Are we sure everyone in class I and Ii are convinced the ship will sink?
Maybe they think it is only shallow water, we are near the coast, so they will survive anyway, no matter what happens.
People in class III have a different perspective than those in class I and II, the lack the skills to save the boat, so they should be ready for mutiny.
Mutiny is indeed what it might come to. Unfortunately, mutinies and revolutions have the tendency to be bloody and messy affairs, producing even more evil people. I still have a tiny hope that there could be a peaceful way out of the mess we are in.
Another approach is to spread the word that it's going to be fun to go down with the ship... that what comes after that is to be better... and throw millions of bottles into the sea with letters about the event. because the really important thing, the real concern of someone with no way out, is to die without anyone knowing the real reason, and that the people who stay alive, have peace and tranquility to continue their journey on this planet...
There is a better way to think about this. To use your sinking ship narrative, it boils down to training and communication. Like the instructions when boarding a plane, everyone should have access to training and information about how to respond to changing situations. Real heroes don't step up to the challenge they fall back on their training. When doing the right thing is second nature to everyone the problem will practically solve itself. The catch is the ship narrative does not include greed. The wealthy did not get wealthy by keeping the water out. The wealthy get wealthy by letting the water in. So the solution to your (our) problem is to align human greed to saving the planet and then make that goal second nature to everyone. Profits will always come first so how do we make saving the planet profitable?
Unlike other game-theoretical problems, the parameters of the problem are a bit unclear. What does it mean when you say, "If you believe the ship can be saved, it makes sense to stay and help operate the water pumps. On the other hand, if you think the ship is going down anyway, it is better to run to the lifeboats as quickly as possible to secure a space." Are you saying it is 100% unclear whether the ship is savable or not, i.e. a total guess?
If one were to add the parameter "the ship would only - but always - be saved if everyone pumps water, then I see no reason why the authoritarian approach shouldn't succeed.
Why would it require that the captain has absolute authority? He has the gun; he presumably doesn't need authority. Moreover, everyone sees the situation and rationally understands that no one else is bulletproof. Not only would everyone survive with this solution, but everyone would immediately be quite happy to see everyone else pump water, ensuring the survival of all.
You would have to add additional parameters to not have this be the obvious solution, such as worrying about how people feel about things or what happens down the line once the ship is saved. Btw, this imho is why utilitarianism is the best governing structure - with a certain regard for sacred values.
This is exactly what we do in everyday life, with political budget decisions being heavily decided via Quality Adjusted Life Years. You can see on the Danish government homepage that a human life is worth exactly 34.4M DKK. We use this value to choose between investing in roundabouts, hospitals and everything else that saves lives.
This is why it was so bizarre to see our prime minister come forward and say during COVID-19 that "one death from COVID is a death too many", throwing QALY right out the window, but I guess it was for political reasons.
Why should the lifeboats be reserved for "the privileged"? If moral correctness is what you seek, explaining to all that all passengers are equally deserving of a lifeboat, but that there simply aren't enough of them, should be something even the wealthy could reluctantly agree with and would keep the proposal morally sound. As for your carbon tax idea, how would businesses built on fossils be invalidated? How would the tax be levied: would it price lower-income people out of the ability to live? Or would it only be applied to the wealthy? If so, it seems it would allow for fossil industries to continue until the oil, gas and coal is depleted, rather than invalidate them. Or if, as you suggest, it would be a "high enough" tax as to be prohibitively expensive even for billionaires, how would the fossil industry survive in order to continue to provide what we need to grow food, heat homes, etc., as renewables cannot simply step in and take over?
Best way to save the ship might be, to promise only 50% of the lifeboats to the priviliged (not declaring, who exactely belongs to them) and to grant accesss to the other 50% to those who most seriously and effectively were engaged to fight the sinking of the ship. So, hope's kept alive with most people.
Still, to me it's not yet clear what the "lifeboats" mean in our world. It seems important to come up with a stringent narrative before contacting oil companies. I totally agree that "Science as usual" wil not save the climate.
Thanks for this eye opener and looking forward to joint plan B.
There is a better way to think about this. To use your sinking ship narrative, it boils down to training and communication. Like the instructions when boarding a plane, everyone should have access to training and information about how to respond to changing situations. Real heroes don't step up to the challenge they fall back on their training. When doing the right thing is second nature to everyone the problem will practically solve itself. The catch is the ship narrative does not include greed. The wealthy did not get wealthy by keeping the water out. The wealthy get wealthy by letting the water in. So the solution to your (our) problem is to align human greed to saving the planet and then make that goal second nature to everyone. Profits will always come first so how do we make saving the planet profitable?
The idea that "profits will always come first" so are required for a solution seems ignorant of the fact that profit-seeking and greed created the climate crisis. There are multiple problems to deal with. Climate change is only one of them. But to stick with it here, we recognize that profit-seeking is not part of the equation when it comes to responding to natural disasters, which climate change essentially is despite having been caused in this case by ourselves. Firefighters don't seek profits or a credit card swipe before stopping a blaze. Saving your own skin, or the skin of your children, should be reason enough for people to be committed to mitigating climate change. Besides, introducing a profit incentive for responding to warming is all we have done, to date, so your suggestion has already been followed. What has it brought us? All such "solutions" are profitable, but provide no meaningful impact on warming: carbon markets do not reduce GHGs. Carbon removal schemes, from direct air capture to planting trees, are either completely implausible due to the problem of scale, or are simply valuable only on a timescale that is longer than ours, as societal collapse will arrive before they can have any effect on warming, despite being potentially profitable ventures. My feeling is that the reason why we have seen no effective movement on climate change is simply because we have not been properly informed. We have been told that things are under control, or that solutions are on the way and that this is all manageable. People cannot become concerned enough about things that are not presented as significant problems. We have not yet enacted the equivalent of a speed limit yet, for example, which allows people to believe that speeding is okay. Parties do not break up because the partygoers are calmly informed that the neighbors have requested that they turn the music off and go home. They stop when the cops arrive. Trying to save human greed will only work, I think, if we change the definition of greed to allow it to include the greed of wanting to just stay alive.
Collective action needs leadership, which arises when few go ahead and show the way by their actions. Raising dilemmas and rational argumentations is just confusing the people, who usually reacts with their guts, if fast action is needed. And the way that leads to hell is paved with good intentions!
Are we sure everyone in class I and Ii are convinced the ship will sink?
Maybe they think it is only shallow water, we are near the coast, so they will survive anyway, no matter what happens.
People in class III have a different perspective than those in class I and II, the lack the skills to save the boat, so they should be ready for mutiny.
Mutiny is indeed what it might come to. Unfortunately, mutinies and revolutions have the tendency to be bloody and messy affairs, producing even more evil people. I still have a tiny hope that there could be a peaceful way out of the mess we are in.
Another approach is to spread the word that it's going to be fun to go down with the ship... that what comes after that is to be better... and throw millions of bottles into the sea with letters about the event. because the really important thing, the real concern of someone with no way out, is to die without anyone knowing the real reason, and that the people who stay alive, have peace and tranquility to continue their journey on this planet...
There is a better way to think about this. To use your sinking ship narrative, it boils down to training and communication. Like the instructions when boarding a plane, everyone should have access to training and information about how to respond to changing situations. Real heroes don't step up to the challenge they fall back on their training. When doing the right thing is second nature to everyone the problem will practically solve itself. The catch is the ship narrative does not include greed. The wealthy did not get wealthy by keeping the water out. The wealthy get wealthy by letting the water in. So the solution to your (our) problem is to align human greed to saving the planet and then make that goal second nature to everyone. Profits will always come first so how do we make saving the planet profitable?
Now that's the real question.
Unlike other game-theoretical problems, the parameters of the problem are a bit unclear. What does it mean when you say, "If you believe the ship can be saved, it makes sense to stay and help operate the water pumps. On the other hand, if you think the ship is going down anyway, it is better to run to the lifeboats as quickly as possible to secure a space." Are you saying it is 100% unclear whether the ship is savable or not, i.e. a total guess?
If one were to add the parameter "the ship would only - but always - be saved if everyone pumps water, then I see no reason why the authoritarian approach shouldn't succeed.
Why would it require that the captain has absolute authority? He has the gun; he presumably doesn't need authority. Moreover, everyone sees the situation and rationally understands that no one else is bulletproof. Not only would everyone survive with this solution, but everyone would immediately be quite happy to see everyone else pump water, ensuring the survival of all.
You would have to add additional parameters to not have this be the obvious solution, such as worrying about how people feel about things or what happens down the line once the ship is saved. Btw, this imho is why utilitarianism is the best governing structure - with a certain regard for sacred values.
This is exactly what we do in everyday life, with political budget decisions being heavily decided via Quality Adjusted Life Years. You can see on the Danish government homepage that a human life is worth exactly 34.4M DKK. We use this value to choose between investing in roundabouts, hospitals and everything else that saves lives.
This is why it was so bizarre to see our prime minister come forward and say during COVID-19 that "one death from COVID is a death too many", throwing QALY right out the window, but I guess it was for political reasons.
Why should the lifeboats be reserved for "the privileged"? If moral correctness is what you seek, explaining to all that all passengers are equally deserving of a lifeboat, but that there simply aren't enough of them, should be something even the wealthy could reluctantly agree with and would keep the proposal morally sound. As for your carbon tax idea, how would businesses built on fossils be invalidated? How would the tax be levied: would it price lower-income people out of the ability to live? Or would it only be applied to the wealthy? If so, it seems it would allow for fossil industries to continue until the oil, gas and coal is depleted, rather than invalidate them. Or if, as you suggest, it would be a "high enough" tax as to be prohibitively expensive even for billionaires, how would the fossil industry survive in order to continue to provide what we need to grow food, heat homes, etc., as renewables cannot simply step in and take over?
Hi Hendrik
A magnificent parable!
Best way to save the ship might be, to promise only 50% of the lifeboats to the priviliged (not declaring, who exactely belongs to them) and to grant accesss to the other 50% to those who most seriously and effectively were engaged to fight the sinking of the ship. So, hope's kept alive with most people.
Still, to me it's not yet clear what the "lifeboats" mean in our world. It seems important to come up with a stringent narrative before contacting oil companies. I totally agree that "Science as usual" wil not save the climate.
Thanks for this eye opener and looking forward to joint plan B.
Greetings
Stephan
There is a better way to think about this. To use your sinking ship narrative, it boils down to training and communication. Like the instructions when boarding a plane, everyone should have access to training and information about how to respond to changing situations. Real heroes don't step up to the challenge they fall back on their training. When doing the right thing is second nature to everyone the problem will practically solve itself. The catch is the ship narrative does not include greed. The wealthy did not get wealthy by keeping the water out. The wealthy get wealthy by letting the water in. So the solution to your (our) problem is to align human greed to saving the planet and then make that goal second nature to everyone. Profits will always come first so how do we make saving the planet profitable?
Now that's the real question.
The idea that "profits will always come first" so are required for a solution seems ignorant of the fact that profit-seeking and greed created the climate crisis. There are multiple problems to deal with. Climate change is only one of them. But to stick with it here, we recognize that profit-seeking is not part of the equation when it comes to responding to natural disasters, which climate change essentially is despite having been caused in this case by ourselves. Firefighters don't seek profits or a credit card swipe before stopping a blaze. Saving your own skin, or the skin of your children, should be reason enough for people to be committed to mitigating climate change. Besides, introducing a profit incentive for responding to warming is all we have done, to date, so your suggestion has already been followed. What has it brought us? All such "solutions" are profitable, but provide no meaningful impact on warming: carbon markets do not reduce GHGs. Carbon removal schemes, from direct air capture to planting trees, are either completely implausible due to the problem of scale, or are simply valuable only on a timescale that is longer than ours, as societal collapse will arrive before they can have any effect on warming, despite being potentially profitable ventures. My feeling is that the reason why we have seen no effective movement on climate change is simply because we have not been properly informed. We have been told that things are under control, or that solutions are on the way and that this is all manageable. People cannot become concerned enough about things that are not presented as significant problems. We have not yet enacted the equivalent of a speed limit yet, for example, which allows people to believe that speeding is okay. Parties do not break up because the partygoers are calmly informed that the neighbors have requested that they turn the music off and go home. They stop when the cops arrive. Trying to save human greed will only work, I think, if we change the definition of greed to allow it to include the greed of wanting to just stay alive.
Collective action needs leadership, which arises when few go ahead and show the way by their actions. Raising dilemmas and rational argumentations is just confusing the people, who usually reacts with their guts, if fast action is needed. And the way that leads to hell is paved with good intentions!
Actually, it's probably the people at the bottom (those in 3rd class) that have the best answers to this dilemma.
Great argument and definitely food for thought...