HN Explorer

Ask HN: Is the world a positive sum game for the earth, not just humans?

1 points by NerDProgrammer ↗ HN
I have observed the distinction pretty clearly, several times, that the world is usally divided into two parts, humans and everything else (including other animals and nature). Even sustainability is defined in these terms: "In the 21st century, it (sustainability) refers generally to the capacity for the biosphere and human civilization to coexist." From wikipedias introduction to that article.^[1]

I also have read a little bit about zero-sum bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_thinking), and also read about it being intuitive, but not rational, especially as pointed out by economists. An article is highlighed are here https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/5CyuxotJ5XkeXXbZK/one-reason-why-capitalism-is-much-maligned

I seem to understand, in very simplistic terms, that it's the ability to create and think, that what gives rises to win-win games. And in general, it's better to have a win-win attitude, than a win-lose or the worst, have a lose-lose attitude.

But my question here is, all these discussions are pertaining to humans. Humans have become beter off than they were 50 years ago. But, with respect to what I start the discussion, sustainability, is it that nature is becoming worse of overall, for the humans to become better off ? Or it's a positive sum game for whole of earth ?

I would be really greateful for the thoughts of the HN community on this idea.

[1]: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Sustainability

6 comments

[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 27.5 ms ] thread
uberman
Do you believe the Earth provides unlimited resources or do you believe there are finite resources?
NerDProgrammer
I believe that earth has finite resources.
uberman
I think then ultimately there could be no way to not have a zero sum allocation of finite resources between two parties.
NerDProgrammer
Could you please elaborate on that thought. Because I haven't understood this idea entirely i think. It has always been, maybe because of chemistry, or because of equations, or because of the idea of equivalent exchange, that if it is a finite resource, then the allocation between to independent parties is zero sum. Unless they collaborate together, in which case, it's still zero sum, but rather of a dynamic nature where the possession of the finite resource sways between the two parties over time and no one is in actual abundance of the resource.

I will really appreciate if you could provide more insight on your understanding.

HenryKissinger
Nature heals itself over time: trees grow back, endangered species grow their numbers, etc. Even deposits of fossil fuels reconstitute themselves, albeit over millions of years.

So nature isn't exactly a fixed pile of resources that we draw from.

The earth isn't a closed system. Sunlight, which is for all intents and purposes infinite, is a vital resource for the world's food supply, plants, and everything that depends on them.

With 7+ billion humans on earth, if you knew nothing about the water cycle, you might think that the oceans would run out of water in a few centuries. But ocean levels are rising, not falling. Because much of the water we consume goes back to nature one way or another.

It's more complicated than zero-sum.

NerDProgrammer
I still don't understand that why is the system not zero sum. The system has a way of replenishing itself. But if we consume (or harm nature) at a rate higher than it can replenish, then it'll not be able to sustain.

Why do you say that the system is more complicated that zero sum ? Is it because of the infiniteness of sunlight ? Or is it because of the scale at which humans effect nature, or the sheer vastness of nature. Is this from the system perspective, or a human perspective ?