Non Zero Sum Games

Human beings tend to think in terms of zero sum games.  Basically this means the idea that in any enterprise the amount of stuff available is a fixed amount and so if one person gets more, another person must get less.  There's a cake that needs dividing.  If Billy eats half of it then Alfred and Maria have to share the other half between the two of them.

Human beings also tend to think of things as static, unchanging.  How many times do you hear things like, "If we keep using oil at our present rate" or "If the population keeps rising at this rate."  Today I read that "Mankind hasn't grown any more humane in these last 67 years.  We are what we are."  This is simply the latest battle between Dade and I over the correct view of the world.  His side proclaims a fatalistic, pessimistic side the world - an unchanging human nature, a tottering civilization, a pervasive decline.  My side proclaims an open-futured, optimistic, changing past and future, a robust civilization and a pervasive, dramatic improvement.  I am, of course, right.

This leads to people who want to "Get theirs" rather than "Give handouts."  It leads to a tax debate where one side wants to cut government spending because of government debt, and another side wants to tax the rich to reduce debt and still keep government spending where it is.  It leads to some people wanting to dramatically reduce the amount of material things we use and where we get them in order to save the environment and another group wanting to use up the resources to maintain the economy.  It leads to the idea that some people only think about their own happiness and therefore cause misery elsewhere.

However, the Earth is a zero sum game in only one capacity, there's only a certain amount of material things on Earth.  It isn't even a zero sum game in terms of resources.  Vast amounts of energy are pumped into the system, for free, every single day, everywhere in the world, every day, because the sun shines.  In the beginning there was no life, and life has spread to almost everywhere on Earth, fed by the sun.  How does oil work?  It combines carbon and oxygen in an exothermic reaction.  Do that a lot and you run out of oil.  However, there's still exactly the same amount of carbon and oxygen.  Break down that carbon-oxygen bond using the sun and you have the useful part of oil again.  Populations do not rise at the same rate.  This is the most peaceful time in history, both in terms of war and crime.  Most humans have a concept of human rights (a relatively recent phenomenon) racism is down, acceptance of homosexuality is up, etc..  I bet you think that there are fewer large mammals, and fewer large mammal predators than there has ever been.  Actually this is the period with the greatest number of large mammals, they just tend to be cows, pigs and sheep.  There are over 6 billion predators on the planet called humans.

The Earth, our experience, our numbers, our food, our resources are not zero sum games.  Almost nothing is static, from the very composition and distribution of what makes up the world, to the morality of people.  If you taxed the rich at 90% and distributed wealth more equally through the government you get the failed attempts at communism.  If you have no taxes, and therefore no government, you get anarchy.  Tax at a rate that encourages people to try to get rich and still provides a government with enough to pay for research, education, and infrastructure and you get a growing economy with a stable population that gets richer.  Starting from the same amount of resources, through time, you can increase or decrease resources (and crime, and health, and beauty, etc.)

Why do people think in terms of static, zero sum games?  It is because for most of the history of homo sapiens things didn't change, populations remained steady, most people would go through a life without seeing a single innovation.  Hunter-gathers using essentially the same simple stone and wood tools lived for about 90% of modern human history.  Short lives, infant mortality, disease, violence all kept population essentially steady.  The same way of life in the same ecological conditions with the same number of people over tens of thousands of years will result in the default attitude that there is just a certain amount of stuff and things don't change.

I am a great believer in non zero sum games.  I think an investment in education increases the amount of resources, lowers crime (among other factors).  I think tiny investments in child health reduces population growth.  I think relatively small investment in research, combined with education results in vastly increased resources.  I think governments that cooperate produce a bigger cake, a more optimistic population, and can spend more money on non zero sum games like education, research and health.  People think the most important people in history are those who start or end wars, or make political alliances, or inspire people.  the most important people in history are technological innovators.  The two world wars resulted in a combined 75 million deaths.  In 1950 smallpox killed an estimated 50 million a year.  All of us know the names Hitler, Stalin, Churchill.  Do you know who invented the smallpox vaccine?  I didn't (apparently it was Edward Jenner).

All of the above is essentially a case for the instinctive fallacy of there being only so much stuff, and things not changing.  It is a case for the power and utility of non-zero sum games.  It is a case for investment and cooperation, things that require investment of will and resources for greater pay-offs in the future.

I want to end this with a practical use of a non-zero sum game that requires little investment and potentially great rewards.  Research has shown that happiness is contagious.  Being happy makes those you know more happy, but moreover makes the people they know more happy.  An increase in happiness by one person increases the chance of the people you directly know by 15% (if you know five people that's a 46% chance that you will take some from not happy to happy) and the people they know by 10% (if they know five people that's an 87% chance that one person will be happy) and of course such a process spreads from anyone who becomes happy.  if you become happy and know some people well it is almost certain that other people will be happy.  The only way this process stops is if no-one in a circle knows anybody outside of that circle, or if the small odds against someone in that group becoming happy occurs.

How can you try to be happy?  The answers are throughout this blog but they really come down to being optimistic, seeing the good in people, being aware of your environment, taking the time to slow down sometimes, giving yourself and your things to other people.  In my mind you have a responsibility towards your friends and loved ones to try to be as happy as possible, and it is wonderful for you too.