Comments on: The music of the warming spheres

By: sillage

sillage — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:08:07 +0000

Indeed, as a former game theorist enthusiast I can confirm up until I last read about it (about 10 years ago) there was no system, however complex, that against a host of different strategic players ever did consistently better than co-operate the first time, second time do what the other bloke did first time and so on. They used to run competitions for this every year.

By: vigornian

vigornian — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 00:03:55 +0000

Alas, while in a pool of many strategies those who trust, but briefly recriminate mistrust, will prosper – especially amongst each other – it doesn’t quite work in the real world where the effects of mutual distrust extend so catastrophically beyond the two participants.

What I heard in the pub, anyway.

By: vigornian

vigornian — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 00:00:18 +0000

Tragedy of the Commons is where an asset is underused because *no-one* owns it and no-one can claim the fruits of labour, isn’t it? Without stepping on Andrew’s toes, I don’t think that’s what he means at all.

By: hatmandu

hatmandu — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:57:00 +0000

I rather fear the screwing-over began several centuries ago!

By: julietk

julietk — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:07:46 +0000

I do think that better communication is likely to increase communication.

However, better communication as currently implemented is rather unequally better & therefore may be a divisive force, furthering an “us” (highly connected, well-off, usually white & Western) vs “them” (none of the above) attitude.

I certainly think that the altruistic version is possible; I don’t think that it’ll be unanimous. It might win out overall, though.

I oscillate wildly between optimism & pessimism on the subject. Um.

By: julietk

julietk — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:04:38 +0000

But the flipside to that is that if no one starts the screwing-over, everyone lives happily ever after.

(Why yes I am an optimist!)

By: drcosmos

drcosmos — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:18:40 +0000

I was actually reading about the Prisoner’s Dilemma the other day and how one of the most successful strategies is Tit-for-Tat so if you screwed me over last time, I’ll do it to you this time. Not really certain that it bodes well for international cooperation.

By: hatmandu

hatmandu — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:13:51 +0000

Marvellous – and of course “title here title here title title here” is a perfectly grammatical sentence!

By: barnacle

barnacle — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:07:15 +0000

I’m really sorry we didn’t come now, as we were umming and ahhing over it. And we’re closer to Ramsden than you anyway. But K’s paper goes to press today, so we were at home proofreading pages and chewing pens.

“Love?”
“Mmm?”
“This bit where it says ‘TITLE HERE TITLE HERE TITLE TITLE HERE’ – is that right?”
“… Shit.”

By: htfb

htfb — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:42:13 +0000

Surely his premise is wrong. There have been plenty of examples where populations have diminished or emigrated peacefully in response to a diminishing resource. Gibbon is full of them. How about, irrigation water in Mesopotamia under the Abbasids?

Surely you mean a Tragedy of the Commons, rather than a prisoner’s dilemma, anyway?