Could Game Theory Be Used To Prevent Human Extinction?
Below is the link to an article titled “Could Game Theory Be Used To Prevent Human Extinction?” Even in an age where it seems every online article is titled with the purpose of generating clicks, one that mentions human extinction is sure to stand out.
http://io9.com/could-game-theory-be-used-to-prevent-human-extinction-1649795888
The article begins by reviewing some basic game theory concepts that anyone in this course would be familiar with. The article invites you to skip this section. They do introduce one interesting example from a Washington Post piece by Michael Kinsley that leads well into their discussion of game theory’s applications to foreign relations and threats.
The article goes on to use game theory to analyze the current situation between Russia and NATO/the U.S. concerning Russia’s potential to invade Estonia. They quote The Economist which notes that for the U.S. and the major powers in NATO, the payoff for attacking Russia is very low whereas the payoff for not attacking is low but not as low. However for Russia, the payoff for invading seems to be higher than for not. This is not promising for the prospect of peace.
The author compares the search for extraterrestrial life with the Prisoner’s Dilemma. The players are Earth and an alien planet. Both players benefit the most by acting selfishly and not broadcasting signals searching for life. He elaborates by quoting New Scientist, essentially saying that there is no dominant strategy and there are too many unknowns (the benefits of finding alien life and the probability of doing so). Therefore, the frequency of broadcasts should be adjusted according to the perceived rewards of making alien contact.
The article concludes by analyzing the usefulness of game theory. Essentially it concludes that it is more useful as a means of identifying when game theory is not useful. This is reassuring when the author quotes Future of Humanity Institute research fellow Stuart Armstrong who says of global warming, “Game theory tells us that everyone benefits from overall cuts in emissions, and benefit from being able to emit themselves. So everyone wants everyone else to reduce emissions, while emitting themselves. But the Nash Equilibrium suggests that everyone will continue to emit, so the planet will eventually burn up.” It’s a good thing game theory isn’t always right.