This depends on who’s predicting, who’s listening, and various actors’ models of how other actors will react to the prediction. For this reason, it’s very hard to accurately predict conflict type and severity—this is not completely zero-sum, but it’s close enough to be anti-inductive.
Conditional predictions about who will be hurt by how much for wars _might_ reduce the chance of wars. Better knowledge of how badly one will lose (or be hurt in a win) can certainly lead participants to be more willing to submit rather than fighting.
Makes me think of the story where they simulate war, and then have their own citizens killed to represent what would have happened if there had been an actual war. Imagine this, but without the killing part. It might remove the negative sum aspect of wars.
This depends on who’s predicting, who’s listening, and various actors’ models of how other actors will react to the prediction. For this reason, it’s very hard to accurately predict conflict type and severity—this is not completely zero-sum, but it’s close enough to be anti-inductive.
Conditional predictions about who will be hurt by how much for wars _might_ reduce the chance of wars. Better knowledge of how badly one will lose (or be hurt in a win) can certainly lead participants to be more willing to submit rather than fighting.
Makes me think of the story where they simulate war, and then have their own citizens killed to represent what would have happened if there had been an actual war. Imagine this, but without the killing part. It might remove the negative sum aspect of wars.