Here I am thinking of a great equilibrium where equilibrium refers to a(n most) balanced observation point.
Thinking about the climate action call from protesters etc and the relation of politics and economy to that regard I think it might be useful to consider some form of impeding doom that humans can choose or not choose to work together in some fashion to “defeat” (with the assumptions that humans can prevent the impending apocalypse).
Here then we can consider things such as how the aged population might vote to spend resources towards versus younger generations and then of course the timelines that includes future generations.
So here there must be an added justification for a self interested player to spend resources to secure a future for players that doesn’t include the self interested player that spends the resources.
Obviously taxation could be used as a way of harnessing collective will. But again there will obviously be those that cannot justify using their own money in order to serve the collective which may or may not even include the individual paying the money etc.
It also might be that not all people must pay such taxes to over come the problem.
Here then I think the (more) balanced observation point would include a sort of global setup where there is either only one nation/government or that all nations are arranged with the same geologically strategic advantages.
One thing we can note is the “re-solution” of the concept of a human caused Armageddon with one that is naturally presented (such as a catastrophic sized meteor) to show that it is in-action in respect to either scenario which can be viewed as the cause of destruction (rather than viewing, for example, climate change as a problem of ‘the action of’ polluting too much).
