Tony ([info]quikchange) wrote,
@ 2008-04-18 19:13:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood: pessimistic
Current music:This Red Book - Pinback
Entry tags:culture, economics, environment, psychology

Why we're all doomed
Imagine a game with these rules:


  1. the game lasts for a finite amount of time (T);
  2. any player can choose to opt out at any time, which is equivalent to losing;
  3. the number of possible winners (W) is a small fraction of the total number of players (P);
  4. when the game ends, if the number of remaining players (R) is greater than the maximum possible number of winners, they all lose, but otherwise they all win.

Would you be surprised if nobody ever won? Well, this is a simplified form of the game our genes are playing (using our bodies as gamepieces).

Am I being too cryptic?

(Post a new comment)


[info]theenforcer
2008-04-19 02:31 am UTC (link)
I don't follow your logic on point 4. Care to elaborate?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]quikchange
2008-04-19 02:48 am UTC (link)
Since you said it was the logic and not the analogy that you didn't follow and you seemed OK with #3, I'll state my reasoning about the domain I've tried to model with the game with respect to #4 and you tell me if you see a flaw there.

If most genes ceded defeat without duress and with no gain then their gamepieces would no longer prevent the remaining genes from winning. That models a large number of people choosing not to bear offspring and not to seek the means to genetic success (e.g. power, status, etc.).

Does that make things clearer or did I misread your comment?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)
Sorry, that didn't make things clearer.
[info]theenforcer
2008-04-19 06:12 am UTC (link)
I'm not convinced R and W are mutually independent, especially when you apply T. Let me ask my question another way:

THEOREM: If R > W, everybody loses.

PROOF: Let R = W + n.
Complete the proof for n > 0.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]kinthelt
2008-04-19 02:32 am UTC (link)
You must be talking about overpopulation of the planet.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]quikchange
2008-04-19 02:36 am UTC (link)
Yes. Does my reduction of the situation make sense to you?
I'm not convinced of its validity myself but I can't pinpoint any flaws so I'm hoping somebody else can.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]kinthelt
2008-04-19 02:43 pm UTC (link)
stak beat me to it. :)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]stak
2008-04-19 04:09 am UTC (link)
There are conditions under which T can be extended, though. For instance, if space travel and colonization technology improves drastically before T expires, it could prolong T indefinitely. (Or, alternatively, you could view it as rule #3 no longer being true).

Even assuming that our planet is all there is, I still think there's a flaw. I think it has to do with a faulty termination condition - the game doesn't end when T expires, but rather when P hits zero. T is not a constant, but is a function of P (lower P corresponds to higher T). Also, the "they all lose" step is actually still part of the game and as such, can affect the outcome of the game. Losing is not an instantaneous process; as people start losing, P decreases and causes T to increase again.. once enough people have lost the game recovers and continues, but P doesn't actually hit zero.

Unless, of course, we smash into an asteroid.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]quikchange
2008-04-19 04:23 am UTC (link)
Wow, I'm quite taken by your analysis.

I'd been wondering about the termination condition myself but didn't want to introduce the additional complexity (limited resources) required to model it more accurately so I conflated resources with time.

Your enhanced model actually seems to capture pre-civilization evolution perfectly, where populations had natural levels that were bounded by available resources. The problem with advanced civilization, personal freedoms, and modern technology is that they allow players to reduce T. My model falls short by neglecting to provide a motivation for players to reduce T as it does not give them a competitive advantage. I'm thinking now about how to remedy that shortcoming in the model.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]stak
2008-04-19 05:17 am UTC (link)
Conflating resources with time is fine, I think. But you can't eliminate the relationship between T and P. As for motivation to reduce T, I'm not sure you can model that accurately without introducing a new variable (i.e. complicating the model).

On a slightly tangential note, you may be interested in something I wrote a while back on evolution (or in this case, motivation behind rule #2): http://stakface.com/spout/entry.php?id=317

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]stak
2008-04-19 05:21 am UTC (link)
.. unless, of course, you're the anonymous commenter on that post of mine. The viewpoint expressed there does seem to fit right in with your model. :)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]quikchange
2008-04-19 06:09 am UTC (link)
I did actually read that post of yours but I am not at all convinced that people subconsciously chose to have fewer kids if they value themselves comparatively less than others. While we are capable of rationally overriding the leanings to which our genes predispose us, that does not tend to happen.

Also, as an individual, what incentive is there to care about the future evolution of our species, especially given that we're at the top of the biological food chain already?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]kinthelt
2008-04-19 02:53 pm UTC (link)
You could always make the argument that we're not at the top of the biological food chain.

If you're talking about a literal "food chain", you could say that there are indeed organisms that feed upon us. Viruses and bacteria cause disease and cause us to die. Not to mention macro-organisms such as lice, worms and ticks. These are conditions that are far from being eliminated in the global sense.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]stak
2008-04-20 06:49 pm UTC (link)
I was thinking about your "genes created us" theory today, and I have a question. You admit that "we are capable of rationally overriding" the genes, and can choose to not have kids if we so desire. However, if the genes' primary motivation is to reproduce, why would they have given us the ability to override them? Is there some other advantage they gain that I'm missing?

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]tangbu
2008-04-21 06:44 pm UTC (link)
There's considerable evidence that people in poor conditions/countries have more children, and as their affluence increases, birthrates decrease. Whether poor people have less self-worth than richer people is unknown, but my opinion is that people with higher self-esteem likely have less children.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…