Later in the year Thomas fell and fractured his hip. He died from complications of this fracture. He was 94 here. This talk was delivered in 2016. His points are very relevant. He knew of climate change back in 1980 at least.
Yes, he does. I wrote him in the early 2000 to talk about a negotiation exercise I had written to demonstrate his idea of commitment as involving "pruning" a decision tree. He was very gracious in his response.
we can have progress and protect the environment. by using the best practices we can get what we need from the environment and protect the environment at the same time. if we need resources we should get them.
Absolutely. Within the constraints or the model the solution is clear and unequivocal. All or that diatribe could have been replaced by "do I trust the model's assumptions?" If you don't, do you have good reasons for it, or do you just dislike the solution? This makes me suspect Schelling is a Chomsky: valuable specialist, but not a generally wise person.
This is an extremely important lecture. Thanks, Prof. Schelling and Darwin College.
Thomas Schelling starts speaking at 5:30.
Later in the year Thomas fell and fractured his hip. He died from complications of this fracture. He was 94 here. This talk was delivered in 2016. His points are very relevant. He knew of climate change back in 1980 at least.
This is so sad. I just wrote down his email then read your comment. RIP Dr Thomas, and thank you for your work and education.
society is three things, economy power and laws. these three must work together for the benefit of everyone.
Wonderful man; and he does reply to emails. 34:53
Yes, he does. I wrote him in the early 2000 to talk about a negotiation exercise I had written to demonstrate his idea of commitment as involving "pruning" a decision tree.
He was very gracious in his response.
how does he reply if he passed away in 2016
@@0_Katt_0 Great question, but he did before he passed.
we can have progress and protect the environment. by using the best practices we can get what we need from the environment and protect the environment at the same time. if we need resources we should get them.
Good economist
This lecture is shockingly boring.
The key points could have been delivered in 5mins.
To a certain extent, you are right.
How would you use what your know about resolving the Ukrainian war going on now and not escalated to nuclear war?
Absolutely. Within the constraints or the model the solution is clear and unequivocal. All or that diatribe could have been replaced by "do I trust the model's assumptions?" If you don't, do you have good reasons for it, or do you just dislike the solution? This makes me suspect Schelling is a Chomsky: valuable specialist, but not a generally wise person.
This is what Putin is doing right now