It's rational at the individual level, irrational at the group level.

The issue is you can't easily enforce cooperation without some external overarching force (e.g. regulation), especially across competing powers.

Refer to nuclear arms race in general. A specific example on why not to be the only one to cooperate: Ukraine gave up nukes in order to push for group level rationality, gets walked over as an individual. Oversimplifying, but yeah that's the rough point.

Meditations on Moloch is a favourite of mine on this (albeit very depressing): https://www.slatestarcodexabridged.com/Meditations-On-Moloch

> It's rational at the individual level, irrational at the group level.

no, it's irrational at the individual level too, because it will cause more harm than good to the individual firms. it's in the short-term that the cost savings are had; the demand destruction is long-term and outweighs the cost savings.

that's what the abstract says. the only issue i have is insisting on calling that rational. it's like saying eating all the seed corn is rational if you can eat most of it yourself. in the moment you're winning, so it's rational. but tomorrow everyone has none. why do we call that rational?

why do we torture the word rational rather than phrase it as competitors are in some ways incapable of acting rationally?

Something in the ballpark of a Nash equilibrium. Kinda amazing how often you run into those things, in situations like groupthink.

This linked moloch essay caters to pseudointellectuals and uses a lot of words to do one thing: absolve the evil people of any responsibility.

Instead of wasting a potential reader's time, here's a way better framing: "The Earth is not dying, it is being killed, and those who are killing it have names and addresses."