Climate change and the Prisoner

We did a lot of driving over the Christmas break. At one point during that driving I was pondering our chances, as a civilisation, of surviving the looming climate change. It occured to me that dealing with climate change is fundamentally a trust problem.

Noone seriously denies that we have the technology to run our economy with less carbon output. The only serious (evidence based) debate is how much it's likely to cost, and whether or not costs are likely to outweigh the opportunities (the kinds of business opportunities which arrise in times of change).

So if we have the technology, why not make the effort to make the changes necessary to minimise the harm of climate change?

Trust.

We will all have to expend significant effort to overcome this problem, both as individuals and as countries... and very few people or countries will make that effort if they don't trust the majority of other countries to make a similar effort.

None of this is original, or particularly interesting. However, has it occured to you before that this is analogous to the Prisoner's Dilema?

The Prisoner's Dilema is one of the fundamental problems of applied mathematics known as Game Theory. In a nutshell: two suspects are arrested, the police don't have enough evidence to secure a conviction on either except for a minor offence (6 months sentence each). However, the suspects are seperated, and told that if they squeal on their partner they'll get off free, while thier partner will get 10 years in the slammer. If they both squeal, they both get 5 years in the slammer.

Obviously, if the Prisoners work together they'll get the most mutually beneficial outcome... but can they trust eachother?

I hope you'll see the parallells. But is this insight useful? I don't know. But I do know is taht game theory already examined this kind of trust problem exhaustively. Maybe we could we learn something essential to solving the trust problem of dealing with climate change from game theory.

Different rules for different people

Should adults be able to buy adult rated games in Australia?

Currently Australia has no adult rating category for computer games. What this means in practice is that anything that would be rated adult is instead banned.

I think this is discriminatory. Adult movieogers are allowed to watch R18+ movies, adult drinkers are allowed to drink and adult smokers are allowed to smoke. Since when have Australians been happy to accept different ruels for different people?

One of the pillars of our legal system is that ruels should be consistent, and should apply equally to all people. Another is that the rights of the individual should only be restricted when failure to do so would either 1) harm the individual, other individuals, or the environment, or 2) impinge on the rights of other individuals.

How do these principals fit in with our current lack of R18+ category for computer games?

We currently accept that adults should be allowed to do some limited harm to themselves and other individuals: consumption of alcohol and smoking of cigarettes are detrimental to personal health, to an extent detrimental to the health of others, and also to an extent impinge on the rights of others (e.g., drunken public behaviour, loud music from pubs).

There is no convincing evidence that allowing adults to play adult rated games does them harm, or harms others, or impinges on the rights others to any large degree. There's certainly no evidence that playing vidoe games is more harmful to adults than drinking alcohol, smoking tobacco or watching R18+ movies.

I feel it's unjust to deny an R18+ category for games within Australia. What do you think, and why?

Gaming Demons

So I just bought a PS3 and have been 'thrashing' it out. By thrashing, I mean in the three weeks that I have had it I have spent approximately 8-10 days out of the 21 in about 4-6 hour chunks of time. Tops. Which I know that without other interests and commitments would be far more than that. But the point is that I tend to these other interests and commitments.

The thing is that I am living in a house with others who have not ever lived with a gamer. I have never really described myself as a gamer, but circumstances force this upon me. But reactions to my spending some time playing a variety of games and only just getting used to my first ever console have been just short of disdainful. Remember, if you can, the getting of a new toy and the novelty of the experience. The norm for those who have such a memory would concede that an acceptable thrashing period is probably 4-6 weeks before the novelty wears off and a diminished usage follows.

But why game? Here is a list of 'reasons' that I have pencilled.

1. First and foremost, it is fun.
2. Today, gaming isn't just gaming. It is arguably akin to watching a movie or reading a book in that a lot of them have plots and devices not dissimilar to the old and acceptable media. There are beginnings, middles and ends; the difference lies in the interactivity (though much to the derision of some of my folk, the way that I watch tv and movies is an interactive experience).
3. I have tried on previous occasions to get in on some GTA or GT action on other people's consoles but couldn't because I didn't start the game from scratch and go through the basic training. Now I can and it makes a lot more sense.
4. I have always played games of digital and 'analog' forms from cards and scrabble, sport (man, have I played a lot of sport in my time), arcade games such as Space Invaders and TMNT, Lode Runner on the 386 that I first got in the mid 80's, Pong on my mates Sinclair console, board games such as Risk and Monopoly… I could go on but I won't. The fact is, that have engaged on many, many levels on my own and with other people. 'Gaming' is just another one of those.
5. If you lose touch with the technology, it becomes harder to get back on board. I have never owned my own console and have essentially completely lost the ability to compete with my peers as the complexity and human interface devices have progressed without me. Thus, the more likely it is that I would not be able to interact with someone who has. Which leads me to my next couple of points.
6. The next generation will have full capacity with these forms of communication and I will be shut out. Which means that I will be an isolated dinosaur. The gap between myself and those who will be running the world will unnecessarily grow.
7. Previous generations go to dinner parties and discuss politics, movies and books. Mine discuss politics, movies, books, games, hardware and software and webcomics and blogs.
8. One of the reasons why I know how to put together systems ranging from AV, PC and WiFi networks is because I play with these things for fun as well as for work. All of these skills are necessary today and I get called upon regularly by people who have not kept touch with these things. "How did you know that you had to push that button for 3 seconds to get an alternate function from it?". Are you a person who has heard or asked this question before?
9. The paradigm of communication is changing. Games are at the forefront of this. Don't participate and you miss out on a language that is becoming more all pervasive.
10. Have an opinion on how much gaming is too much, or how much violence should be tolerated by your child before its brain turns to mush? Is it informed through experience, research or fear inducing articles on the Advertiser, or a combination of the three?
11. Need to buy a gift for a 5, 10, 15 25 year old? Wouldn't have a clue what to get, would you?

There's more to this, and I encourage adding to it and/or arguing over these points. Most people who don't get gaming will be deficient in more that one of the points I have made. Yes, I agree that most games are at their core juvenile with few games being anything more that shoot'emups and fantasy, but this is on the mend with more creativity and thought going into them. With turnovers like Assassin's Creed II and WoW, the old market is finding itself having to shift its ideology and infrastructure to be able to accommodate these changes. As this occurs, the potential for gaming to transform itself and the world around it will result in something that is more than a 'time wasting game'. And by Jove, I want to be able to develop an informed opinion on it and possibly shape it. And I'll have fun doing it.

Created by OnlineEducation.net

Debt

Instead of buying a house, I think it would be a far more rewarding experience spending the same amount of money on THIS. Sure, you might say that it provides no returns. But you'd be wrong!! Judging success with assets was a small glitch in our history. It'd be nice to have one provided it caused me no significant stress like so many of my contemporaries who have somehow bought in on the idea that a primary goal of humanity is to 'own' a piece of land, regardless of the overall real and opportunity costs. But that is a rant I'll save for another day.

On the original topic. I already have the soundtrack selected for the moment I see the sun coming up over the earth. Sure, it's cheesy. That's the kinda guy I am. But it captures my imagination. It's a convergence of the past and the future and of fiction and it's realisation. Star Wars may be realisable, but you're an idiot for hoping so (as much for wishing for an intergalactic empire as it's demise at the hands of pathetic upstart).

There have been a few moments in my life where, as I approach and enter them, I have felt a convergence of the desires that made it happen with what I did to get there. Not an expression of the end overriding the means, but of that moment compressing time, energy and experiences, giving it gravity. And it sticks with you. And it is seeps into everything you do from that point on.

Obscure

In the context of attempting to be obscure, the norm is ultimate

Go Abbott!!

I think it's a blessing that the Liberals held things back for another stint. Two reasons:

1. The ETS had been watered down so much it resembled a homoeopathic remedy. It would prove to be not only ineffectual, but dangerous. Maybe it would have been nice to go to Copenhagen with something. On the other hand, it would have been an example of how you could get some cuddly legislation passed with a hotlink posted in wiktionary's definition for compromise (transitive). Look it up.

2. It means that if Labor are at all serious about getting something up and running, they get a better hit at the ball providing the Greens can capitalise on this debacle. But I really can't see the former happenning, considering the seriously negligent way in which Rudd and his team have promoted the scheme. Rudd has been having fun using the ETS to let the Libs tear themselves apart. ... See More

There is very little in the scheme that allows Garnaut to be happy about (c.f. exemption of Agriculture?!!! Massive concessions to intensive producers?!!) Seriously, the only thing that will come out of a scheme like that is that once it is passed, the heavy emitters will claim that they're price hikes are due to the ETS, whilst not actually having to pay any real compensation, resulting in record profits? Who are these people in bed with?!!