number of people you affect is true but it's multiplied by your impact/value over other offers. I can spam a billion people but that won't make me the next facebook.
judges and referees are import because the offer a 3 party opinion.
Judges and referees are important because in our system they represent our conflict resolution process.
But there are other conflict resolution processes, like flipping a coin, trial by ordeal, killing someone, or just walking away, that don't involve third parties. Historically those may have been just as prevalent.
Those alternative processes are often horribly inefficient, though, in terms of producing optimal outcomes. So more advanced societies employ experts to apply a complex system of rules designed to minimize losses when cooperation fails. And for the foreseeable future only expert humans are capable of applying those rules. Nonetheless, people are usually free to agree to follow simpler processes, like coin flipping.
That might have been true in the past, but with 7.5 billion people on the planet we are aproaching the point when life becomes zero-sum.
What I mean is that in pre-historic era the caveman that didn't get along with his tribe could just leave them, go find some uncharted territory and make a living from what he could hunt and build with his own hands.
Even in Middle Ages, discovery of America was a game changer: suddenly the people that would otherwise had to live in poverty were given an opportunity to go to the New World and become rich with nothing but hard work.
Nowadays, we are using so much resources that we have to compete for them. You cannot easily increase yearly supply of oil, or gas, or food, at least not on global scale. Also, in developed economies unemployment does not really exist so to find employees for your startup you need to take them out from other companies. That's makes the life more and more competitive.
Competition does not imply zero-sum. But for competition, how would society continually reorganize itself for the better? If everybody got to do whatever they most wanted to do, we'd all be princesses and basketball players. Competition is precisely how society achieves non-zero-sum outcomes.
Unfortunately, the popular notion of competition overloads it with alot of cultural baggage and imbues it with meaning where there is no intrinsic meaning.
Life might not be, but most things people actually want, are.
If you want to work at X, you have to compete with others for the same job. If you want to start your own company, you have to compete with other companies for your market. If you want to marry person Y, you have to compete with people also interested in Y. If you want to be a writer, you have to compete with other writer's for people's attention. And so on -- and we haven't even touched the real competitive fields, like pop music and sports.
>Choose the path of abundance and create new value for others over the path of scarcity and competition
What would that mean in concrete terms for someone wanting to make a living as an X, and there are not many job positions available?
Life might not be, but most things people actually want, are.
My life experience pushes me toward the opposite conclusion: the closer I get to understanding what I actually want, the less of a zero-sum game life appears to be. The things which truly make me happy are squishy and intangible, things that people can make more of by simply choosing to participate in them. A sense of community, opportunities to contribute, being welcomed and included, creative interaction and mutual aid; these are the things that consistently make my life feel like it is going well.
The article isn't as terrible as the click-bait title, but for completeness here's some obvious counter examples: some illnesses including cancer, being hit by a car running a red light, terrorist attacks. All of those are pretty unfair, and there's no rules behind them.
The article is concerned with unfairness in life in the sense of what people get (from society, other people, institutions, jobs, etc) not accidents or acts of nature.
Hard work, being good does rarely equates with reward... those are worker-bee values. Gotta do those and assure minimizing getting screwed... that's capitalist values.
14 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 41.8 ms ] threadjudges and referees are import because the offer a 3 party opinion.
But there are other conflict resolution processes, like flipping a coin, trial by ordeal, killing someone, or just walking away, that don't involve third parties. Historically those may have been just as prevalent.
Those alternative processes are often horribly inefficient, though, in terms of producing optimal outcomes. So more advanced societies employ experts to apply a complex system of rules designed to minimize losses when cooperation fails. And for the foreseeable future only expert humans are capable of applying those rules. Nonetheless, people are usually free to agree to follow simpler processes, like coin flipping.
Something which the article does hammer on for several paragraphs...
Life is not a zero-sum game.
Choose the path of abundance and create new value for others over the path of scarcity and competition.
That might have been true in the past, but with 7.5 billion people on the planet we are aproaching the point when life becomes zero-sum.
What I mean is that in pre-historic era the caveman that didn't get along with his tribe could just leave them, go find some uncharted territory and make a living from what he could hunt and build with his own hands.
Even in Middle Ages, discovery of America was a game changer: suddenly the people that would otherwise had to live in poverty were given an opportunity to go to the New World and become rich with nothing but hard work.
Nowadays, we are using so much resources that we have to compete for them. You cannot easily increase yearly supply of oil, or gas, or food, at least not on global scale. Also, in developed economies unemployment does not really exist so to find employees for your startup you need to take them out from other companies. That's makes the life more and more competitive.
Tell that to the millions who are officially unemployed -- and that does not include everyone not working.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/country-list/unemployment-ra...
Unfortunately, the popular notion of competition overloads it with alot of cultural baggage and imbues it with meaning where there is no intrinsic meaning.
Life might not be, but most things people actually want, are.
If you want to work at X, you have to compete with others for the same job. If you want to start your own company, you have to compete with other companies for your market. If you want to marry person Y, you have to compete with people also interested in Y. If you want to be a writer, you have to compete with other writer's for people's attention. And so on -- and we haven't even touched the real competitive fields, like pop music and sports.
>Choose the path of abundance and create new value for others over the path of scarcity and competition
What would that mean in concrete terms for someone wanting to make a living as an X, and there are not many job positions available?
My life experience pushes me toward the opposite conclusion: the closer I get to understanding what I actually want, the less of a zero-sum game life appears to be. The things which truly make me happy are squishy and intangible, things that people can make more of by simply choosing to participate in them. A sense of community, opportunities to contribute, being welcomed and included, creative interaction and mutual aid; these are the things that consistently make my life feel like it is going well.
http://oliveremberton.com/2014/the-problem-isnt-that-life-is...