Great essay and addresses the center of the storm....how to move society. We will not survive as a civilization or perhaps even as a species if we don't submit to controls on our consumption and population. As you point out Nate society may submit to controls and legislation if people feel they still have control of the situation. Maybe it is a question of what needs to happen that submitting to controls is exactly the best option for people to feel they are still maximizing their control of the situation. Today we cannot imagine society making concessions on their freedoms because we are still being held in the current paradigm. But the day will come when our economic and environmental integrity will suffer the consequences which will shift societies concept of freedom and what they will see as the best option to maintain control. At some point this will mean giving up on freedoms for the greater good in regards to consumption and reproduction. But we need the catalyst of consequences to allow this shift in society to occur. We are in the paradoxical position of requiring destabilizing events to bring about a cultural change which will stabilize our long term survivability.

Very interesting. Makes sense, and (to me) seems to argue for a movement towards localism, and away from so much state intervention in our lives. We may have to work harder, but may see our efforts more directly rewarded, and therefore have the satisfaction of greater control.

When you say Nash admitted he was crazy, you're not saying he now repudiates that work?

It seems intuitive that with only incomplete information, we necessarily use heuristics, but some people surely view their information as sufficiently complete to employ mathematical methods (unconscious or not and valid or not).

The statement that "we tried rational self-interest and it didn't work" isn't correct. The social-economic system set up centuries ago is so full of positive feedbacks, caused by fractional-reserve banking, that it is bound to oscillate and produce inequality. A free and fair society must minimize time delays between cause and effect, a point was made by the 'Limits to Growth' authors.

I propose:

• All credit and currency be replaced by energy certificates, denominated in Joules.
• The ability to 'make money' by owning windmills, solar panels, etc.. , manufacturing fuel, and exchanging the fuel for legal tender certificates, be made a universal right
• Lending and granting credit be banned. Those with savings may invest their money (energy) in partnerships with others, and assume the usual rights and responsibilities. Inclusion of buy in/out options in partnerships is encouraged.
• Parents are encouraged to have children only after they have saved enough to pay for the entire upbringing of the child, without state support. This needn't involve coersion, if society reinforces the idea that saving for a child's future is caring and responsible behaviour.
• Central bank monetary policy be replaced by limits on the area of geographical human footprint, which in turn places limits on the amount of solar and wind energy society can consume. This can be enforced with perfect accuracy, as it is impossible to hide a solar panel or windmill from a satellite. Almost all current economic instability can be traced to credit and the fractional reserve system. In a 'cash in advance only' system, stabiity is intrinsic and requires no intervention

The real freedom would come when such a system is given a real chance.

Do we have a dilemma here? On the one hand if we use humankind's innate heuristics we will flounder in the Nash equilibrium, consuming all available resources according to the greedy algorithm(*)
Alternatively, we can actually try to understand the math and potentially get us out of our predicament? But you say that we don't use math, so we are doomed.

A better way to think about this is the totality of he masses will always use heuristics, but a group of policy-makers applying an understanding to the problem at hand will at least give us a chance to analyze our way out of the problem. As long as they are unbiased and remain objective as to what is the best plan forward.

(*) greedy algorithm -- the name of a CompSci meta-heuristic used to solve computational problems more efficiently. It basically grabs the maximum allowable amount at each iteration.