The Laplace demon theorem is dead? Even with more advanced theories of economics, professor Laibson does not believe that with further data in behavioural economics, we can fully model human behaviour with equations. With regards to uncertainty and confounds, Laibson still believes there are limits to what we can model with regards to human behavior. It's also interesting to see if human behavior remains static as we progress as a society.
Specifically with regards to hyperbolic discounting, how should these theories be implemented in policy? And how should resources be allocated between members of society that are temporally disconnected? While current methods of discounting account for future, to ensure our survival as a species, should we rediscount our future value propositions so they hold greater weight?
This perspective is so interesting! As I did not watch the same interview, I found your insight imperative to understanding his perspective and the issue he discussed. Despite having two very different focuses, both our videos touched on related elements. In my post, I wrote about how seemingly-mundane tasks required prediction, such as electricity production. Within this context, I think my interview lacked the human perspective you discussed. It would be interesting to see how human behaviour affects electricity supply and demand beyond anticipating usage trends, such as moral beliefs — in this sense, environmentalism.