An interesting game

Fate of the World goes on sale on Tuesday and has been praised by gaming experts and climate campaigners as a way of reaching new audiences in the fight against carbon emissions.

However, climate change sceptics may be surprised and angered by some of the strategies on offer in the game which is being released on PCs and Apple Macs.

For example:

Other more extreme policies are also available such as creating a disease to reduce the world\’s population

The thing is, over the long term, that wouldn\’t actually work. For as best we know, people actually decide how many children they want to have. That decision informed by how many children do you need to have in order to have a damn good chance of having grandchildren? As shorthand, having grandchildren is the Darwinian version of winning the game of life.

This is what is behind the clearly observable fact that as childhood and early mortality declines, the number of children people decide to have declines. So much so that declines in said mortality actually lead to, in the end, declines in total population.

One would assume therefore that if you raise child and early mortality through disease then you\’ll raise birth rates and thus population.

As to the grander matter, I do wonder where they got their economic and technical projections from? The IPCC I hope? Showing that globalisation wins against non-globalisation?

6 thoughts on “An interesting game”

  1. No, they’re going to give people the option of free money if they choose to participate in a study, or of not participating if they prefer. In other news, Andrew Bolt is still a fuckwit.

  2. As an engineering undergraduate, I had to follow an ethics/responsibility course in which we used a team board game (designed by an oil company) based on a coastal oil spill. The teams competed to come up with the best mitigation strategy in terms of environmental impact and cost.

    The solution adopted by my team was to stuff all of the permutations into one of the new fangled Commodore PETs and follow the strategy suggested by the computer. Which was to do absolutely nothing in advance and to clean up the spillage if it ever occurred.

    One of the things that I learned at university, not only from this lesson, is that gaming the system is trickier than it appears. In this exercise, we scored maximum points for economic efficiency and zilch for ethics and share value impact.

    I might have a go at Fate of the World to see if I have learned anything in he last 30 years.

  3. “No, they’re going to give people the option of free money if they choose to participate in a study, or of not participating if they prefer. ”

    As pointed out above, it’s people like me who are paying for this lunacy. It might be free to you. This ‘study’ is subject to a pretty major form of bias, in which people who don’t mind producing lots of CO2 and who like eating themselves into an early grave will choose not to participate. People who want the ‘free’ money supplied so helpfully by people such as me will join in. So I am funding a study that can’t in itself possibly demonstrate that a compulsory CO2 rationing scheme will work.

    “In other news, Andrew Bolt is still a fuckwit”

    I think this is referred to as shooting the messenger. Are you able to justify this obscene waste of taxpayers’ money on its merits or will we have to rely on your dislike of Andrew Bolt to convince us?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *