Hallam-Baker writes:
As a computer scientist I would have thought you would have been up on the idea of adding memory to game theory interactions. In such cases the optimal outcome can turn out very differently than in the standard model.
Memory is the only way that things like iterated prisoner's dilemmas become interesting.
The fact that the US and the USSR did manage to negotiate disarmament despite the standard game theory predictions shows that the system is somewhat more complex than Perry's ideological view.
I'm afraid, Phill, that you didn't read what I said. Unilateral disarmament is stupid. Multilateral is not necessarily stupid.
Oh, and don't give us stuff about how humans are above evolutionary pressures or nonsense like that, because we aren't any more above such pressures than we are above the laws of physics.
The "laws" of social scienst are not the "laws of physics".
Try creating a breed of Humans that don't want to have children and see how many generations you can get them to live for. Try creating a breed of Humans that like walking in front of cars and see how long they last. There is a reason humans do things like agressively defending their children with their lives if need be. There is a reason humans resort to violence when their place in the gene pool is threatened. Some of this stuff is plumb obvious to anyone with half a brain, Phill. Perry