[boombust]

As you hinted in your edit, you are describing the essence of a collection action problem.

Ultimately, we measure the success of our capitalist economies in total receipts, and optimise accordingly. Our markets (and our cultures) prioritise consumption over repair or even abstention. That last point might seem contentious but truth be told, most of us would rather buy something new than repair something broken unless it is prohibitively expensive or repair is easy. In short, if we changed the yardstick to determine progress then the matter becomes much simpler to solve. However, this is not likely to change so we are forced to look for solutions within our economic framework.

There are plenty of ways to correct these market failures but they must stem from government and have the support of the people. Private initiatives have nowhere near the influence or the scale to tackle such problems. Tax on goods and services could be proportional to how damaging it is to the environment. Regulations on animal welfare could be broadened and prioritised. Creative solutions exist for almost every issue, the problem is that they are not part of the public discourse.

For instance, while I personally abhor hunting, I feel we should encourage regulated African trophy hunting, where older animals are auctioned off so that the money can be reinvested to protect current populations from poaching. In places like Africa where money is the only thing that matters, it is of the utmost importance that conservation look to market solutions to assist wildlife, as we might as well nuke the poor bastards if their survival depended on African governments.

The biggest hurdle to overcome is the relentlessness of special interests to dictate policy around the globe. In fact, this is the root of the majority of global economic issues. I would imagine the only feasible way to do this is for the people to engage with these issues, which means we are most likely doomed.

[intended]

As you pointed out, one of the issues is special interests.

But in a rational world, it is obvious that people will use whatever tools at their disposal to improve their chances.

So by definition, any sentient and rational society will have lobbying - anywhere in the universe.

So this is not a bug but a feature. In theory these lobby groups will be dragged to a stale mate by counter lobby groups, but practically the more unethical group will win just because of operational flexibility.

I don’t see any way this worst case out come doesn’t come to pass because of these very issues.

The collective action problem can’t be solved.

[boombust]

I am not sure I agree with your insistence on using the word rational. What is rational depends entirely on the perspective of the agent observing and is not a useful assumption, in my opinion.

I want to touch on what you said about lobbies and give you my take on it.

The characteristics of successful lobbies have three key properties. Within any dispute/issue the most important quality that determines influence of a group/cause is organisation. An organised faction will always triumph over the disorganised masses. Then, the second most important factor is possession of any tactical advantages to advance their goal over their adversaries. These can be anything from superior methods to a willingness to do things that the other side is not. The last, and least important, is the size of the group. Each factor is meaningless without the preceding one.

As a consequence, I would agree that other groups would 'win' in this case. But they wouldn't actually need to win, they would just need engage in dirty tactics such as proliferation of fake news, muddying public discourse, bribe political officials, etc. Humanity would face the greatest difficulty dealing with the lengths that special interests are willing to go to to wield undue influence and stagnate progress.

However, I do not share your abject and defeatist view. I concede that humanity is facing a battle in the trenches to ensure the health of our ecosystems. We all must take responsibility for what is coming because to do nothing is to allow bad actors to get away with being shitheads. Given that the survival of our species and many others on Earth is at stake this should not be acceptable to any one with a shred of empathy to possible future generations.

[intended]

Great points on lobbying. I believe there’s an economics paper on the effects of lobbying out there, so it might be of interest to you. Sadly I don’t know it’s name :/.

By the way, If the issue is with my tone or perceived attitude, please note that this is my question- what precisely is the path to success?

I don’t get the issue with the term rational, I mean it in the same way you define it.

Locally solutions may not result in a global solution to the climate problem (because of externalities). What the issue with rational in this case ?

[boombust]

Neither your tone or attitude were an issue. I just wanted to note that the idea that there is absolutely no way out of this mess is too negative a view, in my opinion. Until we reach the point of no return, people need to keep engaging in discourse.

The path to success is simply education. It is not a sexy suggestion by any means, but I would point to how successful bad education is at stopping progress as evidence that it is the determinant factor. It is not a quick or a guaranteed solution. But by staying informed and engaging in conversation with people, this can have a knock-on effects on others. Further, key moments in contemporary human history show that shifts can occur seemingly out of nowhere. Will it be enough? Who knows? Realistically, this is our only play left and to squander it to apathy is not acceptable.

Re: rational. I guess this becomes a semantic issue, which means it is a non-issue to begin with as we are in agreement. I personally just feel that the word doesn't add much to the discussion as it is implicitly understood that economic actors will be driven to certain decisions by their own self-serving motivations. Using the word rational, while I agree that if we were to take your definition would be absolutely correct, connotes the notion that they are acting in absolute self interest, which is not the case in this example as that would mean individual actors would find a way to cooperate given that the existence of humanity is at stake. So, despite the fact that there is nothing wrong with the word, I avoid using it as I find it to be quite confusing.

My opinion on the matter probably reflects quite well on why I switched out of an economics degree :)

[intended]

So this entire thread has been execution of an argument I’ve been working on.

I suppose it’s a rhetorical construct I’m working on to effectively move the needle forward.

Unfortunately, my current iteration requires the negative attitude variant to move other people into the correct line of questioning. There’s other issues with it Too, I’m sure.

A major problem with discussing issues today, is getting people up to speed on the problem and having a shared language and idea base which is both accurate, flexible and easy to share and reuse to create new insight and tools to deal with the problem.

It takes a lot of work to unravel the various issues, without getting bogged down with minutiae- or just championing unworkable ideas (lets all stop showering; the world should go vegetarian)

As such this thread did well in serving as a test run.

In essence the term I’m trialing is “Homo economicus is hacking Homo sapiens”, and building from there into showing collective action problems

I really didn’t have a solution for the larger systemic issue, and recently the only one I’ve come up with is the gandhian idea of re-awakening people as moral actors.

The larger system is amoral, as you well know having done Econ. This is by design and not a flaw.

Morality is only exercisesble by Homo sapiens. Homo economicus is not designed to have that capacity, it is an assumed constant, imposed by “policy” or by “consumer choice”.

Since policy and consumer choice are pre reqs to targeting externalities, we need people to feel that they are moral agents who can impose rules upon the working of society.

anyway the goal of this statement was to get the bleak but correct picture forward. We can’t sit on the sidelines anymore.