By Bhagwad Jal Park, on July 30th, 2008
In the previous article, I explained how in any game, it is reasonable to assume that a stable outcome will be a Nash Equilibrium. Today, I will show how it is impossible for rational people like us to save the planet by cooperating to stop using carbon fuels.
Currently, as things stand, carbon fuels definitely have an edge over traditional fuels. As of now, they are cheaper, and they can deliver more power than automobiles that run on eco-friendly sources like electricity. (Let us ignore for the moment the truth that electricity is largely produced using carbon fuels!)
If it weren’t for the fact that the large scale use of carbon fuels in our automobiles is destroying the environment, life would be great. Sure, they’ll run out someday but not in our time. In the world of game theory, each person is uniquely selfish. We’re not caring about future generations here. By the time our great-grandchildren realize that the earth has no more fuels, we won’t be around to face the consequences.
Also, we need to keep in mind the fact that one person using eco-friendly fuels is not going to save the environment. Concordantly, if everyone else is using eco-friendly fuels, then one person using carbon fuels isn’t going to destroy the environment either.
It’s also true that if you’re the only one using carbon fuels, you gain a massive advantage over everyone else. You reach your workplace faster, and you can perhaps even rob a bank and get away, as the police will not be using carbon fuels, and hence can’t keep up with you.
Conversely, if you’re the only one to use eco-friendly fuels, you will get creamed personally (babes stay away from you) as well as professionally (more time to reach a client, you have to stay closer to work, etc).
So let’s split the population into two segments. You, and everyone else. There are two choices for each segment. Using eco-friendly fuels, and using carbon based fuels. The diagram above shows the possible outcomes for each situation where each both parties have made their choices.
What should you do if everyone else is using eco-friendly fuels? Should you use them too? No! As the environment will still be saved if you use carbon-based fuels and you get an advantage over everyone else, you must use carbon-based fuels if everyone else is using eco-friendly fuels.
Suppose everyone else uses carbon fuels, then should you use eco-friendly fuels? Of course not! Why should you? It’s not as if the earth will be saved just because you choose to use eco-friendly fuels. And if you’re the only one not using carbon fuels, you’ll be a loser compared to everyone else.
Therefore, for you, using carbon fuels is a dominant strategy. This means that it’s a strategy that makes you better off no matter what the other party is doing.
This logic of course holds true for everyone else as well. The outcome is that, each person behaving rationally dooms the earth collectively. This counter intuitive result where rational decisions lead to disaster is commonly known as the “Prisoner’s Dilemma.” There’s no way that we can save the earth if the only solution is cooperation.
The prisoner’s dilemma can be overcome if there is a law against carbon fuels. This way, the cost of using carbon fuels goes up (as the law can punish you), and the payoffs in the diagram change.
There is another solution to the prisoner’s dilemma. Game theory assumes that everyone is rational. However, people don’t think rationally. I certainly don’t. I use a bicycle instead of a car because of an illogical and stupidly misplaced sense of civic duty. I feel that my actions actually have an effect on the environment when they really don’t. The paradox is that when everyone behaves illogically, it is possible for a good outcome to ensue!
So maybe rationality isn’t all that it’s hyped up to be. We will explore this idea in later articles where I will show that nature has deliberately made us illogical precisely for the purpose of avoiding the Prisonner’s Dillemma. There is hope for our planet after all!
By R. C. Anderson, on July 30th, 2008
Stroke affects men and women around the world in a devastating manner. Although some strokes are more severe than others, they almost always lead to a change in the patient’s lifestyle. Recently, two articles have found interesting links to stroke, what may cause it and easy ways to attempt to prevent it.
When many adults were children, a frequent refrain they may have heard was “go outside and play”. Now, however, it seems this refrain is rarely used which has led to an increase in childhood obesity over the past several decades. Adults are often the ones setting such an example by lying on the couch watching random television programs, rarely going outside or exercising. In fact, the obesity of the U.S. population has increased dramatically since the 1970s. While only 47% of the population was considered obese in the 1970s, this number jumped to 56% in the 1990s and to 65% in 2000.
Is it possible that this type of stagnant, indoor-based behavior has other consequences? According to two studies on stroke and its predictive factors, the answer is most probably yes. In a July 17 issue of Stroke, Dr. Stefan Pilz and associates published data from approximately 3,300 patients who had been referred for coronary angiography. Vitamin D levels were measured in these patients and their health was then monitored for eight years. Pilz believes this study showed low levels of vitamin D to be an independent predictor of fatal stroke with low levels equaling an increased risk of stroke. If this is true, one simple way to curtail stroke could be easy: get outside.
The Role of Vitamin D
Vitamin D is made by the body upon exposure to the sun. If, however, one stays indoors too much, it could be difficult for the body to generate the necessary amount of this vitamin. This is not to say people should spend inordinate amounts of time outdoors. Too much time in the sun, especially without sunscreen, could lead to problems of its own, such as skin cancer. According to Pilz, vitamin D supplementation in stroke patients has reduced many problems related to bone strength and could offer a protective measure against stroke. Unfortunately, it is now estimated that as much as 50% of those in the U.S. and Europe could be deficient in vitamin D.
A second study, authored by Dr. Jiu-Chiuan Chen and published in the same issue of Stroke, explored the possible link between stroke and sleep. Over 93,000 women were enrolled in a study to assess if the duration of their sleep could be correlated to their risk of stroke. These women were followed for almost eight years and the results were interesting, if not disturbing. Using seven hours of sleep per night as a baseline, women who slept six, eight and nine hours were tracked.
Women who slept six hours suffered 14% more strokes than those who slept seven hours each night. The answer, however, is not to sleep more. Women who slept eight hours experienced 24% more incidence of stroke. While these numbers may not sound too frightening, the true jump occurred in women who slept nine hours each night. This group of women increased their stroke risk by 70%. Unfortunately for those considering simply setting the alarm clock, Chen stated that he did not believe the solution of artificially reducing ones sleep duration to lower the risk of stroke could be supported by their data. On the other hand, it often seems the more active an individual is, the more optimal their sleep conditions become. If this is true, it may be possible for those sleeping too long at night to naturally change their sleep patterns by changing what they do during the day.
Costs to the Nation
Stroke has become a serious problem in the U.S. In 2007, strokes cost the U.S. $62.7 billion. The American Heart Association has calculated that every 45 seconds someone has a stroke and every three to four minutes someone dies. In fact, stroke accounted for one in every 16 deaths in 2004 making it the third leading cause of death. Perhaps surprisingly, women made up 61% of the 5.7 million stroke victims in 2004. While only 58,700 men died as a result, almost twice as many women, or 91,400, did. While Caucasians have one of the lowest percentages of strokes at 2.5%, native Hawaiians or Pacific Islanders have the highest at 8.1%.
With more people sitting indoors, the numbers of people affected by disease and infirmities are bound to increase. The increased sedentary lifestyle of today, along with other factors, seems to have led to an increase in obesity, and it seems it will lead to an increase in stroke risk. The solution of simply getting outside and exercising seems so simple, and yet many don’t apply it. In 2005, it was found that Japanese men reduced their risk of stroke by 29% and women reduced it 20% merely by walking and participating in some kind of sport. With so much expense, both financially and in terms of human suffering being expended, putting effort into preventing such a disease seems only logical.
By G.L.C., on July 30th, 2008
The rising oil prices have forced the government to act. Many experts have blamed the recent increase in oil prices on speculation. The government is planning to introduce a legislation – the Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act – in an attempt to rein in speculations in the oil market. Will the legislation in its present form achieve its goal?
The legislation requires the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to eliminate excessive speculation in oil. It aims to do this by restricting the amount of trades by certain participants. The CFTC will have to differentiate between “legitimate” and “non-legitimate” hedging by market participants and gather data on over-the-counter and index traders and swap dealers. It will increase transparency and disclosure requirements so as to equip the CFTC to more effectively carry out its proper role of commodity market oversight.
The legislation also authorizes the CFTC to increase its staff by 100 to fulfill its new responsibilities.
The legislation will place sensible checks on the influence of speculators by placing reasonable limits on large, over-the-counter trades and by closing the loopholes that have permitted traders to make large-scale speculative trades through overseas exchanges. It will compel U.S.-based traders to abide by the U.S. regulatory regime when placing trades on foreign exchanges.
The legislation is sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.).
Critics point to a provision in the legislation that would allow the regulator to order companies to liquidate their swaps transactions if it concludes that a major market disturbance has occurred. In reality, this would require companies to break their privately negotiated risk management contracts, even if the swap complied with trading limits that were in place when it was originally negotiated. In its present form it is likely to face strong opposition, especially from the Republicans, unless it includes provisions for expanding domestic oil drilling. The legislation could drive commodity markets out of the U.S. and make it more expensive for bona fide hedgers to protect themselves from volatile prices, according to the group.
This legislation is not the only effort underway to rein in speculators. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), House Agriculture Committee Chairman, is working on a bill to tighten regulation of over-the-counter and swaps trading in the agricultural and energy futures markets. The Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) has introduced legislation to curb participation by investors and other financial players in the energy markets.
Is it just speculation or is there more to the rise in oil prices? On July 18, oil prices tumbled below $130 a barrel for the first time in more than a month. Did the proposed legislation have anything to do with this? What will happen if the oil prices increase after the proposed legislations is passed?
|
|
Most Popular Posts