Losing Game
Let's say everyone in the world was playing a game, only they didn't know it. Now if most people decide that winning the game comes from helpng eveyone win, then what would happen is that everyone would win. I was amazed to learn that some American Indian had (and still do to the extent that they can practice it) a much more advanced idea of wealth than any modern day American. First, no one owned anything. Second, the job of everyone in the tribe is to make sure the everyone else in the tribe has enough (not a lot, but enough). And it turns out it doesn't take too much effort to make sure everyone has enough, which leaves much time for the enjoyment of life.
You might find it interesting to explore the possibiity that some of the people on this planet that modern society considers quite primitive might, in perspective, be much more advanced that the modern society thinks it needs to transform them. Just some ideas for thought.
But lets that some people play a dfferent game...called I win and you lose game. This is one of power and money. They define winning accumulaing the most power and the most money. This game is played by finding resouces you can exploit, finding other people you can take advantage of, and finding weaker players that you can take over. How easy do you think it is for the enrich everyone people play their game, when these people are playing theirs? The first game becomes almost impossible.
And let's say that one thing that can be done is to open people's eyes up about what is going on in the world. I really don't think that it is "the" solution, but its part of the game I'm playing right now. However, other people, who have their eyes totally or partially closed, are playing a different game called, "I'm right and you are wrong." And what impact does that have on just the communication aspect of the game?
Once again, none of this is the solution, but it is a little introduction to the game people on this planet play.









Comments
Great thoughts as always.
Makes me think of Nash's 'game theory', which, I suppose, models an equilibrium that is created when all participants assume that all other participants are unable to be trusted, and make each decision based on their perception of whether it will maximize their 'returns', whatever it is that is defined in the game. I wonder... about a model that has an inverse assumption: in which each individual assumes *trust* in each other individual. Given a set of rules about what constitutes 'returns', I wonder which of the two models would produce higher average returns?
I'll bet the second model produces orders of magnitude greater returns.
One might think that the idea of the second model is incompatible with an 'Adam Smith' economy. But I think it is just the opposite. Just as war does not actually produce any wealth (only move it around, albeit sometimes massively), an economy with a high degree of 'fairness', i.e., trust, is the very definition of Adam Smith's competitive, free, and fair market, and it is under those conditions of trust that an economy produces the greatest returns.
I also think of Jesus, who (among many others) said something that embodies a similiar fundemental dynamic of life: every person has the power to choose heaven, or choose hell. The only catch is: you have to choose it now.
Posted by: Nick | April 11, 2007 05:35 AM
Great posts, Dr Van!
How about the ultimate game? Suppose we were really divine beings: eternal, omnipotent and universal? Suppose we elected to masquerade as humans: limited, powerless and sinful? Suppose a few figured out the game and attained their freedom? How would you model that? Just some thoughts....
Posted by: John | April 15, 2007 04:42 PM
This sounds like socialism to me. It doesn't work.
Posted by: jimmy5 | April 24, 2007 09:12 PM