h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Anybody fancy dicing with disaster? No, me neither. Try reading this article http://www.h2g2.com/A469703 good thinking people of the Guide, and tell me if you think it'll help save the universe or not. I think it could perhaps do with shortening a little, but basically I'm happy enough to recommend it.

For the final section (on 'Superrationality') I have borrowed some text from another unedited entry A248483 by another researcher U107233 (Serendipity), who unfortunately seems to have vanished from the scene. I hope this is legitimate - I simply thought it would save a sub-ed the job if I incorporated it myself, as it is good material and a shame to see it go to waste. Obviously it means the other researcher should get a co-writer credit, if their stuff appears in the final article.

Ta, Lear.

A really interesting, comprehensive and demanding Entry.

Some of the things are a bit hard to understand (esp. for non native speakers), but the content of the Entry is definitely worth reading. I have read something about the nice vs. nasty strategies some years ago. As far as I remember, there were more that two parties involved, which lead to the situation that two of them could unite themselves against the third one, but without knowing whether they could trust their partner. I would appreciate a somehow deeper look into that point, but that's only a matter of taste, I'm just interested in that part of your Entry.

Well done, Lear! As far as I can see it, the Entry is written in accordance to the Guidelines, and I dont't see any reason why it shouldn't be included in the Guide.

SCOUT RECOMMENDATION: You can't go wrong with this one IMHO.

Hello,

Well done. It's a nicely written article, and I don't think there is anything you need to change. I think it deserves to get into the Edited Guide, but we'll see what those Scout guys think.

Interestingly enough, I was thinking about the Tragedy of the Commons. This is a term that refers to overfishing, overgrazing, littering, or any other situation where we exhaust a limited resource with too much usage. Interestingly enough, I think it was shown in a paper by Garret Hardin in 1968 that the Tragedy of the Commons is unavoidable within a rational framework (everybody's looking out for your their own self interest). It's an interesting read (a mirror is at especially since he used a N-player version of the Prisoners' Dilemma to make his case. Basically, even if each player knows its bad to catch one more school of fish, they'll still be compelled into it, lest their competition does it instead (and reaps the extra reward). It suggests that the only way out is using the Superrational approach you've described.

Yours,
Jake

Ooops,

I'm sorry. The Tragedy of the Commons is NOT the same as the Prisoner's Dilemma, but it is often presented in a similar discussion (both highlight problems with acting out of complete self-interest). So, I stand corrected.

Yours,
Jake

Thanks, both of you, for the intelligent comments.

As far as I know, Jeremy, Axelrod's tournaments were consisted of a series of one-on-one affairs, rather than the more complex interactions which obviously occur in real life. That's possibly another weakness of the 'Tit-for-Tat' strategy - the fact that its success has been established mainly in rather simplified theoretical situations. Matt Ridley's book (Ch.4) is good on this - he explores a whole range of possible alternatives to 'Tit-for-Tat' in real-life scenarios.

harris... I read the 'Tragedy of the Commons' essay as I was researching this article. As you say, one of Hardin's main points is that there is no 'technical' solution to the problem - it requires, rather, a change in our view of the world, Hardin says. He seems to suggest that the emphasis on individual freedom in liberal democracies is self-undermining, in that we sometimes risk promoting the freedom of the individual at the expense of the wider collective good (on which, of course, each individual also depends). He argues that all societies need a certain amount of socially sanctioned 'mutual cocercion' in order to be able to function properly, an example being taxes - none of us likes paying them, but the legal requirement to do so enables the government to (sometimes!) spend money on decent public services etc that are to the benefit of every taxpayer. So a certain amount of 'coercion' can work in the favour of all concerned. He writes :-

"Individuals locked into the logic of the commons are free only to bring on universal ruin; once they see the necessity of mutual coercion, they become free to pursue other goals." (p.1248)

Now I come to think about it, this seems to disagree with one of Axelrod's key points - that co-operation can evolve more or less spontaneously among people without the need for any such 'coercive' involvement by a higher authority. Some of what Hardin says sounds a little conservative to me, actually. But he may be right that the problem runs deeper than rationality and logic.

I was thinking of adding a little on the subject, but decided to leave it as I felt the piece was long enough already. The other researcher that I mentioned above does actually mention Hardin's essay in his article - as I say, this text is quite good, so maybe a sub-ed might like to look at that other article to see if they want to incorporate some of the text.

All the best, Lear

I must admit some of it goes over my head, but I hear this referenced on Radion 4 and other such places more and more, so next time I do I'll know where to come.

Oh, by the way, I put this entries to H2G2 Towers and the like it. It will now be a "Reconmended" entry and go into the queue for "Editing", eventually you will get an e-mail telling you it has made it. Well done.

Sometime soon this thread will vanish from here and attach itself to the entry itself. The sub-editor will make notes of all comments made above (and maybe below)

C Hawke - Scout

Cool. That was quick.

Whilst there are 300 entries in PR some have already been rejected and wait cleaning, some are area which I know nothing about and some are, I must admit, dross (the ones on "This Life", "Basil Brush" and Parkinson's Law are however most excellent)

So the good get picked quickly, I had heard of this one before and even could just about remeber the actual problem, but as to the strategies etc.....

CH

Since your entry has already been recommended, I don't need to add my voice to the clamour of cries "pick this, pick this!". But I would have done if necessary.

Well done! This is an excellent, well-written entry. I think this is a great example of how a good command of English can easily explain some fairly abstract concepts.

Thanks Gnomon. Appreciate the compliment.

Editorial Note: This thread has been moved out of the Peer Review forum because this entry has now been recommended for the Edited Guide.

If they haven't been along already, the Scout who recommended your entry will post here soon, to let you know what happens next. Meanwhile you can find out what will happen to your entry here: http://www.h2g2.com/SubEditors-Process

Congratulations!

On a pedantic front is it Prisoner's Dilemma or Prisoners' Dilemma ?

C Hawke

All of the sources that I refer to use the singular form (Prisoner's Dilemma), so naturally that's what I've done as well. I imagine the reason is that the dilemma is experienced primarily by the individual 'prisoner' (or player, or whatever), rather than collectively, so the latter formulation wouldn't really be appropriate.