The Prisoner's Dilemma - A Parable

Two men are arrested, suspected of having committed a recent bank robbery. But, the evidence against them is flimsy, and the police are afraid that, in the absence of something more substantial, at the end of the twenty-four hour detention period, they will have to let both suspects walk, or at most, charge them with a misdemeanor, possession of locksmithing tools without a permit, which at most would net the pair 3 to 6 months in jail.

So, the police split them up, placing them in separate interrogation rooms. They tell each suspect that, if they inform on their accomplice, they will walk out of the police station a free man, while the accomplice will go to jail for ten years. Should they both "rat" on each other, they would each go to jail for five years.

Well, what's the outcome? Realistically speaking, both prisoners would end up doing the five year stint. In other words, they would sell each other out. Sadly, human nature dictates that in virtually all cases, people will always act in their own self-interest, even in situations where to act in the common good would produce a better outcome for all concerned.

This simple tale goes a long way to illuminate the current crisis in our human story. For example:

The oil companies know -- unequivocally -- that by continuing to extract oil from the dwindling global reserves at the current rate, we will deplete our supply long before we have time to transition to viable alternative sources of energy. They also know that this will create an unprecedented global energy crisis that could well trigger a cascading collapse throughout global civilization, potentially resulting in anarchy, starvation, disease, and catastrophic dieback in the global population. Obviously, the smart course of action to avoid such a cataclysm is to institute a controlled reduction in extraction (as described in The Oil Depletion Protocol, by Richard Heinberg), thereby extending our reserves and allowing time to develop alternative, renewable, non-fossil fuel based sources of energy. But to do so is not acting in one's own self-interest. To continue to exploit oil reserves to the limits of our capacity to do so benefits the oil companies themselves, at the expense of the general good, so that becomes their chosen course of action.

A recent report from the FAO Committee on Fisheries has revealed that nearly 90% of all food-fish stocks in the oceans are gone. Obviously, the sensible course of action would be to severely limit fishing from now on, thus allowing at least some species to recover (although it may be too late for many of them.) However, to do so violates the principle of maximizing one's own benefit, so to date no such action, voluntary or legislated, has been undertaken. Even the Canadian moratorium on cod fishing on the Grand Banks has had limited effect, since many countries do not recognize Canadian sovereignty in the region, and continue to fish the area to the maximum capacity of which they are capable.

There are numerous other examples:

• Canada's own stonewalling of the climate talks in Copenhagen -- in the furtherance of unhindered tar sands development.
• The fact that people still routinely fly to the Caribbean and other tourist destinations, despite the dire warnings of climate change awareness advocates that flying is by far the highest per capita contributor to greenhouse gas emissions of any human activity.
• In order to feed the United States' growing hunger for coal (which is, of course, an enormous source of pollution and greenhouse gases), coal extraction companies have now taken to the technique of "mountaintop removal" in the coal-bed areas of West Virginia, Kentucky, Illinois and Ohio, irreparably destroying entire ecosystems, and poisoning watersheds and rivers in the process. In doing this, they are rendering huge areas of the country uninhabitable, not only by animals, but humans as well. As in the Athabasca watershed (prime tar sands development region), varieties of exotic new cancers, lymphomas and autoimmune diseases are beginning to show up among the human and non-human population. The social and environmental costs are devastating. Yet mountaintop removal continues, simply because it is more economical than digging mineshafts through the coal seams, and this benefits the company's bottom line, at the expense, yet again, of the common good.
• It is now common knowledge that eating meat, particularly beef, has a very high per capita carbon footprint. Huge tracts of Amazonian rainforest have been clearcut to make grazing land, which not only destroys huge, incredibly complex ecosystems and reduces carbon sinking capacity of the planet, but pumps enormous amounts of CO₂ into the atmosphere from clearcut burning. Methane emissions from grazing beef cattle also account for nearly half of the methane (an extremely potent greenhouse gas, up to 30 times more effective than CO₂) in the atmosphere. The David Suzuki Foundation, and many others, has said that by cutting back on our red meat intake, perhaps by having two or three vegetarian meals per week, we could reduce our individual carbon footprint by as much as 15%. Yet there has yet to appear a significant dent in the sales of beef in the U.S. and Canada. People do love their steaks.

Perhaps part of the problem has to do with our innate genetic survival mechanism. As a species we have, over millennia, developed a highly sophisticated, and effective, system for dealing immediately with immediate threats. This is our so-called "fight or flight" response. If we are attacked by a predator, or another human intent on doing us harm, we have an immediate response to that immediate danger. And, while not perfect in all situations, it has stood us remarkably well over time, allowing our species to survive and thrive against what has, at times, been rather daunting odds.

But we lack a survival mechanism that forces us to act immediately to combat a threat that may not manifest its effects for several years. That is not to say that we are unaware of such delayed-action threats. Many people routinely exercise, eat healthy diets and quit smoking in order to reap health benefits that may not fully manifest themselves until much later in life (lower risk of heart disease, cancer, emphysema, and so on.) But this "survival mechanism" is intellectual. It is based entirely on a logical, linear thought process that has little, if anything to do with our intrinsic nature.

If a real, deep-down awareness of the risk of continued high levels of carbon emissions produced an immediate adrenalin response similar to an attack by a bear or knife-wielding mugger, then perhaps we'd be more likely to act now, to safeguard our future.

But, until that time comes, we are stuck in the Prisoner's Dilemma, and everything it implies. Perhaps the only thing that will save us is an immediate crisis, in which it becomes apparent that the collective good is also the individual good.