Hacker News Reader

Comment by OutOfHere | Hacker News Reader

This is abhorrent behavior from a moral stance. I figure the US has never had a moral upper hand. A morally superior stance would be to shed all hostilities and work toward common goals that enrich everyone's lives - there are many such attainable goals. The mental reptilians among us on both sides, hiding as mammals, can't however let go of hate.

View on HN

Except it has nothing to do with morals and everything to do with the real world. Like a lot of problems, it's the Prisoner's Dilemma, just in a different disguise. Sure, you could be morally superior. But the table is pretty easy:

They're moral, you're moral: Puppies for everyone! No one 'wins' the Cold War.

They're moral, you're not moral: You get more advanced technology and 'win' the Cold War.

They're not moral, you are: They get more advanced technology and 'win' the Cold War.

They're not moral, you're not moral: You both get more advanced technology, neither side 'wins'.

Stealing is always a better decision. It has nothing to do with 'hate' necessarily; a purely rational robot, programmed with goals of 'win the Cold War, and, if you can, get puppies for everyone' would also be immoral.

And what is it that we got after all, that both sides were immoral, and no one won the cold war. The advanced technology you speak of in option 4 pales in comparison to what we could have achieved together, which goes to show that your entire argument is bogus. It's not just puppies for everyone in option 1; it's a much higher level of advanced technology than in 4.

And it's not just no one spending jail time in the prisoner's dilemma; everyone walks away with half of the prize. Doesn't change that it's more rational to defect. I think everyone in the prisoner's dilemma would think that, say, $500,000 each is way better than, say, 5 years in jail for both of them, but that doesn't change the fact that if both sides are rational, that's what everyone ends up with.

Your premise itself is defective where you're setting up the individuals as prisoners (or enemies) meant for failure.

Here is an example of a better win-win premise and result:

Sweden and the United States seal a major nuclear energy agreement (6 August 2024)

https://energynews.pro/en/sweden-and-the-united-states-seal-...

> Sweden and the USA sign a memorandum of understanding to intensify collaboration in advanced nuclear technologies, including modular reactors and waste management.

> The main objectives of the agreement include the joint development of advanced nuclear reactors, such as small modular reactors (SMRs), and improved nuclear waste management.

If this can be done with Sweden, then with some extra effort from both sides, it also can be done with Russia. If you then repeat it in a hundred sectors, the equation changes completely.

This is absolute nonsense. You can't have peace and prosperity if the other side doesn't want it, see Ukraine. How anyone can still look at it this way in the current geopolitical environment is beyond me.

Yes, because with all the history of coups, invasion and illegal wars the US is definitely the side that wants "peace and prosperity"...

So what you’re saying is you can’t have peace and prosperity if the other side doesn’t want it?

Conflict requires only one hostile party

You're assuming cooperating mindsets.

The absence of cooperation is not hostility. No one is born with a hostile mindset.

I am assuming a mostly neutral apathetic mindset as a baseline. It gives a foundation on which to build positively and cooperatively upon.

I hope you're right, but i think some people are born hostile, just hormonal variations causing such.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com