Hmm. I've never read Hesse. Might have to check him out.
Regarding permaculture: yeah, here's where the difference between prices and values comes into play...
Game theory doesn't really have anything to do with gambling (well, I guess it could, if you wanted to use it in that context). It does have to do with economic calculations though, as well as survival.
"Game theory is the study of mathematical models of strategic interactions among rational agents" - Wikipedia
you’ll most likely enjoy Hesse. was formative.
there might be a way to extract more value from permaculture than regular agriculture. one permaculture practitioner was able to command higher prices for his chickens once word got around and people asked for “the chickens that roost in trees”. this was such a novel descriptor that worked wonders for word of mouth marketing yet that is what chickens do if given the chance.
am familiar with the “rational agents” definition for parties engaging in game theory. though reasoning individuals make up a society and reasoning requires the exchange of information, even dialogue. game theory predicates on gambling on the opposing party’s ignorance to derive value or seeming advantage. this is my main issue of incompatibility with rational agents disrupting society for profit. it is very effective at accomplishing this with punitive measures inextricably imposed without a determination of guilt or innocence as in the prisoner’s dilemma. it’s the perfect survival strategy in a totalitarian system where the house always wins.
Yeah that's my basic idea regarding permaculture, quality and prices as well: in reality, a rational human being, granted a position where he can afford to choose, would rather go for the tomato that is maybe 5X the price but comes with the least amount of external costs, as well as higher nutrient density, rather than the tomato that is sprayed with pesticides and genetically modified to produce "yield" not nutrients per tomato... like, it's common sense, really.
The decay of fiat money only creates inorganic demand for such low quality "food" that we are all so accustomed to today. Real demand, under a truly capitalist system would look much different, I reckon.
Regarding game theory: yes, perhaps this is the biggest flaw with that sort of thinking, as well as with Schmachtenberger's points:
Yes, Earth is finite. There are many resources on Earth that are finite. HOWEVER, the energy that is out there, available for us to use and modify (in a responsible manner), is, for all intents and purposes - infinite - at least from a human civilization perspective. The Sun is infinite. Thermal energy is infinite. Nuclear energy also (probably) infinite. So in that sense, the "whoever cuts the forest down quickest wins because someone is going to cut down the forest anyway" argument doesn't really hold water anymore IMO.
great points. really enjoyed this discussion. much appreciated.
(to anyone else reading this, at least from my side, what I wrote were insights gained at that very moment thinking about these topics which I did not have possession of previously)
Same! Thank you for sharing your thoughts :)
