That’s the dumbest application of game theory I’ve ever heard.
This example would only apply if there were a finite amount of animals shared between the two people only and there were no other factors at play other than eating and being hungry. Additionally let’s assume the x is [eat animals]. This then defines the reason why people are telling you to not eat animals (the second x) as simply because “they don’t like it”. It shows you are missing the point entirely.
Don’t pretend your “you don’t like it so I’m going to do more of it” is anything more than “owning the annoying vegans who told me what to do”.
Everything can be boiled down to wants and needs u dont need to not eat animals u want to not eat animals. There are a finite amount of animals and if there was infinite u run into an infinity paradox (its the equivilent to a trolly problem of 1 person per integer on track a and 1 person per even integer on track b doesnt matter where the trolly goes the same number of people die) hence if there was infinite u being vegan does literally nothing. I didnt say its the only reason just that its not childish to implement optimal game theory.
It not just owning the vegans (though it does do that effectivly) its mathematically assigning a cost for u for telling someone what to do.
That’s the dumbest application of game theory I’ve ever heard.
This example would only apply if there were a finite amount of animals shared between the two people only and there were no other factors at play other than eating and being hungry. Additionally let’s assume the x is [eat animals]. This then defines the reason why people are telling you to not eat animals (the second x) as simply because “they don’t like it”. It shows you are missing the point entirely.
Don’t pretend your “you don’t like it so I’m going to do more of it” is anything more than “owning the annoying vegans who told me what to do”.
Everything can be boiled down to wants and needs u dont need to not eat animals u want to not eat animals. There are a finite amount of animals and if there was infinite u run into an infinity paradox (its the equivilent to a trolly problem of 1 person per integer on track a and 1 person per even integer on track b doesnt matter where the trolly goes the same number of people die) hence if there was infinite u being vegan does literally nothing. I didnt say its the only reason just that its not childish to implement optimal game theory.
It not just owning the vegans (though it does do that effectivly) its mathematically assigning a cost for u for telling someone what to do.