In 2014, a A team of behavioral scientists from Harvard and Yale tried to save the future with a little game theory.
This is the game part: the researchers divided a large group of volunteers into five teams they called “generations.” They give 100 points or “units” to designated first-generation players and tell them to take some, up to 20 units per person, and pass the rest to the next generation. If the entire pool has 50 or more units at the end of the round, the next generation will be reset-100 units will start again. This is the sustainability model. If there are fewer than 50 units in the pool, the next generation will get what it gets.
Do you want good news or bad news? Benefit: Two-thirds of players are “collaborators”, with 10 or fewer units and ensuring the survival of the species. Disadvantages: A small number of “defectors” are always playing games. In the 18 rounds of this intergenerational commodity game, only 4 rounds of the first-generation moderation were enough to completely reset the second-generation to 100 units. Among them, the third generation has only two resets. No one has entered the 4th generation.
In a game designed to test how people plan ahead for a sustainable world, all it takes to reliably bring the apocalypse is some selfish fools-it sounds familiar, actually, but for an article titled “Work with the future. “
The story of the intergenerational merchandise game is not over yet. (I will return to that.) But the past week has highlighted the tragic that humans cannot avoid bad results in the possible future. You can see this in the terrible collapse of an apartment building in Surfside, north of Miami Beach, which killed at least 16 people and dozens of others are unaccounted for.One Engineer warning In 2018, the residents of the building severely damaged the concrete and steel supporting the building.Just last April, the apartment board Tell the residents The damage is getting worse. But the project that cost millions of dollars to repair it—which has been underway for more than two years—has not yet begun. Two years ago, the residents of Champlain Building were reasonably worried about the impact of repairs and the cost of repairs. The international merchandise game shows how bad people are at protecting future generations; in Miami, people cannot even protect their future self.
Intergenerational commodity games have nothing to do with architecture. Obviously, this is an absurd analysis of climate change. The author writes that by 2014, many people are studying cooperative game theory, but the classic often ignores the fourth dimension—time. This is where the collapse of Champlain tower overlaps with the game and the climate disasters that are happening around the world today. Danger is the risk of bad things-earthquakes, Wildfire, A hurricane, A heat event; Disaster is what happens when the risk is realized and overwhelms any preparations that people have made in advance. It turns out that people are not good at preparing in advance. The danger of Champlain Tower is obvious-at least for some residents. Like climate change, the hazards appear long before the disaster, and are almost inevitable.A deadly metaphor about how people think about (or fail to think about) the earth’s broken climate seems almost impossible to show on the nose sink, flood Miami——The city itself is a tragic metaphor, showing how people ignore the broken climate of the earth. But here we are.