This feels very much like someone walking into a room with a complicated, but currently broken, machine, noticing that one cord isn't plugged in, and loudly announcing that you solved the problem before you even tried that cord.
Oh duh, why didn't we think of that slaps forehead. If we all deny reality and pretend that life is an infinite-sum game then we can have most of the benefits of a true infinite-sum game.
This simply doesn't stand up to game theory, because the spoils of defection are large and you can't stop people from doing it.
Isn't the problem that life is in fact zero sum? Most of the really important things (land, attractive spouses, desirable jobs, etc.) are extremely limited resources. I don't see how we move past zero sum when there is not enough of the things that people are fighting over to go around.
We inherited an earth stacked with tons of low entropy, and a sun providing us with 4 billion years of low entropy in reserve before we need to leave Earth.
Carefully managed, this is not locally zero sum, and we can all benefit. Unfortunately, that doesn't satisfy some people, and they use their resources to disproportionately acquire even more resources until the peasants are left fighting for scrap.
Life isn't zero sum. If you look at the state of civilization now vs 2000 years ago, it's clear that we've played enough positive-sum activities to create much more wealth for the average person.
Sure, but to what degree does that wealth include the things that really matter? Everyone has more widgets but there's not enough room in the places people want to live, most people are working unsatisfying jobs, and many people can't find love.
That is also the tale of humanity. 100 years ago an “unsatisfying job” was working on a farm with your abusive uncle. “Can’t find love” meant that all the men died in a war so…
Yeah, this. Free trade (voluntary exchange) is inherently non-zero-sum, because each side gives up what they want less in order to get what they want more. That cannot be zero-sum.
That is not completely true. The parties can incorrectly value the items being traded resulting in a non-positive sum trade for either or even both parties.
However, absent intentionally deceptive information (i.e. the overwhelming majority of modern advertising and marketing), that is expected to be fairly uncommon in total-value terms.
I think that only applies if people have the option of selecting the things that they actually want. From what I've observed it's more often the case that people don't give up the things that they value less for the things that they value more. Instead, they give up the only option they have to trade (e.g. labor at jobs that they despise) in exchange for the only option they can trade for to survive (e.g. products that keep them alive but provide little satisfaction).
I disagree with the notion that life isn't zero sum. It only looks this way using a definition that conflates wealth with value, or from a viewpoint far from the limits of nature that would otherwise make this kind of nature obvious. Arguably what we've done, is merely transformed wealth into other forms we valued more.
Certainly value isn't zero sum, as we can always change our minds and value something else more, but I don't think this is a good argument for life (or wealth) not being zero sum. Anything we create, takes energy or resources from elsewhere (zero sum). Every path you choose to go down in life, is a path you didn't go down (zero sum). Simply put - everything has a cost. Sure we may not value costs equally (not zero sum), but remove our arbitrary valuations for things from the equation, and it is zero sum.
Depends. Do you actually live in a zero-sum world, or not?
If you live in a zero-sum world, that's an interesting tactic. It might be effective. If you don't, though, then you opened your opponent up to a better way of doing things, while you're still stuck in a less optimal way. That's a losing move.
Is there in fact a limited supply of energy and physical materials?
If so, the universe is finite and thus zero-sum as bounded by the efficiency of use.
Do humans asses things more through impartial objectivity or via relativistic comparison?
If yes to finite resources and relative assesment, we live in a zero-sum world.
If no to either, we do not (ie, if we have functionally unlimited resource abundance, or if we don't care about how we are situated relative to our neighbors).
Let's consider a positive-sum economy. Over time, the total amount of value in the economy grows. That additional value comes from innovation, but whose innovation?
I grew up in Australia, in the state of New South Wales. In the end-of-secondary-school exams, the most popular subject in NSW is English, because it's compulsory. The second most popular subject is Business Studies. There's an awful lot of entrepreneurial spirit there.
But the reality of the Australian economy is that its complexity is declining: the economic activity is ever more concentrated into fewer and fewer industries. Sure, there are some industries, like hospitality, where you can start your own business, but the bulk of the economy is dominated by a small number of large companies: a handful of mining companies, two supermarkets, and so on. Every now and then, there's a new government initiative, like the National Disability Insurance Scheme or the opening up of vocational training to private providers, and a few years later, there's a big scandal, because most of the companies providing these services turn out to be fraudulent. So much of Australia's economic activity is tied up in pre-existing businesses that it seems that the only way to do anything novel is to rip off the government.
There was a time when Australians started innovative businesses: Victa lawn mowers, the Hills Hoist clothes line, and so on. Ford Australia and Holden (owned by General Motors) competed to build the best cars for the Australian market. This was a time of optimism and increasing living standards, when impoverished workers were enticed to emigrate to Australia by the Great Australian Dream: a detached house and a car of your very own!
But now that airfares a cheap, talented Australians emigrate to the UK, the US, or the EU, and do their innovative work there. Thanks to tax breaks, the best possible investment you can make in Australia is to own someone else's home. The population is increasing faster than ever, but housebuilding is slowing down. The housing crisis has been building for twenty years now; anger turns to ennui. A belief that Australia has no future is slowly starting to coalesce. Australia has entered a zero sum death spiral.
The solution is to create an economy where the old bootstraps analogy actually holds: where simple, honest hard work actually improves one's lot in life. An economy where anyone can innovate, not just university graduates with millions in venture capital funding: the economy that the Baby Boomers grew up in.
If only we knew how to create those conditions without having to fight a world war first.
"If only we knew how to create those conditions without having to fight a world war first."
Funnily enough, zero-sum thinking would provide a solution for this.
In order for your society to thrive, opportunity must be created. If nobody knows how to create sustainable (read, not based on subsidy) opportunity, it can always be manufactured at the cost of a target group. (Ethnic groups, 'the rich', other countries, etc. Pick your favorite.)
In terms of a housing shortage, you can create housing for your 'team' by taking existing houses from those who aren't on your 'team'.
In business or in academia, you can force hiring or admittance practices/rules/quotas that prioritize your 'team' over other 'teams'.
There lies the crux.
There is always gain to be had by those who simply choose to take it.
Even the promise of a world order where such choices are unthinkable isn't protected. All it takes is one group who chooses to prioritize themselves, and then if the remaining group is not strong or numerous enough to fight them off, a new order is established and equity is abolished in favor of a new dominance hierarchy.
Almost everything you have written here can also describe Canada. There is an Australian YouTuber named Chris Kohler who does really funny little shorts describing things happening in the Aussie economy and it’s jarring how often they apply directly to Canada also.
In a globalized world, Richard's Law of comparative advantage tells us that the economic activity in each country will increasingly be concentrated into fewer industries. For example, it would no longer make sense to build cars in Australia if Mexico can do it better and cheaper.
This trend might reverse a bit. Populist tariffs and increasing transport costs are generally driving up the prices of imported goods in many countries.
IOW you're just doing what the US has been doing for the last 30 years or so - shipping your "real" economy to China. Until that changes, Australia indeed doesn't have a future. The economy baby boomers grew up in isn't coming back, unless you're willing to tolerate a few years of a world war, and your continent is spared the consequences.
gift link: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/01/world/asia/trump-zero-sum...
This feels very much like someone walking into a room with a complicated, but currently broken, machine, noticing that one cord isn't plugged in, and loudly announcing that you solved the problem before you even tried that cord.
Oh duh, why didn't we think of that slaps forehead. If we all deny reality and pretend that life is an infinite-sum game then we can have most of the benefits of a true infinite-sum game.
This simply doesn't stand up to game theory, because the spoils of defection are large and you can't stop people from doing it.
Isn't the problem that life is in fact zero sum? Most of the really important things (land, attractive spouses, desirable jobs, etc.) are extremely limited resources. I don't see how we move past zero sum when there is not enough of the things that people are fighting over to go around.
We inherited an earth stacked with tons of low entropy, and a sun providing us with 4 billion years of low entropy in reserve before we need to leave Earth.
Carefully managed, this is not locally zero sum, and we can all benefit. Unfortunately, that doesn't satisfy some people, and they use their resources to disproportionately acquire even more resources until the peasants are left fighting for scrap.
Life isn't zero sum. If you look at the state of civilization now vs 2000 years ago, it's clear that we've played enough positive-sum activities to create much more wealth for the average person.
Sure, but to what degree does that wealth include the things that really matter? Everyone has more widgets but there's not enough room in the places people want to live, most people are working unsatisfying jobs, and many people can't find love.
That is also the tale of humanity. 100 years ago an “unsatisfying job” was working on a farm with your abusive uncle. “Can’t find love” meant that all the men died in a war so…
Yeah, this. Free trade (voluntary exchange) is inherently non-zero-sum, because each side gives up what they want less in order to get what they want more. That cannot be zero-sum.
That is not completely true. The parties can incorrectly value the items being traded resulting in a non-positive sum trade for either or even both parties.
However, absent intentionally deceptive information (i.e. the overwhelming majority of modern advertising and marketing), that is expected to be fairly uncommon in total-value terms.
I think that only applies if people have the option of selecting the things that they actually want. From what I've observed it's more often the case that people don't give up the things that they value less for the things that they value more. Instead, they give up the only option they have to trade (e.g. labor at jobs that they despise) in exchange for the only option they can trade for to survive (e.g. products that keep them alive but provide little satisfaction).
I disagree with the notion that life isn't zero sum. It only looks this way using a definition that conflates wealth with value, or from a viewpoint far from the limits of nature that would otherwise make this kind of nature obvious. Arguably what we've done, is merely transformed wealth into other forms we valued more.
Certainly value isn't zero sum, as we can always change our minds and value something else more, but I don't think this is a good argument for life (or wealth) not being zero sum. Anything we create, takes energy or resources from elsewhere (zero sum). Every path you choose to go down in life, is a path you didn't go down (zero sum). Simply put - everything has a cost. Sure we may not value costs equally (not zero sum), but remove our arbitrary valuations for things from the equation, and it is zero sum.
From a zero-sum perspective, wouldn't it be an effective tactic to convince your competitors to avoid zero-sum thought?
It's also worth remembering that in democracy, the demographics of voting blocs necessarily creates a zero-sum distribution of power.
Depends. Do you actually live in a zero-sum world, or not?
If you live in a zero-sum world, that's an interesting tactic. It might be effective. If you don't, though, then you opened your opponent up to a better way of doing things, while you're still stuck in a less optimal way. That's a losing move.
Good point.
Is there in fact a limited supply of energy and physical materials? If so, the universe is finite and thus zero-sum as bounded by the efficiency of use.
Do humans asses things more through impartial objectivity or via relativistic comparison?
If yes to finite resources and relative assesment, we live in a zero-sum world.
If no to either, we do not (ie, if we have functionally unlimited resource abundance, or if we don't care about how we are situated relative to our neighbors).
Let's consider a positive-sum economy. Over time, the total amount of value in the economy grows. That additional value comes from innovation, but whose innovation?
I grew up in Australia, in the state of New South Wales. In the end-of-secondary-school exams, the most popular subject in NSW is English, because it's compulsory. The second most popular subject is Business Studies. There's an awful lot of entrepreneurial spirit there.
But the reality of the Australian economy is that its complexity is declining: the economic activity is ever more concentrated into fewer and fewer industries. Sure, there are some industries, like hospitality, where you can start your own business, but the bulk of the economy is dominated by a small number of large companies: a handful of mining companies, two supermarkets, and so on. Every now and then, there's a new government initiative, like the National Disability Insurance Scheme or the opening up of vocational training to private providers, and a few years later, there's a big scandal, because most of the companies providing these services turn out to be fraudulent. So much of Australia's economic activity is tied up in pre-existing businesses that it seems that the only way to do anything novel is to rip off the government.
There was a time when Australians started innovative businesses: Victa lawn mowers, the Hills Hoist clothes line, and so on. Ford Australia and Holden (owned by General Motors) competed to build the best cars for the Australian market. This was a time of optimism and increasing living standards, when impoverished workers were enticed to emigrate to Australia by the Great Australian Dream: a detached house and a car of your very own!
But now that airfares a cheap, talented Australians emigrate to the UK, the US, or the EU, and do their innovative work there. Thanks to tax breaks, the best possible investment you can make in Australia is to own someone else's home. The population is increasing faster than ever, but housebuilding is slowing down. The housing crisis has been building for twenty years now; anger turns to ennui. A belief that Australia has no future is slowly starting to coalesce. Australia has entered a zero sum death spiral.
The solution is to create an economy where the old bootstraps analogy actually holds: where simple, honest hard work actually improves one's lot in life. An economy where anyone can innovate, not just university graduates with millions in venture capital funding: the economy that the Baby Boomers grew up in.
If only we knew how to create those conditions without having to fight a world war first.
"If only we knew how to create those conditions without having to fight a world war first."
Funnily enough, zero-sum thinking would provide a solution for this.
In order for your society to thrive, opportunity must be created. If nobody knows how to create sustainable (read, not based on subsidy) opportunity, it can always be manufactured at the cost of a target group. (Ethnic groups, 'the rich', other countries, etc. Pick your favorite.)
In terms of a housing shortage, you can create housing for your 'team' by taking existing houses from those who aren't on your 'team'.
In business or in academia, you can force hiring or admittance practices/rules/quotas that prioritize your 'team' over other 'teams'.
There lies the crux. There is always gain to be had by those who simply choose to take it. Even the promise of a world order where such choices are unthinkable isn't protected. All it takes is one group who chooses to prioritize themselves, and then if the remaining group is not strong or numerous enough to fight them off, a new order is established and equity is abolished in favor of a new dominance hierarchy.
Almost everything you have written here can also describe Canada. There is an Australian YouTuber named Chris Kohler who does really funny little shorts describing things happening in the Aussie economy and it’s jarring how often they apply directly to Canada also.
In a globalized world, Richard's Law of comparative advantage tells us that the economic activity in each country will increasingly be concentrated into fewer industries. For example, it would no longer make sense to build cars in Australia if Mexico can do it better and cheaper.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/comparativeadvantage.as...
This trend might reverse a bit. Populist tariffs and increasing transport costs are generally driving up the prices of imported goods in many countries.
IOW you're just doing what the US has been doing for the last 30 years or so - shipping your "real" economy to China. Until that changes, Australia indeed doesn't have a future. The economy baby boomers grew up in isn't coming back, unless you're willing to tolerate a few years of a world war, and your continent is spared the consequences.