Posted by finelinebob on August 30, 2006, at 0:38:03
In reply to Re: Polarisation » Declan, posted by Jost on August 28, 2006, at 19:51:08
> One thing is that we seem to be set up to experience/think about / make many things into zero-sum games.
>
> For example, in a world of limited resources (which ours is), my resources are by definition not going to be yours. Since we also seem to be creatures of infinite desire, one person's good tends to subtract from another's.Ah, but most topics economical are NON-zero-sum games. The very fact that resources are limited means they cannot be a zero-sum game. The powerful seizing resources from the weak may give the appearance of some zero-sum dynamic playing out, but the resource has its limits and within that system you will end up with a lose-lose situation as the resource is depleted.
Zero-sum games always require a win-lose situation or, at best/worst a draw. Chess is a good example. It is impossible to play a game of chess where both sides lose, when there are no more pieces on the table. THAT is a zero-sum game. One side wins, the other side loses. Even if you have some sort of points system for pieces captured and keep a running score, there is always the possibility of a 0-0 tie without ending the "game".
Us/them dichotomies are essential to life, no less to human life than anything else. Any species has its predators and/or competitors. Starting with family units, through tribes, villages, cities, nations, whatever ... that biological imperative has remained. Without it, family groups of "pre-humans" would have never survived long enough to pass their "pacifist" genes on in the face of the success of its more aggressive competition.
We are genetically wired to recognize us/them distinctions. It seems that the rise of civilizations has allowed those more-than-likely recessive traits to remain in the gene pool, even nuture them to some extent. Maybe a definition of intelligent behavior is that which defies genetic programming to produce the same end goals through better, more efficient means.
Us vs. Them thinking will eventually lead to a lose-lose outcome. Removing the distinction **may** allow for win-win situations ... or, more simply and accurately put, a win situation ... more readily, but if humans can unite we'll probably find a new challenge to fill that other position. Overcoming millions of years of evolutionary-wired mental frameworks, going beyond our programming, is a "frontier" our society simply isn't ready to cope with yet.
poster:finelinebob
thread:680877
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20060809/msgs/681391.html