My car's tank is half-full. A petrol tanker drivers strike has just begun. Should I fill up "just to make sure", or should I heed the warnings not to panic-buy?The drivers' dispute is between 600 drivers and the two companies that supply Shell forecourts. It's due to last four days. If people don't change their petrol-buying habits there'll be enough to go around. These are the facts, as far as I can tell. But the facts alone don't shape people's behaviour.
If every motorist has the choice between filling up 'just to be safe' and trusting that there won't be shortages, how will they choose? How should we choose?
It's a fascinating situation because it reveals how the collective behaviour which results from individual rational self-interest can cause problems for everyone. Put simply, it would be perfectly reasonable for me to fill the tank, just in case everyone else decides to do the same. But if everyone decides to do the same reasonable self-interested thing, the outcomes will be poor for everyone - long queues, anxiety and people going without.
So the decision about what to do involves a calculation about other people's behaviour, and not just the facts about the levels of petrol in the system. More specifically, the calculation must make assumptions about whether other people will act in their own self-interest or in the interests of wider society. If I believe my fellow motorists will grab the petrol first, there's a real risk that I'll miss out. If I believe that most people will act with restraint, I can afford to do the same. In the end, the calculation involves my estimation of other people's selfishness or altruism.
Whichever way I choose, my actions will contribute to the overall situation. Economists and social theorists call this a non-zero-sum game. Game theory has produced sophisticated models to predict behaviour in commodity markets and on the High Street. Game theorists generally assume that people are motivated to act in ways which maximise their own personal gain and minimise the risk of their own personal loss.
How does this ethic relate to scripture and, in particular, to the radical precepts of the Kingdom of Heaven in the teachings of Jesus? Here we find a surprising morality in which self-interest is relegated to the ethics of love, patience, humility, trust and forgiveness. These could be characterised as foolish and naive. But Jesus is honest about the cost of following a way of self-sacrifice - it is not pain-free, nor does it guarantee security, peace or success. We can all see that a world without these virtues and filled with a greedy, fearful individualism would be a poor place to live. But are we willing to risk ourselves?
I have decided not to fill my tank today. I'll stick to my usual habits and take my chance. If I run out of petrol and find myself stuck at home when I need to be somewhere difficult to access by public transport, I might appear to have been naive and foolish. But I trust that my restraint is not inconsequential, that my small action will contribute to the bigger picture, That just a tiny bit of behaviour that isn't rooted in self-interest and a negative assessment of other people will make the whole world a tiny bit less anxious.
The petrol tanker drivers dispute offers an interesting and short-term opportunity. But we must all make similar decisions in a market economy which have far-reaching consequences. How much energy should we use? How much food are we entitled to and at what price? How right is it to play the housing market as an investment game? How should we respond to planning issues? How should we treat the environment and the species that share our planet?
