The prisoner's dilemma is a type of game theory that defines human behavior as entirely selfish. This theory suggests that an individual will virtually always choose his or her own self-interest ahead of the interests of an entire group. “The prisoner's dilemma is a situation in which individual decision makers always have an incentive to choose in a way that creates a suboptimal outcome for individuals as a group.” The classic example of the prisoner's dilemma is that of two bank robbers, these individuals have the choice of either remaining silent, which would mean that both would receive a lesser sentence, or "exposing" the other and receiving no sentence. However, if they choose to remain silent and others “betray” them, they go to prison and the other is freed. This theory not only proves that we as humans are self-centered, but we do not trust others, which actually suggests that we ourselves are not trustworthy. This is a learned behavior, the possibility of choosing the selfish outcome instead of the most optimal option for both bank robbers may be a case of selfish behavior as each of them is not trustworthy. It is clear that if both remained silent, they would essentially receive the lesser of the three sentences, but neither would risk trusting the other bank robber. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The prisoner's dilemma theory can also be considered with the topic of climate change. When we analyze this theory with climate change, we therefore move away from the classic example of the two bank robbers. Instead, we discuss every single behavior of the entire population, therefore no longer of a small fringe but of the entire group. The prisoner's dilemma theory in relation to climate change can also be explained as such; “Rational parties that prioritize their own self-interest can create a worse situation for everyone.” The prisoner's dilemma is just one credible reason why an individual should not participate in the fight against climate change. The reason this theory so adequately demonstrates why every member of the population did not put their boots up and do everything in their power to help in this fight, is that for them self-interest is more important than cooperation. What most people don't realize is that they can help by doing the smallest things, like recycling. If every person recycled even in the smallest capacity, such as using a reusable water bottle, it would make a contribution to saving the planet. Of course, the individuals I am talking about are not those who are physically unable to change their lifestyle, such as the poor, indigenous communities or others who suffer from social inequalities. I am referring to those who are in complete control of their lifestyle and are perfectly capable of choosing to adapt accordingly to help in the fight. Members of the population who live in the middle and upper classes and who have the financial ability to contribute must be held to higher standards. What incentives will be needed to gain the participation needed to help in the fight against climate change? What incentives will help the average individual choose cooperation over his or her personal interests? The prisoner's dilemma theory is present in every aspect of life because it explains why we constantly choose ourselves and are so completelydistrustful of others. Distrustful behavior is that it appears that an individual will not contribute if he believes that someone else would not do the same. Our mentality is strange, we imitate behavior, so if that were the case, if many essentially participated in the fight against climate change, wouldn't that make others want to contribute too? The article "The Prisoner's Dilemma: What Game Are You Playing?" talks about the novel called “The Evolution of Cooperation” which talks about our need to be selfish before society built social institutions and a central authority. Humans have been behaving this way for years and years, but as we know we are completely capable of cooperating with each other, hence civilization. Living together and choosing to live civilly is the clearest example of how to act in everyone's interests and not in our interests. It can be said that, despite our self-centered and selfish nature, we too have a “moral nature”. The nature of morality “makes demands on each of us that are stronger than those of the law and takes priority over self-interest.” This shows not only that we need monetary or punitive incentives, but that we also have within ourselves the need to do the right thing morally. As selfish as we are, we feel an obligation to others, even if this includes only our family and friends and not the rest of the population. While we may not feel obligated to solve the environmental problem for the entire population, some of us nevertheless believe that we must help future generations of our family fight climate change. If every person decided to take a small step in the fight against climate change just because they want a better future for their children, we would see a huge change on the planet. The prisoner's dilemma theory sees human nature in an incredibly dark light. This theory essentially guarantees that if the average individual were to make a right or wrong decision, they would choose the wrong one. The fight against climate change requires everyone's participation, and anyone too self-centered to notice would lead to mutual destruction of the population. Making progress and changing the way the average person views climate change means shifting people's attention from an “I” problem to an “Us” problem. As mentioned above, the theory on the “Nature of Morality” safeguards our humanity as we also act in our own moral interests. However, we cannot depend on our morality alone and the moral obligations we would have to our friends and family to help the planet. More help is needed to get people involved in climate change. The implementation of adequate incentives would be one of the plausible solutions to ensure greater participation in the fight against climate change. In December last year, the Minister of Finance announced the “2020 Climate Action Incentive Payment Amounts” which are tailored to provinces that have not adopted the federal carbon pricing system. Direct beneficiaries are residents who have financed themselves, for example, to rebuild houses affected by natural disasters such as; floods and fires. The Canadian government believes that these incentive programs will not only improve the environment, but will also be good for the majority of families who are struggling in these times of natural disasters caused by climate change. According to the Minister of Finance: “most families will receive more money back through these payments than they will pay due to federal tariffsof pollution, helping families make ends meet as we move towards a cleaner future.” ”There is also an incentive for provinces that have adopted the federal carbon pollution pricing system, because the Canadian government does not retain any direct proceeds from the carbon fund, instead returning the proceeds to the province or territory of origin. Revenues from incentive programs go directly back to provinces that have adopted the federal system or to residents of provinces that have not met (i.e. have NOT met or met) federal carbon pollution pricing requirements. These incentive programs guarantee participation from the large corporation to the average individual, to achieve change requires everyone's participation. The United Nations has seventeen sustainable development goals which they published in 2015. One of their sustainable development goals is “Goal 13: Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts” or also known as “Climate Action”. Goal 13 is exactly what the world needs to focus on now. We know the causes and now we know the consequences, so the only thing left to do is act. A response plan to Covid-19 is included as part of the United Nations “Goal 13”, as this virus is one of the major pressing problems the world is currently facing. As countries recover from the Covid-19 crisis and do their best to rebuild their economies, the UN has provided a plan. This plan will help countries rebuild their economies but “in clean, green, healthy, safe and more resilient ways” to better reflect today's sustainable economy. “The UN Secretary-General has proposed six climate-positive actions that governments should take once they begin to rebuild their economies and societies: Green transition: Investments must accelerate the decarbonisation of all aspects of our economy. Green jobs and sustainable and inclusive growth Green economy: making societies and people more resilient through a transition that is fair for all and leaves no one behind. Invest in sustainable solutions: Fossil fuel subsidies must end and polluters must pay for their pollution. Addressing all climate risks Cooperation: no country can do it alone.” The UN Secretary-General's action plan is very smart. Every developed country needs to rebuild their economy as the virus has caused a lot of damage. This is the perfect opportunity to implement sustainable change as countries rebuild their economies. Why not build it in a way that helps in the fight against climate change? We still have time to repair what the population has almost damaged beyond repair, there is still time to leave the planet in better condition for our future generations. “The principle of the Common Heritage of Humanity (CHM) has been incorporated into various international treaties governing the global commons.” There is no specific definition to define the CHM principle, the principle is simply to be understood as what future generations will inherit, and unfortunately it will be the damage that the current generation has done to the environment. In the magazine article “Common Heritage: Saving the Environment for Humanity or Exploiting Resources in the Name of Eco-Imperialism?” written by Werner Sholtz, explains the principle of common heritage of humanity with five key elements, the elements can be explained as follows: “First, common heritage areas are not owned by anyone and states cannot make claims.”