[MrGilbert]

> If you study game theory even a little one of the big lessons is that cooperation at scale is _incredibly_ hard

I never realized that game theory would give me an answer to that question. You can tell that cooperation at scale is really hard just by observing the discourse around climate change and the necessary steps, as it is something that basically involves everyone. Thanks for the hint!

[api]

Climate change is a great example of a horrid game theory problem. Solving it requires an all cooperate pact as long as fossil fuels remain one of the easiest cheapest ways to get power. As long as that’s true, any defector can outcompete everyone in industrial production and creating a higher standard of living.

The other way to beat this is to advance renewable or nuclear power or both to the point that these options are cheaper than fossil fuels, which changes the game by making defection much less profitable.

I personally think that's the only way that's likely to work. As long as fossil fuels are the cheapest easiest route to prosperity, even if the rich world makes (and actually keeps) a climate change pact there's going to be an enormous temptation for developing countries to be like "fuck you, we're poor." Poverty, as in real grinding poverty, really really sucks.

[mungoman2]

But renewable is already cheaper than fossil fuels. Why don't we see this already?