning people to work together in a religious frame, where any man that acts dishonorable gets treated negatively until he lives up to standards of everyone else in the group.
Women don't have chivalry. Women have a fear of male retaliation, which forces them to behave more passively if they want to get male cooperation.
Why nobody wants? Super rich people want, we creating future for them not for ordinary people.
109 countries
the only way (well, with a reasonably honest government, the only way) that the rich get their money is providing something that the ordinary people want..
@@wynnschaible Or monopolising what they need
@@czarkusa2018 Like access to hundreds of readers on social media?
The rich think they want it, but find me a rich person thst is satisfied with their wealth. All they do is complain.
Says hes not gonna go into game theory and proceeds to deliver the most clear and applicable explanation of it ive heard in a while...snuck the learning right by me lol
Makes ya wonder what the long version is?
The first podcast with Daniel Schmachtenberger was absolutely brilliant. I want to do another one with him. What topics should we cover?
How an ideal society should be structured (in detail)
How everyone that is against the current state of society/capitalism, should structure their daily routine/what their habits should ideally be, living trough the current societal lens, and an alternative to that, meaning; how should an anarchist live, knowing well, that they don’t fit into society nor want anything contributed to it, should we start a mass-evacuation from society into the wilderness or something?
Fossil fuel reliance vs sustainability timelines/concerns. Future of work, wages, and AI. Factory farming. The future of food supply and new outcry against harmful substances in food supply. Vaccines/RNA "vaccines"/gene therapies/naming conventions. Middle East/WW3 concerns. Ukraine/Russia/Germany(NordStream). CIA. Election. Duopoly. RFK/Gabbard/Musk/Trump collaboration. Snowden/Assange. Remaining hopeful/resilient in chaotic times/circumstances. Future of Game B/Converting Moloch.
Fossil fuel reliance vs sustainability timelines/concerns. Future of work, wages, and AI. Factory farming. The future of food supply and new outcry against harmful substances in food supply. Big Pharma. WEF. Middle East/WW3 concerns. Ukraine/Russia/Germany(NordStream). CIA. Election. Duopoly. RFK/Gabbard/Musk/Trump collaboration. Snowden/Assange. Remaining hopeful/resilient in chaotic times/circumstances. Future of Game B/Converting Moloch.
Fossil fuel reliance vs sustainability timelines/concerns. Future/timelines of work, wages, and AI. Factory farming. The future of food supply and new outcry against harmful substances in food supply. Health in USA. WHO. WEF. Petrodollar. Middle East/WW3 concerns. Ukraine/Russia/Germany(NordStream). CIA. Election. Duopoly. RFK/Gabbard/Musk/Trump collaboration. Snowden/Assange. Remaining hopeful/resilient in chaotic times/circumstances. Future of Game B/Converting Moloch. YT deleted my OG comment because is used a phrase that rhymes with "Dig Karma" and might make you think of needles. Oh...that reminds me: Censorship in the modern era.
Yes, it's like we opt for worst case scenario by default
honor and integrity are honor and integrity are not in the American Why of Dealing with People.
Americans Lie, Murder, Steal and Rape Women & Children fot Amusemt
@ElijahRadioProphet-d1s
0 seconds ago
honor and integrity are not in the American Why of Dealing with People.
Americans Lie, Murder, Steal and Rape Women & Children fot Amusemt
The best case doesn't kill us.
What is completely left out of kind of thinking is the dialectical forces in the systems we live in, in a material sense. There are clear objective economic laws which create the incentives for people with capital to act in the destructive way they do.
Because we live in a rational world. The culture is much less concerned with the why. Science is rooted in empirical evidence. Your subjective experience is not relevant in traditional science. Even though most societies throughout recorded history placed more value on our internal rather than the external.
@Pimpjit85 i dont know what your Point is. Im Not talking about subjective experience. Im talking about OBJECTIVE forces existing in Economy and society.
@TheLeftPath thanks for the clarification. Probably good to clarify what you mean by dialectical or use the term cirrectly. The term refers to several different things and the least common is OBJECTIVITY
@@Pimpjit85 uhm... Ever Heard of dialectical Materialism?
@TheLeftPath yes, the key word being materialism. Just saying dialectics is vague. It just means you're curious about changing paradigms in a system. Not that your specifically focusing on the material changes.
I'm not sure why you're so defensive given you obviously were unclear. It's fine. It's just youtube lol.
how is it that 'we' are still thinking that 'we' are creating a future...when we all know how narrowly wealth is concentrated world-wide?! and always has been.
the conflict between the poor & the rich has been professionally studied, & is well-documented;
the moral: the poor win, because they vastly outnumber the rich;
the problem is: there're many idiots out there, for whom this is too difficult to understand
We could boycott and stop using services that don't ultimately serve us, but we don't for reasons explained here. We would feel left behind and endangered if we stopped consuming the ways we expected to. It's all of our fault. People complain about climate change and pollution all while buying water in plastic bottles and running their air conditioning all summer long.
@@brushstroke3733 we don't decide how the water is packaged, nor obviously, whether we need it. we who lack resources, but need them, decide nothing! of course, we are free to starve to death, which is the only true basis of free will, but when it comes to survival, the elite decided our fate long ago and we only pretend to live in an autonomous here-and-now. wake up.
You may give up your agency but this is a decision you make every day. Go meet your neighbours. Organize work parties. Get shit done there is infinite work to do. Use your imaginations and create the future.
We sleep, They live.
I want a future where you are the real Santa Claus.
Oh great, I wake up depressed about the election and potential layoffs at work, take the day off, and now I watch this to cement it all in my mind.
The only question is, what are you going to do about it?
On the upside, almost all the conclusions are demonstrably false. While weapons research is a strategic endeavor that can be modelled by game theory, weapons development is driven by internal political concerns (Russia made weapons regardless of US action and China made no weapons for almost 40 years) ( The US developed hyper sonic weapons 40 years ago and built none). The tragedy of the commons is a cultural and moral failing not an inevitability (cultures with a longer time horizon last longer see native cultures globally). Game theory is a model mostly used to justify behavior and declare things inevitable instead of improving outcomes.
It's Over.
Just be glad you are one who sees it, rather than the mass playing out game theories.
"Depressed about the election"??
Oh, you poor, poor creature...clearly, nobody has helped you understand...we're in a bioholographic simulation! It's all too easy to get deluded by it. Welcome to Earth!
This is why loving your enemy is genius.
Indeed. We've known this philosophy, this teaching, for at least 2000 years, and yet we've only been able to implement it on limited scales.
Getting killed by your enemy when you go to give him a hug, is _not_ genius... in my opinion..
@@SineEyed That's basically what Jesus did. But for we mortals if your enemy's response is to kill you, then you've started the process too late.
A better analogy is if someone punches you out of anger, don't escalate.
And of course there are always exceptions.
@@WestOfEarth someone punching you _might be_ your enemy, but that won't necessarily be the case all the time. And given that there are always exceptions, it seems to me that the concept of "love your enemy" is effectively incoherent..
@@SineEyed It's not incoherent. If one practices it, the very few exceptions can be identified...and it usually involves a failure to implement 'love they neighbor' at an earlier phase of interaction.
It's challenging to follow what Jesus taught. Not going to lie. And few of us would walk willingly to our death to uphold the principle.
But that does not mean it's not genius.
Game Theory doesn't account for unlevel playing fields and rigged outcomes. The world's problems flow from the same source and from Top on down. Trickle down corruption.
This Old Fool Is Wrong. John Nash invented Game Theory.
A Brilliant Madness. The story of John Nash (2002) HD
140K views 7 years ago
George Kalarritis, Clinical Psychologist
A Brilliant Madness is the story of a mathematical genius whose career was cut short by a descent into madness. At the age of 30, ...
55:05
Now playing
John Nash documentary ||A Brilliant Madness
1.8K views 4 years ago
Anshul_K Singh---------------------------------------------------EAT A PEACH ALLMAND BROTHERS
@@ElijahRadioProphet-d1s: Thanks! When time permits I'll look into it.
@@ElijahRadioProphet-d1s Nash didn't invent Game Theory. He invented a solution to certain types of game theoretical scenarios. (Nash equilibrium)
@@Aktentasche1correct
game theory does account for it - you have to build it into the game
There's one flaw in terms of "multipolar trap" - that every single participant of multipolar system acts alone and in the dark. Multipolar system's advantage is that participants keep each other in check from defecting and if there is a contract of some sort a multipolar system can ostracize the defector which in turn result in huge loss for defector. At the same time a single participant doesn't have to protect himself from all of the others if he upholds the agreements made previously. At the same time participant can still compete but in a more friendly way - you don't see football teams beating other teams up and killing them even though it would eliminate the other team from competition. Because all of the other teams keep each other in check.
Yes, in other words the fear of retribution from defection has to be greater than the gain from defection and getting away with it.
Thanks!
Good, basic explanation. That is why power handling and power dynamics are critical, yet we scarcely see responsible individuals that wield it at any societal level.
One could argue if people were truly wicked, it would be worse.
This is one of the clearest and most articulate descriptions of the core problem facing world governments today. It's depressing, but it's also important for us to think about creative solutions for
I don't think like this nor do I think the majority of the world thinks like this. It's mostly just the west. We cannot be satisfied with a little less. We always want more and more and we step all over the whole world to get what we want. Because of this we are extremely paranoid and think "well if I didn't do it then everybody else will". No, not really, the problem is you.
Excellent comment.
"But, I want one!" squeals the consumer.
Throw-away children, pets, elders rotting in the throw-away piles.
"Onto the next one!"
😢
That's probably why you're on the same social and economic plane as the political and business leaders in any country, right? It seems to me 3 billion people in China and India aren't any different from the west.
which significant part of the world does not operate like this exactly?
He is describing sociopathy most people are not sociopathic but governments and corporations tend to be
I would say this is the US mindset which the rest of the west sometimes have to follow if the US is involved. The rest of the world know the US thinks like this so they have to price in this expensive mindset.
Very cool title. Very cool observation. Daniel is very good at describing the problem at hand. I'd like to see him come up with Kobayashi Maru solutions. Ways to win a game where the only option is failure.
The only way to win a Kobayashi Maru is to cheat.
@@purpleglitter9596So you lose. Big deal. No shame in losing a stupid game and missing out on stupid prizes.
Like Mark Twain said, "God made the monkey cause he was disappointed in man."
We evolved from monkeys
"The fundamental nature of physics and human psychology is such that people can only ever destroy themselves, and the species will never deserve to exist" is something I knew since I was a child, but having it explained so clearly and effectively sure does suck.
World ruled by psychos, criminal hackers, chaos of cashless, no trees, robots, controlled cities; definetely hell.
The checks and balances that were created to keep these people away was slowly eroded, mostly thanks to, funnily, female suffrage.
Greed is our God.
@@pinklefooDon't forget Aggression.
cynical much? There are far, far more good people in this world than creeps and criminals. The later get all the attention because of their atrocious behavior. Stop focusing on the creeps and criminals so much - ignore them as best you can and resist them where you can.
@@craigwillms61 That is not true at all. People, given the chance, will always do what is best for them unless their choice is very public.
The comment section alone is proof of why.
Neoliberalism is based on John Nash's game theory called "Fuck You, Buddy". That basically sums up the past 50 years. He later recanted that theory, claiming it to be wrong.
You had me dying laughing with that "Fuck You Buddy" comment! Thanks for the laugh! As much as I appreciate the laughing, you're right!
In the following years, we will look back fondly at the mostly stable and peaceful neoliberal years. We dont appreciate what we have until its gone.
Maybe we will wake up one day and realize it's not a game.
Oh this is definitely a game where everyone dies.
good luck with that after humans choosing to enable the worst of us since the first human decided exploitation was the way to go.
The Tragedy of the Commons appears to apply to the clash between immediate self-interests and local community activism here in Japan too.
It's bizarre how we can see with certainty that the climate will change no matter what we do, but fail to see the obvious best use for our climate resources - to prepare for a warmer tomorrow and make that adjustment as nondestructive as possible. People are already doing it themselves! Organically collapsing fertility rates are doing more to ease our transition to a warmer future than any international accord has a a prayer of doing.
Coal plants are being built at the rate of one a week in China and one every 3 weeks in India, iirc
You can bet in the years ahead that the electricity will be diverted to AI computing.
Microsoft is already in process of reactivatingThree Mile Island nuke plant in the US
It also collapses the economic ability of virtually every first world nation.
As Chernobyl has shown us nuclear meltdown is better for the environment than human beings living in it.
@dallanledford6364 The WORLD is here for us. All of us.
@@dallanledford6364 So true!
It's just a logical proposition between long term and short term. Typically on the long run you should never betray, typically be honorable, have integrity, be honest, reliable, and so on. In the short term, you should always betray because you don't know what tomorrow brings, you don't know what your opponent is up to, and if they were to choose to betray, then you'd hit the zero, which means you ded and they are then free to win forever because you lost. If the roles were reversed, you'd want to be the one that wins and lives on every time, so you set up to betray as a default, because you are not taking the long term in consideration at all. It's like interacting with a stranger as opposed to a loved one or a long term friend, there is no consequence for shafting a stranger, but there is when you shaft a friend. You lose future prospects of mutual benefits in both cases, but with a stranger, they were assumed as negligible to begin with. So the equilibrium is trust but verify or tit for tat with forgiveness. Meaning you should seek to reciprocate and cooperate as a baseline for interaction but you should do so in a smart way where you escalate the favors and build trust over time and whenever there is a betrayal, you stop and shift the approach until the other party has proven worthy of some level of trust again, where you can then build back up from where you left off. You can then see that in any kind of community, your literal best asset is how much other people trust you, because that's how often they are going to contribute with you and help you, also if you are a bad actor, they will try to take you off the board or starve you, that's why narcs and psycos are always extremely friendly and charismatic.
The problem lies within the short term segment and people who do not consider long term to be relevant at all, we call those psychopaths and narcissists, their game is strictly limited to the short term, meaning they enter relationship with the idea to betray, that's they sole purpose for them, what can you do for me, what do you bring me, and it's perfectly logical too. If you knew when a game is going to end, say we play 100 turns of prisoner's dilemma then we tally the score and declare a winner, then you should betray on the last one, in order to win, however the other guy knows this so he should start betraying the second to last turn to counter. Repeat until you reach the start of the game, meaning you should betray on every single move of any game where the end of the game is already established. In a perfect world we'd be like, a 100 turn relationship, nice, let's both get 100 points then go our separate ways, but that's not what usually happens, because of the bad actor problem, you basically gave 100 ammo to someone who wants to steal your 100.
So you can clearly see that if you both cooperate forever that's what generate the most wealth for both parties, however if you are worried that there is a bad actor, then you can't because that bad actor wants to end you and take your stuff, so it's in your absolute interest to keep him small and not allow him the resources necessary he needs to end you. It's very much akin to bankroll management in poker, you do not want to hit zero, it's critical failure, you will do everything in order to not hit that. Then there's this equilibrium with other poker players where if someone is really strong and a menace to your ability to win, then you want to go after him with everything you've got, at every turn, total all out war, because whenever you manage to take him off the board, then you feast. That's how bad actors operate and why you need to be careful with whom you associate with, that's why we write ridiculously ironclad contracts, because we expect that whatever loophole might be left, is going to be exploited, so there need be none left. It's the whole concept of why we lock our doors, it's to keep honest people honest, the dishonest ones will always find a way to go around the lock. That's why we have retaliation for, consequences to your action, so that we may take out the bad apples, otherwise the whole basket is going to rot.
So that's why abuse is so prevalent and typically cannot be eradicated, because it's a perfectly logical behavior. Plus whenever there isn't enough for everyone, survival kicks in and all bets are off, the strongest will survive. We all revert back to betrayal as a default until there is enough for everyone, which happens by two ways, either spring comes in and winter ends or we eliminate enough actors that the resources left are enough.
At best, you keep the monsters at bay, force them to bite their time, but you can't reform them, their nature is to be a monster, just like a tiger is a tiger, doesn't matter how friendly if you starve him long enough eventually you are looking like a snack. That's why even if we could create the perfect society, the perfect system, you'd still have those who just want to watch the world burns. Because in consciousness itself, the very act of separation, the act of creation, what created us all along with everything, is registered as a trauma, and if you don't deal with it or understand it, then you breed within yourself infinite resentment, you want the world to end so you can go back to the wonderful undifferentiated sleep you were snatched out of, which you didn't agree on to begin with. If you don't see that without separation, nothing can exist, then it is easy to fall into the trap of trauma, birth is the biggest trauma of all, biggest betrayal, mom pushed me out of her warm embrace into a cold world of suffering, how dare she. You didn't ask to be born, and yet, here you are, so make of it what you will, either way, it makes for a great experience. Cheerio!
Thanks for the great write up. Saved it for my notes ;)
I am not a game theorist. I have been writing about the criminality, costliness, and stupidity of antagonism among organized human societies since 1980. I did not give up. Some things are better today than in the '80s; but many other things are worse.
Clearly explained in a way that even those with ideological blinders on should find insightful.
While some of our problems are probably what one would expect from a sentient species of apex predator primates only 10,000 generations down from the trees in the Rift Valley, the rest seem to be the side effects of the imperatives of economic survival in a fully financialized world of resource extraction, labor exploitation and profit & power maximization.
Three doublings of total human population over the last 200 years has created a massive increase in resource provisioning demand that, seemingly, can only be met by a flat out, hypercompetitive utilization of the entire planetary commons. The daily provisioning requirement is so huge that no nation, no company and no producer/consumer can take more than a couple of days off, lest the entire civilizational system collapse under its own weight in a matter of weeks.
Given this sobering reality, it is not surprising that increases in renewable energy have not caused a net reduction in the use of fossil fuels, for example. All societies everywhere want more of everything that can be produced, and all workers want a job that will facilitate maximum personal purchasing power. The trajectory is firmly established, economic systems require it, human nature will keep propelling it, and the catastrophic consequences are well known & reasonably predictable.
We are like prophetic passengers on the Titanic who know in advance what the outcome will be but are powerless to get those in charge to slow down or the other passengers to take effective action. At this point the most practical course of action is probably to get a seat in a lifeboat or cobble together something that will float. Good luck!
Even a lowering of the amount of humans would not stop the trend, maybe only delay it. Not even considering the moral dilemma there who is allowed to have kids and who isn't to lower total population levels (even though in first world countries the trend goes down it undeniably goes up in 3rd world countries).
We will not use less energy in the future. Energy (in the wieder sense, I also put natural resources into this definition) is power and progress and prosperity. To have more prosperity you need more energy. To deny that energy usage would mean to deny prosperity. Another moral dilemma, as climate change in the next 50 years will be determined by rising economy countries around the world where people are still poor with a low standard of living. As they industrialize they will use more energy, much more. The people living there will want to raise their standard of living. Those countries will resort to cheap, available and reliable production of energy, which is fossil fuels (always assume the worst, as was said here, it is a race and nobody wants to fall behind). Who's gonna deny them that? First world countries? It's literally reason for war or mass migration. People there will not care much about the world climate until their standard of living is high enough so they have the luxury to care about a bigger picture.
@@tiberius8390 Agree with everything you said but I think you need to caveat "progress and prospertity" or at least leave them open ended to be challenged. That's the promise and the bribe, but it is rarely fulfilled. I live in a third world "poor" country, my grandmother was a migrant from an arid rural region. There are certain immediate "benefits" but its no where near what the West/Asian tigers experienced when they made similar transitions, and the future prospects are bleak. The tradeoff in loss of food security, individual and community liberty and autonomy, culture etc is huge. All for what, now being "above $1 a day" and being able to afford cheap poison calories in an urban slum? I guess what I'm saying is that the trend and chase you describe is already coercive and violent to the poor. Shifting the incentives (no one is promoting population control or warring with third world countries to stop us from industrializing) would be no more "immoral" or coercive in my opinion. Give people a chance to weigh their options and build a future based in reality, not illusions and empty promises.
I'm reminded of the "lower level of existence" spoken about by the Architect in the 3rd Matrix movie.
Economics is very simple.
Get millions of people to work hard for nothing and take that too.
WAKE UP
just be happy man...and eat yer bugs.
@@generator6946
"Who is that?"
"I don't know, he must be a king"
"How do you know?"
"Cause he hasn't got shit all over him."
-Monty Python
Economics is rational thinking applied to human activities. It is neither good nor evil.
This is a great interview, and Daniel does a wonderful job of distilling complexity into simplicity (bravo!). While this in no way detracts from anything said, I did want to mention that there are some who do literally want climate change - the few who are set to (or think they will) profit from the exploitation of fossil fuels and minerals currently difficult to access due to ice, and religious extremists who believe that hastening the end of the world expedites their ascension into heaven (a surprisingly sizeable group in the USA).
My takeaway: we recognize that our perceived separation is an illusion, or we perish.
Yup. I think we can eventually only survive with some way of alleviating mistrust completely. I hate to say it but its probably going to be some sort of neural product.
How will that happen when we live in Idiocracy?
@@DungeonKeys F that noise. Succumbing to an illusion dispels it? 👎
@@NashHinton Is it not the case that symptoms grow until the underlying issue is addressed?
@@UA-camCensor When i say neural product im saying a micro chip like device that allows us to communicate at max efficiency. No more lying, teach eachother muscle memory, share memories and ideally eliminate misstrust. Genuinely dosnt seem out of reach within the next 20 30 years
Fear is the fuel that drives our maladaptive behavior.
I've recently discovered something to add to that, and it's the drive of humanity for a continuous desire for a Dopamine release (unconsciously) that drives the fear that you mentioned! I guess it might be better summarized as a fear of not being happy!??
@ Better said: the fear of ending what we know or the fear of changing. We always want to save and preserve the past without acknowledging the fact that future will continue that past. Once we throw away the past, future will be entirely new. Here is the key of fear, looked in the continuity of time. The greatest challenge is to perceive truth and act accordingly.
Billionaires want it.
game theory doesn't only apply to billionaires, did you watch the video?
I was listening to a podcast about how we have AI and that with AI we can't stop it now. From what i observed it seems like there's two ways this goes down: one, if we stop all of our activity it'll help the earth but it'll be destruction for humanity. Or 2, we continue to progress down this path and imminent destruction is delayed. There could be a 3, but i feel that would take miracle to happen. Seeing the state humanity is in, we definitely on the latter because we cant stop this. In hinduism they say we live in the kali yuga, the age of darkness and deterioration. It most certainly is the kali yuga, you see it everywhere, rampant selfishness, moral deprivation, materialism, love of money and etc.
humanity would probably survive either scenario.
its our civilisation that will die.
I think that will come sooner than expected.
And from the rubble we rise again
And will probably do the same mistakes all over.
This is what we have done again and again before.
Its the greed, after a long enough time, the greed always destroys
what it built.
The best description for what we have now is "Potemkin AI". It's just a facade.
It's a sad world we live in.
Not everyone thinks that the harm of climate change is worse than the improvement of life that comes with the consumption of energy.
💯
Those people are fools then.
The winners are those who can convince the right people that they have the solutions & thereby lay claim to the stolen money. Then when they fail, the excuse is always because they didn’t have enough money & power. Wash, rinse, repeat.
2 men are stuck in a cabin in the arctic waiting and hoping to be rescued. They split the food in half, what happens. One eats well while the other severely rations his food… who survives!? 😅 One gets stronger, the other weaker. The strong kills the weak and takes all three food for himself
Nice summation of the Max Power Principle. This is why it's easier for systems to optimize for power rather than for efficiency or energy.
possible solutions: don't divide the food.
divide the food but don't eat it yourself, feed each other.
@@d3j4v00this requires some goverance, and all govt is based on power, to equally distribute the food. And govt must be empowered by the governed to punish pilfering. This idea of self goverance based on punishment has long been accepted. Sailors adrift elect a leader to ration water. They give him the power to toss overboard anyone pilfering water. This is how a crisis is handled. The alternative is the strong man and his henchmen seize power and give themselves the bulk of the water.
@@d3j4v00Place the food in a hidden location and only bring it out in equal quantities when it’s time to eat
Ideally you would prepare one meal at a time and share each meal equally. Don't divide the whole, divide each portion and keep the whole as a shared commodity.
One of the best videos I've seen in ages
I would really love to hear you talk to The New Enlightenment With Ashley (Ashley Hodgson).
This explains why honest people always lose and the worst of us ends up on top. Humanity sucks.
Why We're Creating a Future That Nobody Wants!!! the 64 trillion-dollar question!
@@ridethebeastwithinyoumaybe the answer is we aren't and the conclusion about game theory presented are demonstrably false. Weapons production is a function of internal politics (Russia produced nuclear weapons despite changes in US production, while China produced zero nuclear weapons for 40 years)(the US created hyper sonic weapons 40 years ago and built none). The tragedy of the commons is not inevitable, but a cultural and ethical failure of short lived societies (see native cultures specifically the management of communal hunting grounds in modern Kentucky). As to climate change, CO2 production can only be reduced through technological inovation or demand reduction. The latter can only be accomplished by preventing industrialization, which prevents all technological development, or depopulation (despite these restrictions per capita emissions have reduced by 40+% since 1970 populations have just increased). Game theory is mostly used to justify bad behavior and declare things are inevitable instead of a tool for producing better outcomes.
Fantastic video - so clearly explained
Game theory as presented here is a good framework for understanding people in situations where defecting can be rewarding for an individual. But what I think is missing is cultural context. Individuals from cultures where defecting is never praised probably won't defect as often. And the picture at 5:32 that appears to be from Central America is frankly irrelevant; Europeans didn't find a decimated environment when they came to the so-called New World. A discussion of Game theory would be more interesting with real world examples, like back when Iran agreed not to enrich Uranium under the JCPOA but then Trump broke the agreement.
1:41 remind me of the dark knight when Joker pits regular people vs prisoners to see who will do the right thing or who will sacrifice the other group
We are all willing accomplices... the idea that 8 billion humans will make "Sane Assessment" is itself insane...😢
Tell me how people given no choice are willing accomplices?
@@breft3416 To start with, obsession with consumption is ultimately voluntary, no one forces us to buy more "stuff" and then dispose with it... Both material things and gadgets, but also entertainment...
@@airrik2653sounds like we’re cattle, not rational actors
Great analysis Daniel, I had a friend/neighbor called Daniel who I could never beat at Chess, the best I could do was draw!
You are getting better at these analytical videos, like My friend, who also had a problem with drugs, please keep it together. I have shared your videos with my network, don’t worry people r changing their behaviour 2 protect the environment & their health, it needs more awareness raising etc Cheers 🥂
Game theory fails to address what I would assume to be stunningly obvious to any sentient being: that cooperative effort is infinitely better for both parties than adversarial effort. Is it possible not all men are sentient?
It _does_ address it though. It’s called coordination. If you have a better theory, feel free to publish and we’ll be hearing about you
@ I’m pointing out what ought to be common sense, not a ‘secret' formula. I see plenty of ‘coordination' in this world and it’s mostly evil, so that alone is no answer. The monstrous machine coordinating the past 4 years ought to convince anyone able to reason. Can you explain what you mean by ‘coordination'?
@@OtterFlys I don’t have to explain it to you. You should understand a theory before looking to poke holes in it. Good luck
@@fr5229 As Feynman once said! 'If you can’t explain your theory in simple words, you don’t understand it yourself.'.
@@OtterFlys I guess by your logic, nobody understands most theories 😂
When have we ever done something else ? We build what we deserve.
This might just explain the Fermi Paradox.
The Willy Wonka test on a planetary scale.
EVERYTHING explains the Fermi Paradox. There is NO situation in which "vigorous interstellar commerce and diplomacy" is among the more probable outcomes.
Fermi had no data, and his hypothesis was wrong. It happens.
@@stevenscott2136 This is not intended to be a serious comment.
The issue is a bit more basic, there is no shortage of planets with resources to create plant and life, but to reach intellegence of the Human brain could be incredibly rare, researches have found that it took over 1 million years and incredible levels of mutations to create our brains as it developed and changed over time from primitive apes. We as a Human species do not give respect to the incredible formation of our brains and the effort of nature, damage, disease, mutations to form what it is now. So that could really limit the formation of Alien life we can communicate with. Perhaps we are one of a kind, a freak of nature. Who knows.
There is also a risk that out of the blue, something changes, a disease, a change in climate, food, something that reduces human brain capacity or function, and just as fast as humans rose to dominate Earth we could disappear. It's the amazing level of unknowns.
@@drscopeify It's all about probabilities.
“The only winning move is not to play.” -- WarGames(1983)
That‘s sad and insightful. Explains a lot. What could be the solution?
Non-zero sun games, eg economic exchange.
Another one is to assign property rights to everything so that it gets traded to an efficient equilibrium
6:56 - not exactly, Russia benefits from CC. It's a modest stimulus (lower heating costs for more of their regions) and more crop yields from a longer growing season.
Why are we creating a future that nobody wants? Who is really in charge? I'm not talking about the brand ambassadors... the figureheads.
Accept life as it is Daniel. Say Yes to it all.
This is not a guy with a beard. It's a beard with a guy. Wise words though.
Spiral Dynamics has some levels of wisdom that we need to see in our leaders
Cuz none of us have a choice in this this is all the 1% of the 1%. The word we is misused so many times it nauseates me. Politicians, media, all misuse the word as if we the collective middle class have any power to change anything.
We have a choice. It requires us to work in concert with one another. If we do not do this, then we will likely contribute to a bleak future.
we do but it takes organizing and collective action on scales we haven't seen in decades. A general strike to shut down world economies would force change, but game theory applies here as well. Most people are too scared to strike because they fear (rightfully) losing their homes and food security. Without mutual aid and support systems for strikers, this won't happen for a long time.
whoa, the handsome daniel covering his face with a little gandolf
Thank goodness for this man. Possibly the cleanest, deepest thinker I know of. Thank you for facilitating this discourse.
Where is a video of the full interview?
Link in the description
"We" is nearly 8 billion people too many to blame for creating a future "we" don't want.
When we get born, we inherit our position in the game
Same reason we made a past no one wanted
Not true... we're building a future that billionaires want!
This is how we solve the Fermi paradox...
Moloch says hi
“Tiny margin” 200-Bill in profits in 2022 for oil companies.
You can’t leave out greed. If it wasn’t for greed, shifting to solar would happen via fair tax revenues that support cities and individuals with shifting to renewables at large scale.
And I loved the video…
The other and most important topic missing, is likely the last we Weill address; trauma. Anyone who encourages others suffer so they can stay and grow rich, is in trauma response. If I can be the most powerful and richest person, then I’ll feel loved and seen.
It’s really that simple. And the most difficult change us humans will make.
If you accept the loss, the whole destructive spiral stops. You just don’t play that game. You don’t try to correct or punish or try to stay ahead of others. In reality there’s no opponent. There’s no us and there’s no them. There’s no duality. Only flow of events, experiences. You don’t fear death. That’s the ultimate cure.
Great explanation.
Welp... time to become a monk and live in the woods (if there still are any 🙃).
This is spot on
pointing out "coordination" between politicians, corporations, or economic classes is what NPC normies call "right wing conspiracy theories."
And yet, as humans, it’s demonstrably provable that we ALL do better thru cooperation. Basically, every tribe, every culture, is just a group of people who recognize they do better collectively than individually. The greatest sin of game theory is thinking the world is a zero sum game. Its not.
Raising the minimum wage does NOT take money from others. It literally increases economic participation among the largest class of people, which enriches even those at the top. And yet conservatives treat it as if paying a worker an extra dollar will make them a dollar poorer.
When we taxed the rich at a top rate of 93% we used that money to pay blue collar workers to build the interstate highway system. That 20 year infrastructure project enriched the working class, but it also permanently tripled the GDP of the entire nation thru creating new opportunities of economic growth.
Today, we can not get conservatives to tax the one group that can most afford it, and so we can not build infrastructure that will actually create new wealth, so the rich are playing a zero sum economic game of taking ever more from the working class, rather than fuel growth by making a working class that can afford more.
Our long term survival hinges on us seeing one another as a single tribe. Where only long term cooperation can sustain us all.
One must know the point of the game to win it. Nature likes deceit so that is what you should expect always.
Once you understand there are consciousless psychopaths running the show you see the truth of this.
What a wonderful world
We British know who our masters are and we are loyal to our master no matter how many times they shit on us and betray us. We will still be that loving but abused Labrador 😢
6:15
That's it!! That's the fucking world... Can't stop or you fall too far behind...
We're definitely due for some changes.
Speak for yourself! I’m building a world that people would love to have!!! You do what you want.
Judging by your profile picture, your world involves continued massive consumption of fossil fuels….right?!😂
I clicked on your video because of your name and the subject matter and I'm darn glad I did! 😁
Wrong. Putin is on the record stating that Russia could use warmer weather. And he's probably right.
It is interesting to me that one of the happiest married couples I know (and they have been together for 10+ years) have adopted the philosophy of Nihilism and they say that part is key to helping them stay sane in this world.
We need to make more babies to live in this world that nobody wants!
This guy underestimates the role of money plays in these outcomes. It's not all game theory.
Less people. Less fuel consumption. I have not made any people.
And we progenitors of the future thank you
@@willbass2869 you're unnecessary
Yes, but you still exist. Not as virtuous as you signal.
You are also against the industrialization of the poor countries and immigration from there, right?
Right?!
One hopes you are not in the education field.
Thanks
A race to the bottom.
This guy's credulity for man made climate catastrophism renders his general line of argument dubious.
"No one wants climate change" hmm.. that makes the assumption that climate change is always bad. In the real world, there are trade-offs and climate change could be a net positive. Conversely, climate change could be a net negative, and yet the "fix" could be exceeding negative far outstripping doing nothing at all.
Yes, but could is putting it mildly.
The current level of incompetent government is off the hook.
The extremist groups are simply ignorant of what they are even asking.
So all and any efforts must fail.
And fail in human lives being the price.
2 points.
1 natural gas, if not used, is simply directed to a tower near the oil well and lit on fire.
That fire will burn for the lifespan of the well.
Yet anti natural gas is a thing.
2
1 million EVs on the road today will yield 1 million 1 thousand pound pieces of toxic garbage in 8 to 10 years.
What was a toy for the wealthy will be very expensive for everyone very soon.
Man made climate change is a HOAX.
🤔🤔🤔😜😜😜🐒🐒🐒😎😎😎
Thing is climate change dramatically increases the odds of extreme weather events, if you look at only that it's already obviously a good thing to fight climate change, let alone all the other bonuses for creating an economy not dependent on new goods from mostly untrustworthy other countries. Plus for most countries healthcare is one of the greatest expenses that will also go down with most climate change policies. Sure some parts are hard in the short term, but just about every policy that combats climate change will be a massive benefit in the long run
@basvriese1934 no you have been convinced by lies about weather events.
Here is a fact it's been much warmer in the past.
With lower co2 ppm.
Warmer does not correlate with more intense or frequent storms.
Co2 levels correlate with nothing.
It's easier to correlate lower temperatures with volcanic activity than to correlate co2 with temperatures.
This game is lost.
The general population is not dumb enough to continue the fear propaganda.
🤔🤔🤔😜😜😜🐒🐒🐒😎😎😎
This also assumes that we are responsible for climate change, which is debatable.
Not everyone sees that phrase the same. We can not agree on what it actually means for us, or where that change is coming from. We certain can not agree on what to do about it. and it's a problem what will likely tear us apart. We are not even allowed to speak openly about, it is a heavily censored and propagandized topic.
These scenarios are paradigm dependent. As long as the governing paradigm reigns, the preemptive race to the bottom will continue. As soon as a paradigm displacement occurs, attention is directed to the new field of play. The tendency remains, but the field changes; this would occur on grand scales with dramatic shifts in energy and resource access systems, for example, which could only bring the game to a halt when there is more availability than we could ever have an affect on....
This Old Fool Is Wrong. John Nash invented Game Theory.
A Brilliant Madness. The story of John Nash (2002) HD
140K views 7 years ago
George Kalarritis, Clinical Psychologist
A Brilliant Madness is the story of a mathematical genius whose career was cut short by a descent into madness. At the age of 30, ...
55:05
Now playing
John Nash documentary ||A Brilliant Madness
1.8K views 4 years ago
Anshul_K Singh
Schmachtenberger strikes me as far too smart to not question the climate change bogeyman but maybe I'm giving too much credit -- wouldn't be the first time.
tell me about the climate change bogeyman?
@@thejoelrooganexplosion2400no measurable global warming in decades....
@@thejoelrooganexplosion2400 The fact that a detailed response would most likely get censored by YT, shows how suspicious the whole agenda is around that subject.
There is a lot of tribalism around that subject, many will say one thing while quietly believing another to preserve social connections.
There OBVIOUSLY is NO "consensus", and the aggressive censorship exposes ill intent.
We need actors in power who can accept defeat on a specific aspect and then instruct their team to focus on how to turn strategic operations around, to address the issues. In other words, stick to the treaty, and honor the agreements, but seek other avenues to address the concerns when they do not suit your desires. Compromise.
So? What are the possible solutions?
Don’t like videos that only point out the problem.
Here's the full discussion where solutions are provided ua-cam.com/video/LSx8j8lSewA/v-deo.html Enjoy!
People like him have none. Climate disruption will increase prices and the cost of doing things, moving away from fossil fuels will do the same. Decline and some level of collapse will simply happen. Therefore everyone will focus more on their basic interests. Hopefully, automation will also take jobs and one of the most common arguments for immigration away.
when the music's over turn out the light
I checked the comments before I'm listening to the podcast because I'm just not in favor of gurus at this time of ascension. I believe we are all our own Guru. Yes we listen to others and glean information that we can use. I also will tell you that we're moving into the most glorious time in planetary history together around the world. I don't know what all this Doom and Gloom seems to be about but I'm not going there. I certainly believe that all of us get to agree to disagree. I'm just not having any of the Doom and Gloom because I know it is not the direction we're headed. Much joy and love to all
You haven’t been paying attention.
so you haven't done any studying on catastrophic and existential risks but you come to the conclusion the "doom and gloom" is not going to happen becuase of your biased intuition and naive optimism
@@passwordprotectedd some people just like to keep their head in the sand.
I see Daniel has become : just another soldier
the ultimate zero sum game; Religions
That's churches. Not religions.
@@jessewest2109you misspelled "mosques"
Fixed it for ya
You're welcome
I'm not a 'believer' in any religion, but I understand that is is something that nobody can get rid of. Complain all you want atheist, you will not stop religion, not at all. There is more going on in the universe than anyone thinks. You may not believe what they believe, but you will never stop them believing.... never.
All large organizations
Atheists in general have 0-1 kids. If the point of life to make more life, then atheism is not a winning strategy for a stable society.