The Mathematics of Decision Making
A popular youtube video by school teacher and author Greg Craven applies a form of game theory, or the mathematics of decision, to the issue of global warming. Watch here:
Craven states that no one has been able to prove him wrong. Those commenting on the video seem to have difficulty finding fault. Is Mr. Craven correct in assuming that global warming is a zero sum game? A game in which one either completely wins or completely loses?
Let's extend the scenario, as Mr. Craven suggests and look at the possible outcomes and inherent gambles.
Craven's Game: Global Warming is a Zero Sum Game we can Win
Mr. Craven's conclusions represent a Zero Sum game. He suggests an equilibrium point, “better safe than sorry” or “its better to do something than nothing.”
The issue with finding an equilibrium point in this scenario is that such a thing works only if you play the game more than once or if you have a chance to strategize with your opponent first. Even then the opponent may choose to defect (look out for his own best interests) rather than cooperate (find an equilibrium). When faced with a one time game; the logical choice is to defect, or look out for one's own best interests. Why? Because the outcome is unknown. Unfortunately, as far as we know, humans occupy just one planet. The way we play this game will determine the future of the entire human race.
So lets pit America against China, political allies but economic competitors, and see where logic leads us.
Games & The “President's Dilemma” Assuming Global Warming is Real
Game 1: Global Warming can be Stopped:
The US and China are faced with the problem of throwing the entire resources of their economy into fighting Global Warming, which we assume is real in this scenario.
Game 2: Global Warming can not be Stopped:
The US and China are faced with the possibility of throwing the entire resources of each economy into combating Global Warming, but we can not affect the environment.
Game 3: Global Warming can be Stopped with Partial Effort:
Game 4: Global Warming will not Destroy the Planet:
Even the entire resources of China and the US are not enough to completely stop global warming.
Game 5: Global Warming is Real and Devastating, Economic Collapse is Total.
Global warming can only be affected by a truly global effort. Some world nations abstain.
Granting Mr. Craven the assumption that global warming is a crisis of devastating proportions- what gamble do we take? Do we try to win it all? Do we fight to maintain our political and economic dominance?
Is Craven's logic flawed? A logical statement can have the pleasure of also being untrue. Is global warming a “Winner Take All” Zero Sum game? Or is there an equilibrium point we can reach?
