Trump Paris Meta-Decision

[palou]

robzo100 said:

palou said: In a case such as global warming, where the effect and effort is spread out between several members, each player acting individually in their own interest will lead to a poor global result.

I won't go into detail since the post right above me that I replied to covers this. Individual efforts overlap government efforts. If the government puts pollution-restricting regulations on cars it would have had the same effect as if the individual themselves decided to carry the same amount of responsibility they ask of the government and decide not to buy said car.

The individuals have all the power they need, and between socializing and the internet there is no reason they can't make informed decisions on pollution-related lifestyle choices.

I do think that you are misunderstanding something. 

This is a classic prisoner's dillema. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

 

Starting off with the hypothesis that people are selfish: (as was proven by the failure of the communist experiment)

 

Suppose we have a car, costing 10 000$ less, but releasing pollutants in the atmosphere that reduce the average human lifespan by 0.1 seconds.

For each individual, driving this car is logical; The impact of saving 10 000$ is probably worth 0.1 seconds of life.

 

So, all 2 000 000 000 people purchasing a car , worldwide, choose this option

 

The result is that everyone saved 10 000$, while also, in average, people live 6 years 4 months less. 

 

Most people would agree that spending 10 000$ and living 6 years 4 months more would have been preferable. Nonetheless, the less preferable option appeared, while everyone made logical decisions.

 

 

Of course, the Paris accord is more complicated.

 

However, a very general rule of Game Theory, a single rational player (unit that makes decisions) always optimizes collective interest better or equal to individual players optimizing their own interest.