[rob74]

This Covid-19 simulation, where you can have a more or less reliable model because you are basically doing it after the fact, already has enough potential for controversy - e.g. the "social stability" metric, is it too sensitive? Not sensitive enough? For decarbonization, where you don't have a reliable model, you will probably be accused by both sides that you're underestimating or overestimating the various parameters involved. Do you want to open this can of worms?

[Robotbeat]

Well, we’ve got to! and it would be nice to open up the game to different assumptions. Like, I tried Covid zero in this game, and although I never got to zero it ended up minimizingz the deaths. Games like this can be useful for at least explaining ones ideas even if the games aren’t “realistic”.

I think for decarbonization, you wouldn’t need to take as drastic of steps is taken for Covid. But if your policies are unpopular, it will be a lot easier to lose political power as the timeline is ten times as long. It only takes slightly unpopular policies to be kicked out of power. So I think that aspect would help people who think we can do extreme measures for climate change (ie abandon most of the suburbs in a decade for denser urban cores more easily served by public transit) kind of temper their views a bit and think of more politically viable methods of fighting climate change (electric cars, etc). Of course it be nice to be able to modify the game to explain other arguments, like effects that redistribution might have making those changes more politically viable. But of course like most kinds of social science Model, it’s really more of an explanation/exposition than a prediction

[zelphirkalt]

Well, it would be a game or simulation after all. It could be improved over time with new knowledge. So it wouldn't hurt to try.