In a prisoner’s dilemma, two sides have an incentive to defect, even though mutual defection is worse for both sides than mutual cooperation. It is well known that in theory and in reality people cooperate more when then expect to interact over more repetitions, and when they care more about the future.
The euphemism for that is "shared destiny". If defection means we all suffer, then there's greater interest for most parties to cooperate and enforce cooperation. But it also means that those who do choose to defect (or at least try to) may have greater power and advantage in doing so than they otherwise would have in the absence of shared destiny.
It's not very practical, but countries under a shared group identity, like a more powerful U.N., could each have a set of representatives from all other member countries present and active in their respective governments. The representatives would all provide their input on minor (or major, but lack of tension is the intent) governmental decisions; exempli gratia France, Spain, Australia, the U.K., Russia, China, etcetera all have present in U.S. Congress representatives, each sharing their country's perspective and input on the issues of the day's docket, and vice versa.
The purpose would be everyday, unobstructive cooperation; interaction as close to the continuous model as I can conceive.
The problem is that the continuous interaction has to be with the same parties. Densely populated cities, if small enough, could have that. But large cities can and do lead to nomadic defectors who roam around hunting unconditional cooperators. So if you build up populations of cooperating people, what keeps the con men from cleaning them out?
That's in part why crime, impoliteness, political corruption, and other signs of defection occur IMHO.
It is hard to make people live longer, or care more about the future.Just imagine if we could cure aging or restore brain-injured people from backup. And offer them lush holiday experiences in multi-sensory virtual environments. What better motivator could there be to become a responsible world citizen who follows the law and helps punish defectors.
I really loved reading your blog. It was very well authored and easy to understand. binary trading
Isn't it?
The euphemism for that is "shared destiny". If defection means we all suffer, then there's greater interest for most parties to cooperate and enforce cooperation. But it also means that those who do choose to defect (or at least try to) may have greater power and advantage in doing so than they otherwise would have in the absence of shared destiny.
Good point, KH. Substitute "neighborhoods" for cities, with Jane Jacobs in mind, and it works better.
Nuclear weapons.
It's not very practical, but countries under a shared group identity, like a more powerful U.N., could each have a set of representatives from all other member countries present and active in their respective governments. The representatives would all provide their input on minor (or major, but lack of tension is the intent) governmental decisions; exempli gratia France, Spain, Australia, the U.K., Russia, China, etcetera all have present in U.S. Congress representatives, each sharing their country's perspective and input on the issues of the day's docket, and vice versa.
The purpose would be everyday, unobstructive cooperation; interaction as close to the continuous model as I can conceive.
reputation systems
Densely populated cities.
The problem is that the continuous interaction has to be with the same parties. Densely populated cities, if small enough, could have that. But large cities can and do lead to nomadic defectors who roam around hunting unconditional cooperators. So if you build up populations of cooperating people, what keeps the con men from cleaning them out?
That's in part why crime, impoliteness, political corruption, and other signs of defection occur IMHO.
It is hard to make people live longer, or care more about the future.Just imagine if we could cure aging or restore brain-injured people from backup. And offer them lush holiday experiences in multi-sensory virtual environments. What better motivator could there be to become a responsible world citizen who follows the law and helps punish defectors.
Densely populated cities.
So do online firms cooperate more when they can vary their prices more frequently?
Is the idea here that price competition is like the prisoner's dilemma, with cooperation = price collusion?