<p>These are broad areas and no subject alone covers them. Additionally, there are no solutions to policy problems only trade-offs. Moreover, science by its nature can never provide 'solution' to a policy question, the role of science in science-based policy making is just to clarify the trade-offs not to prescribe what people should do, for that you need moral philosophy.</p>
<p>When it comes to economics tools that can be used to analyze some of the problems you mentioned.</p>
<ul>
<li><p><strong>nuclear warfare:</strong>  The strategic decision making that can be done to minimize chance of nuclear war can be modeled through game theory which is a subfield of microeconomics. You can see example game theory used in this area in Schelling (1966),  Arms and Influence.</p>
</li>
<li><p><strong>global warming</strong>: Here economics can be used to analyze which way or policy of reducing greenhouse gasses is most efficient. In addition, since society does not have only one single goal (e.g. reducing carbon) but multiple goals (e.g. reduce poverty) economics can clarify the trade-off between pursuing these goals. You can see some example of this being done in The Climate Casino by Nordhaus (2013).</p>
</li>
<li><p><strong>totalitarian regimes</strong>: There are subfields of economics that analyze how totalitarian regimes operate. More specifically public choice theory analyzes how different political regimes operate and make decisions. You can have look at overview of these tools in selected chapters from Public Choice III.</p>
</li>
<li><p><strong>Risks of Rogue AI</strong>: Similarly to nuclear warfare you can probably use game theory to strategically analyze the problem.</p>
</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-18T14:40:54.320Z
Schelling has indeed modeled nuclear war using game theory, but let us not forget his other influential modelling work, where [he calculated that given the utilities napalm bombardment would cause the North Vietnamese to surrender](https://econpapers.repec.org/article/tafjecmet/v_3a14_3ay_3a2007_3ai_3a4_3ap_3a455-471.htm).
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-18T14:45:26.560Z
(-1) I find that the answer above grossly misrepresents the abilities of game theory and choice theory to provide actual analysis/answers (anything beyond mathified punditry) to these problems. Note that all connections to empirical data are tenuous.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-18T15:51:31.757Z
@Giskard how do I misrepresent the abilities of game theory in the post above? 1. All I say that game theory has tools to model such interactions 2. I specifically in preamble mention that science never provides answers to policy questions. 3. Its completely uncontroversial to say game theory *can* be used to model strategic interactions. We can talk about how well predictions of that or this model matches reality but I can't really see how anyone, except for radical contrarian, can argue that it cannot be used to analyze such situation. That is prima facie wrong since people (and i even
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-18T15:53:05.097Z
provided example of Schelling) do use game theory for such analysis.
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-18T16:00:16.040Z
In addition there are peer reviewed papers showing that game theory is being used by military, for example in designing AI defence systems https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8838118/. So even military clearly believes there is utility in using game theory. Some game theory models are even used to refine Israel's Iron Dome which seems to be working well https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/271700/1-s2.0-S0377221717X00040/1-s2.0-S0377221716309481/Michael_T_Davis_Weapon_target_2016.pdf so clearly game theory is not completely useless in analyzing such problems
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-19T04:46:11.867Z
Re: [first comment](https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/55387/how-does-economics-address-societys-major-existential-threats/55388?noredirect=1#comment90824_55388). 1. I can model a lot of things too when quality is not an issue. You do not support that any of the models in your answer are of good quality. 2. You are writing that science does not give you a goal function. That is fine, I do not expect it too. I dispute that the analyses in your answer provide accurate numerical trade-offs. 3. See 1.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-19T04:47:47.113Z
Re: [Second comment](https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/55387/how-does-economics-address-societys-major-existential-threats/55388?noredirect=1#comment90825_55388). I [provided other example](https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/55387/how-does-economics-address-societys-major-existential-threats/55388?noredirect=1#comment90822_55388) of Schelling doing similar analysis which turned out useless, and led to the rationalization of a lot of human suffering. Not clear why we should accept the $n=1$ occurence of not having nuclear war as a strong validation of his other model.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-19T04:50:05.140Z
Re: [Third comment](https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/55387/how-does-economics-address-societys-major-existential-threats/55388?noredirect=1#comment90826_55388). I am not at all familiar with these, they might be valid! Not sure why you bring them up though, they have nothing to do with the question and your original claims. You write "such problems" at the end, but how are these papers that you reference in your third comment deal with existential threats?
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-19T04:55:03.100Z
Some of the other economics stuff you write about on this site seems strange to me at times, but I am not a macroeconomist or a public policy expert, so I accept I might not understand the details. I was however a game theorist for a decade and know what GT cannot do.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-19T08:12:21.757Z
@Giskard 1. My answer does not contain any models so what are you even talking about? I have some example of broad literature that uses models, but I don't directly use one. 2. You are using the napalm example to argue that game theory is completely useless in modeling strategic interaction, I found an example where people find it useful in strategic interactions. 3. I frankly find your views on modeling in general quite strange... you mentioned sometimes in the past you left economics because you were fed up with the game theory models, look nobody is saying that every single model is useful,
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-19T08:17:58.257Z
but saying that these models are completely useless is another extreme which makes no sense. I frankly think your negative experience just clouds your judgement. Maybe at your past institution there was not much interest in serious research in this area in my country of origin there were also lot of universities where even econometrics is constantly being misapplied just to data mining and churn on papers in predatory journals so people can continue misappropriating research funds. But that does not mean that econometrics is completely useless when properly applied. In the same way game theory
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-19T08:18:29.293Z
and other theoretical models are helpful in serious research and even in applied practice. If game theory can be used to successfully improve missile defense systems I don't see any reason why in principle it could not be also used improve our understanding of deterrence.
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-19T10:45:32.697Z
"*1. My answer does not contain any models so what are you even talking about?*" In your previous comment you wrote "*All I say that game theory has tools to model such interactions*" Is it hard to figure out what I am writing about, or are you arguing in bad faith?
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-19T10:48:21.287Z
"*2. You are using the napalm example to argue that game theory is completely useless in modeling strategic interaction*" This is hyperbole, I did not write this, quote me! I do now write that most claims about the applicability of GT are strong exaggerations.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-19T10:53:02.133Z
"*Maybe at your past institution there was not much interest in serious research in this area*" I see you are living in NL, where I attended my PhD program. My outlook is possibly provincial (eurocentric), but I did have access to the internet and time to look for applications. I think combinatorical auction problems may be useful! I also wrote two Q2 publications, so I have worked with people who were considered serious researchers. Am I biased? I am sure I am. Are people earning their living by publishing GT papers unbiased?
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-19T12:17:21.257Z
@Giskard 1. I am not arguing in bad faith I am seriously puzzled by your response because all I have written is that game theory has tools, yet in your response you seem to argue against argument that the game theory has always the best tools. Which is not part of my argument and why I am puzzled by your response. 2. okay and I am using my example to support the idea that game theory **can** be useful in this scenario, again you say I argue in bad faith but I have feeling that you are creating bit of a straw man of my argument that game theory can be used for such things
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-19T12:20:42.373Z
@Giskard 3. For sure people who live by publishing GT papers are not unbiased, but my point is that you might have became to jaded because of your own personal experience... I noticed on multiple occasions you arguing basically that its *almost* all just bullshit, and I do not think that is fair assessment. In any case, I respect your believes if you want to believe its all bullshit all power to you, but I do not like you attacking me like I am some sort nutter going off the deep end and grossly misrepresenting things when I just argue vanilla position here that most economists would agree on
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-19T13:27:46.277Z
"*I do not like you attacking me like I am some sort nutter*" Can you please quote to me doing this?
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-19T13:33:04.673Z
On your other point: I am most certainly jaded about game theory, but I did spend a decade in academia researching and teaching game theory. Notice that I rarely quarrel with other game theoreticians on the site who mostly make claims like "the math is interesting" or "it is culturally enriching" and write almost nothing about meaningful applications. As you are in academia, you can try consulting game theorists (I have) but do hold their feet to the fire, do not accept broad answers like "it is useful in kidney exchange"; insist on specificity on how the model was necessary and useful.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-19T14:23:16.503Z
@Giskard you said that my answer above grossly misrepresents game theory, I mean what is that supposed to imply? In any case, I don’t want argue about petty things… as I said more power to you if you think most game theory models are bullshit, but I don’t think you should go full attack mode on anybody who even mentions that GT can be used to analyze some important strategic problems
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-19T14:54:45.393Z
I accept that you think I should not do this. I on the other hand think people should not make imprecise claims, nor should they feel attacked when people politely question their reasoning. Have a nice weekend!
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-18T12:16:50.667Z
2023-05-18T12:16:50.667Z
1muflon1
<p>Given our societal emphasis on the pace of 'progress', often overlooking its direction, we face a multitude of existential challenges [1]. These range from the looming threat of nuclear warfare and escalating global warming to the risk of totalitarian regimes and potential subjugation by artificial intelligence. How does economics provide solutions or frameworks to address them?</p>
<p>[1] Ord, Toby. <em><a href="https://www.google.nl/books/edition/The_Precipice/tGCjDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&amp;gbpv=0&amp;kptab=overview" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The precipice: Existential risk and the future of humanity.</a></em> Hachette Books, 2020. (<a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10677-021-10181-9" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Review</a>)</p>
<p><strong>Edit:</strong> I'm primarily interested in examples of seminal papers that address various existential threats to society. In other words, if one aims to apply economic tools to mitigate these threats, where should one seek inspiration?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-18T11:58:14.140Z
Hi, questions that look for opinions are off topic on this site. This is not discussion forum. I edited out the part where you ask about opinions. In addition this is still quite broad question you should consider narrowing it down
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-18T12:29:50.180Z
@1muflon1 Thanks for your edit and your feedback.
Pavel Kocourek
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-22T09:02:25.490Z
This is a non-answer, but I think it is important to note that the salience of these "*existantial risks*" have received criticism for multiple angles, e.g.; [The Dangerous Ideas of “Longtermism” and “Existential Risk”](https://www.currentaffairs.org/2021/07/the-dangerous-ideas-of-longtermism-and-existential-risk)
Giskard
<labor-economics><political-economy><soft-question><environmental-economics><technological-progress>
How Does Economics Address Society's Major Existential Threats?
Pavel Kocourek
# How Does Economics Address Society's Major Existential Threats?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2023-05-18)

Given our societal emphasis on the pace of 'progress', often overlooking its direction, we face a multitude of existential challenges [1]. These range from the looming threat of nuclear warfare and escalating global warming to the risk of totalitarian regimes and potential subjugation by artificial intelligence. How does economics provide solutions or frameworks to address them?

[1] Ord, Toby. *[The precipice: Existential risk and the future of humanity.](https://www.google.nl/books/edition/The_Precipice/tGCjDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0&kptab=overview)* Hachette Books, 2020. ([Review](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10677-021-10181-9))

**Edit:** I'm primarily interested in examples of seminal papers that address various existential threats to society. In other words, if one aims to apply economic tools to mitigate these threats, where should one seek inspiration?

**Tags:** labor-economics, political-economy, soft-question, environmental-economics, technological-progress
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Hi, questions that look for opinions are off topic on this site. This is not discussion forum. I edited out the part where you ask about opinions. In addition this is still quite broad question you should consider narrowing it down  
> **username_0**: @1muflon1 Thanks for your edit and your feedback.  
> **username_2**: This is a non-answer, but I think it is important to note that the salience of these "*existantial risks*" have received criticism for multiple angles, e.g.; [The Dangerous Ideas of “Longtermism” and “Existential Risk”](https://www.currentaffairs.org/2021/07/the-dangerous-ideas-of-longtermism-and-existential-risk)  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2023-05-18. Score: 0

These are broad areas and no subject alone covers them. Additionally, there are no solutions to policy problems only trade-offs. Moreover, science by its nature can never provide 'solution' to a policy question, the role of science in science-based policy making is just to clarify the trade-offs not to prescribe what people should do, for that you need moral philosophy.

When it comes to economics tools that can be used to analyze some of the problems you mentioned.

* **nuclear warfare:** The strategic decision making that can be done to minimize chance of nuclear war can be modeled through game theory which is a subfield of microeconomics. You can see example game theory used in this area in Schelling (1966), Arms and Influence.
* **global warming**: Here economics can be used to analyze which way or policy of reducing greenhouse gasses is most efficient. In addition, since society does not have only one single goal (e.g. reducing carbon) but multiple goals (e.g. reduce poverty) economics can clarify the trade-off between pursuing these goals. You can see some example of this being done in The Climate Casino by Nordhaus (2013).
* **totalitarian regimes**: There are subfields of economics that analyze how totalitarian regimes operate. More specifically public choice theory analyzes how different political regimes operate and make decisions. You can have look at overview of these tools in selected chapters from Public Choice III.
* **Risks of Rogue AI**: Similarly to nuclear warfare you can probably use game theory to strategically analyze the problem.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: Schelling has indeed modeled nuclear war using game theory, but let us not forget his other influential modelling work, where [he calculated that given the utilities napalm bombardment would cause the North Vietnamese to surrender](https://econpapers.repec.org/article/tafjecmet/v_3a14_3ay_3a2007_3ai_3a4_3ap_3a455-471.htm).  
> **username_2**: (-1) I find that the answer above grossly misrepresents the abilities of game theory and choice theory to provide actual analysis/answers (anything beyond mathified punditry) to these problems. Note that all connections to empirical data are tenuous.  
> **username_1**: @Giskard how do I misrepresent the abilities of game theory in the post above? 1. All I say that game theory has tools to model such interactions 2. I specifically in preamble mention that science never provides answers to policy questions. 3. Its completely uncontroversial to say game theory *can* be used to model strategic interactions. We can talk about how well predictions of that or this model matches reality but I can't really see how anyone, except for radical contrarian, can argue that it cannot be used to analyze such situation. That is prima facie wrong since people (and i even  
> **username_1**: provided example of Schelling) do use game theory for such analysis.  
> **username_1**: In addition there are peer reviewed papers showing that game theory is being used by military, for example in designing AI defence systems https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8838118/. So even military clearly believes there is utility in using game theory. Some game theory models are even used to refine Israel's Iron Dome which seems to be working well https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/271700/1-s2.0-S0377221717X00040/1-s2.0-S0377221716309481/Michael_T_Davis_Weapon_target_2016.pdf so clearly game theory is not completely useless in analyzing such problems  
> **username_2**: Re: [first comment](https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/55387/how-does-economics-address-societys-major-existential-threats/55388?noredirect=1#comment90824_55388). 1. I can model a lot of things too when quality is not an issue. You do not support that any of the models in your answer are of good quality. 2. You are writing that science does not give you a goal function. That is fine, I do not expect it too. I dispute that the analyses in your answer provide accurate numerical trade-offs. 3. See 1.  
> **username_2**: Re: [Second comment](https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/55387/how-does-economics-address-societys-major-existential-threats/55388?noredirect=1#comment90825_55388). I [provided other example](https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/55387/how-does-economics-address-societys-major-existential-threats/55388?noredirect=1#comment90822_55388) of Schelling doing similar analysis which turned out useless, and led to the rationalization of a lot of human suffering. Not clear why we should accept the $n=1$ occurence of not having nuclear war as a strong validation of his other model.  
> **username_2**: Re: [Third comment](https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/55387/how-does-economics-address-societys-major-existential-threats/55388?noredirect=1#comment90826_55388). I am not at all familiar with these, they might be valid! Not sure why you bring them up though, they have nothing to do with the question and your original claims. You write "such problems" at the end, but how are these papers that you reference in your third comment deal with existential threats?  
> **username_2**: Some of the other economics stuff you write about on this site seems strange to me at times, but I am not a macroeconomist or a public policy expert, so I accept I might not understand the details. I was however a game theorist for a decade and know what GT cannot do.  
> **username_1**: @Giskard 1. My answer does not contain any models so what are you even talking about? I have some example of broad literature that uses models, but I don't directly use one. 2. You are using the napalm example to argue that game theory is completely useless in modeling strategic interaction, I found an example where people find it useful in strategic interactions. 3. I frankly find your views on modeling in general quite strange... you mentioned sometimes in the past you left economics because you were fed up with the game theory models, look nobody is saying that every single model is useful,  
> **username_1**: but saying that these models are completely useless is another extreme which makes no sense. I frankly think your negative experience just clouds your judgement. Maybe at your past institution there was not much interest in serious research in this area in my country of origin there were also lot of universities where even econometrics is constantly being misapplied just to data mining and churn on papers in predatory journals so people can continue misappropriating research funds. But that does not mean that econometrics is completely useless when properly applied. In the same way game theory  
> **username_1**: and other theoretical models are helpful in serious research and even in applied practice. If game theory can be used to successfully improve missile defense systems I don't see any reason why in principle it could not be also used improve our understanding of deterrence.  
> **username_2**: "*1. My answer does not contain any models so what are you even talking about?*" In your previous comment you wrote "*All I say that game theory has tools to model such interactions*" Is it hard to figure out what I am writing about, or are you arguing in bad faith?  
> **username_2**: "*2. You are using the napalm example to argue that game theory is completely useless in modeling strategic interaction*" This is hyperbole, I did not write this, quote me! I do now write that most claims about the applicability of GT are strong exaggerations.  
> **username_2**: "*Maybe at your past institution there was not much interest in serious research in this area*" I see you are living in NL, where I attended my PhD program. My outlook is possibly provincial (eurocentric), but I did have access to the internet and time to look for applications. I think combinatorical auction problems may be useful! I also wrote two Q2 publications, so I have worked with people who were considered serious researchers. Am I biased? I am sure I am. Are people earning their living by publishing GT papers unbiased?  
> **username_1**: @Giskard 1. I am not arguing in bad faith I am seriously puzzled by your response because all I have written is that game theory has tools, yet in your response you seem to argue against argument that the game theory has always the best tools. Which is not part of my argument and why I am puzzled by your response. 2. okay and I am using my example to support the idea that game theory **can** be useful in this scenario, again you say I argue in bad faith but I have feeling that you are creating bit of a straw man of my argument that game theory can be used for such things  
> **username_1**: @Giskard 3. For sure people who live by publishing GT papers are not unbiased, but my point is that you might have became to jaded because of your own personal experience... I noticed on multiple occasions you arguing basically that its *almost* all just bullshit, and I do not think that is fair assessment. In any case, I respect your believes if you want to believe its all bullshit all power to you, but I do not like you attacking me like I am some sort nutter going off the deep end and grossly misrepresenting things when I just argue vanilla position here that most economists would agree on  
> **username_2**: "*I do not like you attacking me like I am some sort nutter*" Can you please quote to me doing this?  
> **username_2**: On your other point: I am most certainly jaded about game theory, but I did spend a decade in academia researching and teaching game theory. Notice that I rarely quarrel with other game theoreticians on the site who mostly make claims like "the math is interesting" or "it is culturally enriching" and write almost nothing about meaningful applications. As you are in academia, you can try consulting game theorists (I have) but do hold their feet to the fire, do not accept broad answers like "it is useful in kidney exchange"; insist on specificity on how the model was necessary and useful.  
> **username_1**: @Giskard you said that my answer above grossly misrepresents game theory, I mean what is that supposed to imply? In any case, I don’t want argue about petty things… as I said more power to you if you think most game theory models are bullshit, but I don’t think you should go full attack mode on anybody who even mentions that GT can be used to analyze some important strategic problems  
> **username_2**: I accept that you think I should not do this. I on the other hand think people should not make imprecise claims, nor should they feel attacked when people politely question their reasoning. Have a nice weekend!  

---

