The Prisoner's Dilemma is a type of game theory that defines human behavior entirely as self-interested. This theory suggests that an individual will almost always choose their own interest over that of an entire group. “The Prisoner's Dilemma is a situation in which individual decision makers are always incentivized to choose in a way that creates a less than optimal outcome for individuals as a group. » The classic example of the prisoner's dilemma is that of two bank robbers. These individuals have the choice of either remaining silent, which would mean they would both receive a lesser sentence, or "ratifying" the other and receiving no sentence. However, if they choose to remain silent and the other "rats" take them out, they go to jail and the other one goes free. This theory not only proves that as human beings we are self-centered, but that we do not trust others, which actually suggests that we ourselves are not trustworthy. This is a learned behavior, the option of choosing the outcome that interests them instead of the most optimal option for the two bank robbers can be a case of selfish behavior, each of them being not himself trustworthy. It is clear that if both of them remained silent, they would receive the lesser of the three sentences, but neither of them would risk trusting the other bank robber. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Prisoner's dilemma theory can also be considered with the topic of climate change. When we analyze this theory with climate change, we move away from the classic example of the two bank robbers. Instead, we discuss each individual behavior of the entire population, so no longer of a small marginal group but of the entire group. The Prisoner's Dilemma theory in relation to climate change can also be explained as such; “Rational parties that prioritize their personal interests can create a worse situation for everyone. » The Prisoner's Dilemma is just one plausible reason why an individual would not participate in the fight against climate change. The reason this theory demonstrates so well why each member of the population did not step up and do everything in their power to contribute to this fight is that for them, self-interest is more important. important than cooperation. What most people don't realize is that they can help by doing small things, like recycling. If every person recycled in even the smallest capacity, such as using a reusable water bottle, it would help save the planet. Of course, the individuals I am talking about are not those who are not physically capable of changing their way of life, such as the poor, indigenous communities or others who suffer from social inequalities. I'm talking about those who are in complete control of their lifestyle and are fully capable of choosing to adapt accordingly to contribute to the fight. Members of the population who live in the middle and upper classes and who have the financial capacity to contribute should be held to higher standards. What incentives will it take to gain the necessary participation in the fight against climate change? What incentives will help the average person choose cooperation over self-interest? Prisoner's dilemma theory is present in all aspects of life because it explainswhy we constantly choose ourselves and completely distrust others. Distrustful behavior is that it appears that an individual will not contribute if he or she believes that someone else would not do the same. Our mindset is strange, we imitate behaviors, so if that were the case, if many were essentially participating in the fight against climate change, wouldn't that make others want to contribute as well? The article “Prisoner's Dilemma: What Game Are You Playing?” ” is about the novel titled “The Evolution of Cooperation” which talks about our need to be selfish before society constructs social institutions and a central authority. Human beings have been doing this for years and years, but as we know, we are quite capable of cooperating with each other, hence civilization. Living together and choosing to live civilly is the clearest example of acting in the interests of all rather than our own interests. We can say that despite our egocentric and self-interested nature, we too have a “moral nature”. The nature of morality “places demands on each of us that are stronger than the demands of the law and take precedence over self-interest.” This demonstrates not only that we need monetary or punitive incentives, but that we also have within us the will to do the morally right thing. As self-interested as we are, we feel an obligation to others, even if that includes only our family and friends and not the rest of the population. Although we don't feel obligated to address the environmental problem for everyone, some of us do feel that we need to help fight climate change for future generations of our family. If everyone decided to take a small step in the fight against climate change simply because they want a better future for their children, we would see a huge change on the planet. The Prisoner's Dilemma theory views human nature in an incredibly dark light. This theory essentially guarantees that if the average person has to make a decision that is right or wrong, they will make the wrong choice. The fight against climate change requires everyone's participation, and anyone who is too self-centered to realize this would lead to mutual destruction of populations. Making progress and changing the way the average person perceives climate change means changing people's focus from a "me" problem to a "we" problem. As mentioned earlier, the “nature of morality” theory protects our humanity to the extent that we also act in our moral self-interest. However, we cannot depend solely on our morality and the moral obligations we have to our friends and family to help the planet. More help is needed to get people involved in climate change. Implementing appropriate incentives would be one of the plausible solutions to ensure greater participation in the fight against climate change. In December last year, the Minister of Finance announced "2020 Climate Action Incentive payment amounts" that are tailored to provinces that have not adopted the federal carbon pricing system. Direct beneficiaries are residents who have paid themselves, for example, to rebuild their homes following natural disasters such as; floods and fires. The Canadian government believes that these incentive programs will not only improve the environment, but will benefit most families struggling in these times of natural disaster caused by theclimate change. According to the Minister of Finance: "Most households will receive more money from these payments than they will pay due to the federal price on pollution, which will help families make ends meet as we Let’s move towards a cleaner future. “There is also an incentive for provinces that have adopted the federal carbon pollution pricing system, as the Canadian government does not retain any direct proceeds from the carbon fund, but rather returns it to the original province or territory . Revenue from incentive programs goes directly to provinces that have adopted the federal system or to residents of provinces that have not met (do you mean have NOT met or have met) the federal pricing requirement of carbon pollution. These incentive programs guarantee the participation of large companies to the average individual, to achieve change requires the participation of all. The United Nations has seventeen Sustainable Development Goals which they released in 2015. One of their Sustainable Development Goals is “Goal 13: Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts” or also known as “Climate Action”. Goal 13 is exactly what the world needs to focus on now. We now know the causes and consequences. All that remains is to act. As part of the United Nations' "Goal 13", they include a Covid-19 response plan, as this virus is one of the main pressing problems facing the world today. As countries recover from the Covid-19 crisis and do their best to rebuild their economies, the UN has developed a plan. This plan will help countries rebuild their economies, but “in a clean, green, healthy, safe and more resilient way” to better reflect today's sustainable economy. “The UN Secretary-General has proposed six climate-positive steps that governments must take once they set about rebuilding their economies and societies: Green transition: Investments must accelerate the decarbonization of all aspects of our economy. Green jobs and sustainable and inclusive growthGreen economy: making societies and individuals more resilient through a transition that is fair for all and leaves no one behind. Invest in sustainable solutions: Fossil fuel subsidies must end and polluters must pay for their pollution. Confronting all climate risks Cooperation – no country can succeed alone »The UN Secretary-General's action plan is very intelligent. Every developed country must rebuild its economy because the virus has caused a lot of damage. This is the perfect opportunity to implement lasting change as countries rebuild their economies. Why not build it in a way that would help combat climate change? We still have time to repair what the population has almost irreparably damaged, there is still time to leave the planet in better condition for our future generations. “The principle of the common heritage of humanity (CHM) has been incorporated into various international treaties governing the global commons. There is no specific definition to define the principle of CHM, the principle should simply be understood as what future generations will inherit, and unfortunately it will be the damage that the current generation has caused to the environment. In the journal article “Common Heritage: Saving the Environment for Humanity or Exploiting Resources in the Name of Eco-Imperialism? » written by Werner Sholtz, he explains the principle of heritage.”