I was referring to your preposition of turning to evolutionary game theory as a solution.
Jeanette Winters-Hagar

I agree that the evolutionary game theory approach — what anthropologist Christopher Boehm would describe as collective sanctioning through systems of transparency and accountability — is inadequate on its own. As a design principle it has stood the test of time in all hunter-gatherer societies. And a more sophisticated version of it has arisen in nomadic cultures and among agrarian (and livestock herding) cultures via what Elinor Ostrom calls commons-based management.

So there is merit in the approach.

At the same time, these are more like sign posts that full-fledged solutions. There are complex interactions in play, a number of entrenched power structures that are deeply rooted in place, and a host of disruptions of various kinds unfolding around us. So we can guide change processes through the coordination of social movements, in the shaping of institutional policies, practices and cultural norms, and so forth — all with an eye toward changing the “deep rules” of the political system.

Have a look at this follow-up article I wrote that explores some of these ideas a bit further.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.