> Otherwise you fall into "multipolar traps" [1] where each actor, working independently and acting game-theoretically optimally, can throw the system into undesirable states.
how does the natural ecosystem balance itself? I think that as long as each actor has enough degrees of freedom to exploit any loophole in any other actor, the system will self balance (by which, i mean become stable).
Actually, the idea that the nature is in balance seems to be discredited. It is basically either no more than a myth [1], poorly defined [2], or untrue in the traditional conceptualizations [3].
[1] https://press.princeton.edu/titles/8853.html
[2] http://www.wcbbf.org/pdf/balanceofnature/8.pdf
[3] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/096366250506302...
I totally agree that checks and balances -- in the abstract, some form of all-to-all coordination between the different components of the system -- are probably the easiest way to healthcheck any system like this. Otherwise you fall into "multipolar traps" [1] where each actor, working independently and acting game-theoretically optimally, can throw the system into undesirable states.
Checks and balances should be implemented. But is this adequately true in the actually-existing implementation of the system?
[1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/