I'm sure many are familiar with this. For those who are not . . .
-Its a game where everyone splits into pairs
-You and your other half each have a piece of paper and pen in front of you.
-The game is turn-based and there are x amount of turns.
-Each turn you and your partner write a number on your respective papers; 0 or 1.
-0 means you "cooperate"
-1 means you "betray"
-At the end of each turn you compare numbers.
-Certain number combos yield certain points which you each rack up as the game goes on.
-----0,0 (both cooperate) both get 2 points each
-----0,1 (one cooperates, one betrays) The betrayer gets 3 points, the cooperater gets 1
-----1,1 (both betray) both get 1 point each
-After x amount of turns have taken place the scores are compared; the person with the highest score wins.
The surest way the win this game is for you and your partner to cooperate with each other EVERY TIME. Otherwise, if you are both "strategically" mixing 0s with 1s to try and get the 3 point turn, then more 1 point turns than 3 point turns will inevitably result.
While basketball and football and baseball are all zero sum games, the above game is a non-zero sum game. Human life on the planet Earth is a non-zero sum game (too often mistaken by its participants for a zero sum game). The difference is that in a zero sum game there can be only one winner and in a non-zero sum game there can be multiple winners (or losers).
There must be something very wrong with this theory that I am not seeing because otherwise I just don't understand why it is not universally accepted and implemented already.
I see it logically dictating an objective morality directed toward empathy.
-Its a game where everyone splits into pairs
-You and your other half each have a piece of paper and pen in front of you.
-The game is turn-based and there are x amount of turns.
-Each turn you and your partner write a number on your respective papers; 0 or 1.
-0 means you "cooperate"
-1 means you "betray"
-At the end of each turn you compare numbers.
-Certain number combos yield certain points which you each rack up as the game goes on.
-----0,0 (both cooperate) both get 2 points each
-----0,1 (one cooperates, one betrays) The betrayer gets 3 points, the cooperater gets 1
-----1,1 (both betray) both get 1 point each
-After x amount of turns have taken place the scores are compared; the person with the highest score wins.
The surest way the win this game is for you and your partner to cooperate with each other EVERY TIME. Otherwise, if you are both "strategically" mixing 0s with 1s to try and get the 3 point turn, then more 1 point turns than 3 point turns will inevitably result.
While basketball and football and baseball are all zero sum games, the above game is a non-zero sum game. Human life on the planet Earth is a non-zero sum game (too often mistaken by its participants for a zero sum game). The difference is that in a zero sum game there can be only one winner and in a non-zero sum game there can be multiple winners (or losers).
There must be something very wrong with this theory that I am not seeing because otherwise I just don't understand why it is not universally accepted and implemented already.
I see it logically dictating an objective morality directed toward empathy.
