Oh yes, I agree with your caution and approach. It's primarily a question of values, be they ethical or political or elsewise, but I'd welcome articles from climate journals or nature or some such too.

The way to escape the prisoners' dilemma in geo-politics is negotiation and coming to some kind of supra-national agreement.... you create incentives so the prisoners don't choose the default bad option. — ChatteringMonkey

In agreement with this, to give a relatively simple parallel to it:

In the early 2000’s, Bill Gates Sr. and Chuck Collins – both relatively well off people, to say the least – campaigned for an estate/death/inheritance tax in America to the following effect:

MOYERS: And do I understand correctly that you’re not advocating that the government take everything that somebody passes on to children?

GATES: On the contrary. No, we’re not. We’re saying, for example, that if the exemption were three and a half million dollars or $7 million for a family, that…. And the rate was say, 50 percent just as a for instance, then whatever dad and mom leave in excess of $7 million, and half of the rest, still there for the children. — billmoyers.com

The corporate media didn’t give this campaign much if any coverage – we wonder why – and I was only exposed to it via a Bill Moyers episode of NOW, which aired on PBS (which is currently dying).

It makes a lot of sense: For a family, everything under 7 million dollars does not get taxed a penny. And everything over 7 million would be taxed an approximate 50% - uniformly across the board. (With the same applying to the cap of 3.5 million for any one individual.) Taxes then go back into the system: for infrastructure, for education, for research, etc. – all of which serve the public good and make society stronger. And meritocratic competition would be preserved for all: the richest person on Earth would yet have the greatest sum of inheritance to give to their own children to start them off with in life.

But, even if this campaign would have been given more coverage and would have picked up steam, it wouldn’t have worked. American millionaires would have been at a loss in respect to non-American millionaires world over. Such that the offspring of non-American millionaires would then have had substantially greater capital to start them off in life then their American counterparts. Thereby nullifying the meritocratic competition previously addressed on a global scale. So it then only makes sense that most American millionaires (obviously excluding Gates Sr. and Collins) were contra this campaign and its proposals.

The only way to make such an estate tax viable (whose implementation should make a lot of sense to at least most of us) would be to make it globally applicable – this without any exceptions. But, maybe obviously, this would then require a global governance.

I'm thinking this or similar understandings might help alleviate this:

It think even before the physical effects get to us, the psychological effects might bring us down. If you wipe away the horizon... you get nihilism. — ChatteringMonkey

@Moliere and others, what do you think of the approach taken in this one:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1804114

The way to escape the prisoners' dilemma in geo-politics is negotiation and coming to some kind of supra-national agreement.... you create incentives so the prisoners don't choose the default bad option.
— ChatteringMonkey

In agreement with this, to give a relatively simple parallel to it: — javra

Clearly neither of you understand the prisoner's dilemma. You, the prisoner, cannot "create incentives", you have to rely on each other's solidarity - or not.

Clearly neither of you understand the prisoner's dilemma. You, the prisoner, cannot "create incentives", you have to rely on each other's solidarity - or not. — unenlightened

I do understand it. The prisoner's dilemma is set up so that the prisoners can't talk to each and don't know what the others choice is going to be when making their choice. Also it's a one off situation where their actions don't have any other longer term effects other that those stipulated.

In that hypothetical situation what you say is true. But luckily we don't have to live in splendid isolation, we can talk to eachother and trust can be build up over many instances of facing similar dilemma's... that changes the math.

It isn't exactly a prisoner's dilemma, but it is a collective action problem.

Clearly neither of you understand the prisoner's dilemma. You, the prisoner, cannot "create incentives", you have to rely on each other's solidarity - or not. — unenlightened

I concur with

But if you’re going to get all technical about it, the most interesting part of the prisoner’s dilemma game theory is in discovery of those strategies that outcompete others within iterated versions of the original game theory:

Interest in the iterated prisoner's dilemma was kindled by Robert Axelrod in his 1984 book The Evolution of Cooperation, in which he reports on a tournament that he organized of the N-step prisoner's dilemma (with N fixed) in which participants have to choose their strategy repeatedly and remember their previous encounters. Axelrod invited academic colleagues from around the world to devise computer strategies to compete in an iterated prisoner's dilemma tournament. The programs that were entered varied widely in algorithmic complexity, initial hostility, capacity for forgiveness, and so forth.

Axelrod discovered that when these encounters were repeated over a long period of time with many players, each with different strategies, greedy strategies tended to do very poorly in the long run while more altruistic strategies did better, as judged purely by self-interest. He used this to show a possible mechanism for the evolution of altruistic behavior from mechanisms that are initially purely selfish, by natural selection.

The winning deterministic strategy was tit for tat, developed and entered into the tournament by Anatol Rapoport. It was the simplest of any program entered, containing only four lines of BASIC,[10] and won the contest. The strategy is simply to cooperate on the first iteration of the game; after that, the player does what his or her opponent did on the previous move.[11] Depending on the situation, a slightly better strategy can be "tit for tat with forgiveness": when the opponent defects, on the next move, the player sometimes cooperates anyway, with a small probability (around 1–5%, depending on the lineup of opponents). This allows for occasional recovery from getting trapped in a cycle of defections.

After analyzing the top-scoring strategies, Axelrod stated several conditions necessary for a strategy to succeed:[12]

Nice: The strategy will not be the first to defect (this is sometimes referred to as an "optimistic" algorithm[by whom?]), i.e., it will not "cheat" on its opponent for purely self-interested reasons first. Almost all the top-scoring strategies were nice.[a]
Retaliating: The strategy must sometimes retaliate. An example of a non-retaliating strategy is Always Cooperate, a very bad choice that will frequently be exploited by "nasty" strategies.
Forgiving: Successful strategies must be forgiving. Though players will retaliate, they will cooperate again if the opponent does not continue to defect. This can stop long runs of revenge and counter-revenge, maximizing points.
Non-envious: The strategy must not strive to score more than the opponent. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma#Axelrod's_tournament_and_successful_strategy_conditions

In summary, altruistic heuristics that retain a sense of justice – with the “tit for tat with forgiveness” program exemplifying this – do best long-term, outcompeting all other strategies that can be employed in this particular game theory. Learned of this back in university days. To me, it's a rather nifty empirical means of addressing theoretical issues of ethics - ethics which, lo and behold, turn out to have their pragmatic advantages long-term.

That said, such altruistic heuristics are something direly missing in most of today’s politics, especially in regard to climate change. As just one notable example, the Kyoto Protocol is long gone now, and an abject failure precisely due to the lack of such strategies.

... altruistic heuristics that retain a sense of justice — javra

Yes. Moral rectitude. So when we have lots of crises with human induced climate change, we might learn to deal with it, eventually.

So when we have lots of crises with human induced climate change, we might learn to deal with it, eventually. — unenlightened

One can only hope. But it is certain not to happen devoid of involvement, and maybe even commitment, on the part of most members of humanity in sharing at the very least this common cause. And, although the details might be lacking, such can only then signify a global governance of one form or another. May it indeed be one of moral rectitude.

Sorry, that was a joke. We don't have many planets, so the Axelrod scenario doesn't apply. Rather we have to rely on our already evolved 'cooperative' inclinations.

Haven't we evolved in-group coöperation inclinations, and out-group conflict inclinations? If this is true, and I think it is, you would need something to overcome those inclinations, i.e. binding supra-national agreement.

Rather we have to rely on our already evolved 'cooperative' inclinations. — unenlightened

In other words, we are doomed.  :death: :death: :death:

you would need something to overcome those inclinations, i.e. binding supra-national agreement. — ChatteringMonkey

In other words, we are doomed.  :death: :death: :death:

If this is true, and I think it is, you would need something to overcome those inclinations, i.e. binding supra-national agreement. — ChatteringMonkey

Are you volunteering to be the world dictator? What is needed is easy to specify - to stop carbon emissions and work to restore the environment. But who is going to do the binding? Some very stable genius, no doubt.

In other words we're doomed - by and large. Such is the logic of our irrational self-interested inclinations.

While you're waiting to die, why not look at these pretty interactive graphics and compare the changes thus far where you are with the global average. This is my local graph, and you can adjust it for your region or the global average. Get the T-shirt!

https://showyourstripes.info/c/europe/unitedkingdom/liverpool

And lets get our conversation more sparky ...

"Preprint of Peer-Reviewed paper in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS):
Warming Stripes spark climate conversations: from the ocean to the stratosphere
https://t.co/8ayLndsnEe

Abstract:
The ‘warming stripes’ are an iconic climate data visualisation, adopted globally
as a symbol of our warming world. We discuss their origin and uses for communication,
including understanding long-term changes in the climate and consequences of future
emission choices. We also extend the stripes concept to explore observed temperature
variations throughout the climate system, revealing coherent warming for the troposphere
and upper ocean, and cooling in the stratosphere, consistent with our understanding of
human influences on our climate."

I'm not advocating for a world government, just an agreement like we've had for many other things like the UN, WTO or more specific for the ozone layer or nuclear weapons.

Honestly I don't get the aversion for the idea, when it seems clear to me that this is the only way forward.

It is the only way forward because geo-politics has always and will always be a thing, and it determines and constrains what is possible. To deny that is to deny reality... and so we get stuck on solutions that are purely idealistic because they deny a basic part of our existence.

It's like this aversion for any kind of power-structure is so deeply routed in our culture, that we'd rather have the world end, before we allow some concentration of power that could actually do something.

But I guess maybe that is the way we want it to go, so the apocalyse can finally reveal all our sins and judgement can be passed on the wicked.





If the AMOC collapses it could change the other way rather quicky in Liverpool.

It's like this aversion for any kind of power-structure is so deeply routed in our culture, that we'd rather have the world end, before we allow some concentration of power that could actually do something. — ChatteringMonkey

Would you rather be a big fish in a small pond, or a small fish in a big pond?

I would rather have there be a pond, any kind, otherwise we'd only have fried fish big or small.

Honestly I don't get the aversion for the idea, when it seems clear to me that this is the only way forward. — ChatteringMonkey

I'm not averse to an agreement; I'm all for an agreement. I don't think it's going to happen; I think it's wishful thinking, for reasons I already went through. So suppose for a moment that there is no agreement to be had; shall we do what we can anyway, or shall we do nothing?

Sorry, that was a joke. — unenlightened

Right. Nothing to look forward to and strive for on the horizon ... because its all nihilism. He, he, and a ha, ha. I'm not laughing, though. After all, this very perspective sort of entails its own meaninglessness.

We don't have many planets, so the Axelrod scenario doesn't apply. — unenlightened

Thee heck are you talking about???

Well at the moment it doesn't look to good, that's right. But you know often we need to really feel the consequences first before we act... when we do, it can change quickly.

If we don't find agreement on a global level then the incentives won't be there... and I think you'll see a mad scramble for the remaining fossil energy sources and other resources, as everybody will be desperately trying to fend off collapse. Morality typically takes a back seat in such circumstances.

The ecological point of view on all of this is more suited to a post-collapse world it seems to me, when larger structures have already broken down.

My view is that the world is changing now, and that opens possibilities for good, and for bad. I think we need more people on board to try and make the best of it. And to achieve that we can't be to morally pure about it. There's going to be a lot of pain no matter how you slice it.

But in any case, I don't plan to go quietly into that good night.

There is an agreement, the Paris Agreement. A lot is being done, it just happens to be a bit on the late side.

Unfortunately, before we start to feel the full impacts of climate change, we will turn on each other. It’s in our nature.

It's not enough by itself. The top institutions, like the UN, aren't working or aren't adjusted to the times. Stopping the current path of militarization is at least as important if we don't want to totally lose track.

Yes, although the U.S. recession will reduce the production of greenhouse gases. Also U.S. military production is likely to go down a similar amount to how much it is going up in Europe.

The important thing to avoid is failed states and states controlled by authoritarians denying climate change. Because they stop moving in the right direction and may go backwards. Also you can’t reason with leaders like Putin and leaders who prioritise their survival in office over everything else.

Thee heck are you talking about??? — javra

I am talking about the politics of climate change, where no government is taking serious action to adapt or mitigate because there is no incentive to do so unless everyone else is already doing it and pressuring, and no one has any incentive to do so because everyone is out for themselves and their larger clan. This is a one time situation, whereby we know what needs to be done, but not doing it until everyone else is doing it is "advantageous". and everyone knows that too, so green parties do not get elected because they would make 'us' poorer to the benefit of others. And the only solution would involve people stopping with the self-interest, and acting and voting for the common good. Those that have not already learned this will not learn in this one-off situation because it is really hard to actually understand viscerally how very fucked we all are unless we change our morals and start acting on them.

Those that have not already learned this will not learn in this one-off situation because it is really hard to actually understand viscerally how very fucked we all are unless we change our morals and start acting on them. — unenlightened

Yeah, assuming all you say is true, this is a ridiculous suggestion. It's like saying all we've got to do to save the zebras is to change their stripes and then growing frustrated no one will heed your suggestion.

I've not been able to change a single crazy person when in a relationship, but here I've got to change humankind.

Just saying, we will not "change our morals." No chart or graph suggests there will be moral change correlating to global change.

It is like suggesting we can end war by being peaceful. Yes, but that sort of takes a global effort, else our peacefulness leads to compliant slavery, but at least we did our share.

Let us assume then we won't change our morals, what is option B?

And it's not "we're all fucked. " it's seeking more limited solutions through technological discovery that doesn't otherwise disrupt economic stability. It's an abandonment of trying to push hard regulation and conceding your're working within a framework of unyieldimg competing interests. You're not going to change those you've designated as crazy. Yelling at them for being morons won't push them into submission.

I'm advocating building better umbrellas for the coming rains. We're not stopping the rain, so we're the crazy ones if we keep talking about it like we are.

Information comes in via the sciences; what to do about it is political (or ethics).

Trump Administration Fires Hundreds of Climate and Weather Specialists
^{— Yale Environment 360 · Apr 11, 2025}

implausible climate threats, contributing to a phenomenon known as ‘climate anxiety,’ which has increased significantly among America’s youth — Team anti-woke

Will they shut down NASA's efforts as well?

because it is really hard to actually understand viscerally how very fucked we all are unless we change our morals and start acting on them. — unenlightened

It is not just a question of morals. Many people hold beliefs which justify them doing nothing. You need to change these beliefs before it becomes a moral issue.

12% of Americans agree with the statement “it’s already too late to do anything about global warming,” while many more (63%) disagree.

47% of Americans agree with the statement “the actions of a single individual won’t make any difference in global warming,” while 53% disagree.

49% of Americans agree with the statement “new technologies can solve global warming without individuals having to make big changes in their lives,” while 50% disagree.

It is not just a question of morals. Many people hold beliefs which justify them doing nothing. You need to change these beliefs before it becomes a moral issue. — Agree-to-Disagree

Many people believe whatever it is convenient to believe to maintain their lifestyle and comfortable identity. This is a moral failure. You ought to believe what is reasonable to believe, not what is comfortable to believe. This is a fundamental moral commitment to truth, that is the foundation of the possibility of communication. Thus when people do not have that commitment, they are unpersuadable and communication becomes impossible.

You ought to believe what is reasonable to believe, not what is comfortable to believe. — unenlightened

There is so much exaggeration and hype about climate change that it is hard to know what is reasonable to believe. When the statements from scientists show an exponential trend towards doom, gloom, and catastrophe it is hard for many people to take them seriously. Given that there is a lot of uncertainty about what will happen with climate change many people feel that it is reasonable to avoid taking drastic measures.

It is not reasonable to argue thus. You declare your conclusion that there is hype and exaggeration, and then declare that it is reasonable. And back it up with a declaration of uncertainty and again declare that this justifies inaction. It is totally unreasonable and vacuous.