Often the problem isn’t inherent goodness or badness, but the incentive structure that an environment creates, and whether people’s natural tendencies to want to be high status results in benefit for everyone or not. In an environment with no one who has the exclusive right to the use of force, violence becomes a means of acquiring resources and status. If you set up the rules correctly (and people view you as a legitimate source of laws), people are incentivized to work towards the common good.
“[D]uring the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in a condition which is called Warre; and such a warre, as is of every man, against every man. . . . In such condition, there is no place for industry . . . no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation . . . no commodious Building; no instruments of moving . . . no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.”
This is a quote from Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan that I find closely parallels what you’re talking about. This last bit though...
If you set up the rules correctly (and people view you as a legitimate source of laws), people are incentivized to work towards the common good.
...is something I have yet to come across in any of my readings but I really like it. I feel like most descriptions of social contract theory just say that people are bad, therefore they need a government to keep them in line. I find this idea that people would give up some of their natural rights not just for their own personal benefit, but for the common good, is a really reassuring one.
I’m vaguely pointing at the role of game theory and the resulting mechanism design in shaping what actions are viable. The tragedy of the commons is a classic example where some mechanism is needed to prevent a common loss. It can be easy to portray people in such a situation as greedy, but the mechanism works for altruistic people too. Escape without oversight requires everyone to be selfless, which is a totally unreasonable bar.
Game theory is something that I see mentioned quite often, but I am totally unfamiliar with it. Do you have any suggested books, papers, or videos you believe may give me a entry-level understanding of the subject?
So for something interactive which helps build intuition, this is a great game about the prisoner’s dilemma (goes in the same direction as what greylag linked actually, but with much cuter animations, and can serve as intro). If you want something with more substance, I don’t think I can beat a thorough reading of the wikipedia page followed by choosing a book from their further reading section which matches what you’re comfortable with.
not at all, and especially not for subjects with intro textbooks. That said, it’s just a starting place, and it’s almost worth as much as a source of references as an actual overview.
Often the problem isn’t inherent goodness or badness, but the incentive structure that an environment creates, and whether people’s natural tendencies to want to be high status results in benefit for everyone or not. In an environment with no one who has the exclusive right to the use of force, violence becomes a means of acquiring resources and status. If you set up the rules correctly (and people view you as a legitimate source of laws), people are incentivized to work towards the common good.
This is a quote from Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan that I find closely parallels what you’re talking about. This last bit though...
...is something I have yet to come across in any of my readings but I really like it. I feel like most descriptions of social contract theory just say that people are bad, therefore they need a government to keep them in line. I find this idea that people would give up some of their natural rights not just for their own personal benefit, but for the common good, is a really reassuring one.
I’m vaguely pointing at the role of game theory and the resulting mechanism design in shaping what actions are viable. The tragedy of the commons is a classic example where some mechanism is needed to prevent a common loss. It can be easy to portray people in such a situation as greedy, but the mechanism works for altruistic people too. Escape without oversight requires everyone to be selfless, which is a totally unreasonable bar.
Game theory is something that I see mentioned quite often, but I am totally unfamiliar with it. Do you have any suggested books, papers, or videos you believe may give me a entry-level understanding of the subject?
This may not be entry-level, but Axelrod’s The Evolution of Co-operation might be an enlightening deep/broad dive.
Thank you for the recommendation, I’ll add it to my reading list.
So for something interactive which helps build intuition, this is a great game about the prisoner’s dilemma (goes in the same direction as what greylag linked actually, but with much cuter animations, and can serve as intro). If you want something with more substance, I don’t think I can beat a thorough reading of the wikipedia page followed by choosing a book from their further reading section which matches what you’re comfortable with.
This game looks really interesting. Thank you!
I often hear people say that wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. In your opinion, is the true?
not at all, and especially not for subjects with intro textbooks. That said, it’s just a starting place, and it’s almost worth as much as a source of references as an actual overview.
Gotcha, thanks :)