4 ms·

Welcome to the Zero Sum Era. Now How Do We Get Out?

13 points by throw0101c 2y ago

throw0101c 2y ago
https://archive.is/q9a5B https://archive.is/q9a5B https://archive.is/https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/01/world/asia/trump-zero-sum-world.html https://archive.is/https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/01/world/...
throw0101c 2y ago
> “The reversion to zero-sum thinking now is in some ways a backlash against the positive-sum thinking of the post-Cold War era — the idea that globalization could lift all boats, that the U.S. could draft an international order in which nearly everyone could participate and become a responsible stakeholder,” said Hal Brands, a global affairs professor at Johns Hopkins University and senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. “The original Trump insight from 2016-17 was that this wasn’t happening.” > What we are now experiencing, especially in the United States, is effectively a rejection of the belief in abundance and cooperation. It is an uprising against the premise that many groups can gain at once — a cynical, contagious us-or-them attitude, spreading across countries, communities and families. > With kids’ games, maybe zero-summing feels like tough love. But on a national and global scale, it’s increasingly hard not to ask: What are we losing with a win-or-lose approach?
oldpersonintx 2y ago
[dead]
pfdietz 2y ago
Those pushing the new approach would argue we never left the non-cooperative setting, we just set ourselves up to be exploited. A great deal of what Trump is doing can be understood this way. Things that are being done for the "greater good" are perceived as setting the US to be the sucker, paying for benefits accruing mostly to others.
- eightysixfour 2y ago
  I would love to talk to someone/read someone's content who is seriously thoughtful and believes this to be the truth. Even the "best" content I can find does not thoroughly describe to me what they think the world looks like if they're successful in tearing down the current system.
- libertine 2y ago
  How is the perception of US being the sucker while being the most prosperous Nation at the same time? It's one of the most absurd takes. Like, why do you think the US had privileged access to deals, and had a welcoming seat at the table? Countries were forced to do it? Or you think that the US, of all countries, was being gullible and extorted all while amassing wealth? It's funny that the demise of the US came finally at the hand of Russian propaganda, and ignorance will make sure that it will come through.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    I think it comes from Trump being a con man? The last thing he wants to be is the chump being taken advantage of. That's the other side of the table.
    - jleyank 2y ago
      Also, each transaction seems to be independent - no history and no concern about the future. Thus, there's no "lose one to win two" kind of thinking. And as everything has to be a win-lose, the US will be a last-resort kind of player for others.
    - libertine 2y ago
      What advantage are you speaking of? Do you realize that for example China trying to have access to Ports and Military bases is massive endeavor. For example, Russia losing Syria and its ports and airbases is one of the biggest blunders in modern History. Yet you have the idea that US power projection and getting free access to bases and ports is being a "chump being taken advantage of"! It's not the other side of the table, it's ignorance. You can make the case that it isn't valuable, but Russia and China sure as hell are trying hard to get these perks, and they will fill the void.
jleyank 2y ago
Well, the logical response is to do the same - make sure that any alternative to the US is examined first. Because working with the US will mean you're supposed to lose...
Herring 2y ago
It's a known problem. Eg check out optimal strategies to the prisoner's dilemma. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma > The winning deterministic strategy was tit for tat, developed and entered into the tournament by Anatol Rapoport. It was the simplest of any program entered, containing only four lines of BASIC,[10] and won the contest. The strategy is simply to cooperate on the first iteration of the game; after that, the player does what his or her opponent did on the previous move.[11] Depending on the situation, a slightly better strategy can be "tit for tat with forgiveness": when the opponent defects, on the next move, the player sometimes cooperates anyway, with a small probability (around 1–5%, depending on the lineup of opponents). This allows for occasional recovery from getting trapped in a cycle of defections. Extremely straightforward, and in real-world settings (business, politics, relationships), moderate forgiveness usually wins in the long run.
- MichaelZuo 2y ago
  Those percentages don’t seem right. I’ve never heard of anyone in the tech industry even lasting through 20 rounds of mutual defections with a peer opponent, in any real world conflict. Let alone 100 rounds, or to continue as a live player. Because in reality there’s almost always escalation to higher and higher stakes.
  - Herring 2y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean, those orgs last for decades and countries last for hundreds of years. But I'm sure you can tweak the percentages depending on the situation and your own judgement. It's a rule of thumb too and can be exploited if you're not careful, eg someone can save defections for when it really matters (getting a supreme court seat). > Because in reality there’s almost always escalation to higher and higher stakes. Well clearly no, because the world is not constantly at war (the highest escalation).
    - MichaelZuo 2y ago
      Can you provide an example of one “org” in the tech industry that has defected twenty times in a row against a peer? > Well clearly no, because the world is not constantly at war (the highest escalation). The world is not constantly at war because it’s almost always settled way before the count hits 20.
jauntywundrkind 2y ago
I'd just commented elsewhere, the book Non-zero: The Logic of Human Destiny was a super valuable read for me in undergrad, did a lot to sell me a view that civilization is built on cooperation & collectivized planning & shared efforts. That that is where humanity as a species distinct from the animals originated from. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonzero:_The_Logic_of_Human_Destiny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonzero:_The_Logic_of_Human_De... Its incredibly dark times that dark side energy has so taken over the noosphere, has got its claws in & clawed more attention that any other way of viewing the world. This framing, of zero versus non-zero sum thinking, is incredibly useful for grappling with & seeing what's happening in our time. Very glad to see this idea surface, and I hope it can be a resounding message, that can help steer our challenged species's long term orientation.

13 points by throw0101c 2y ago

https://archive.is/q9a5B https://archive.is/q9a5B https://archive.is/https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/01/world/asia/trump-zero-sum-world.html https://archive.is/https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/01/world/...

throw0101c 2y ago

> “The reversion to zero-sum thinking now is in some ways a backlash against the positive-sum thinking of the post-Cold War era — the idea that globalization could lift all boats, that the U.S. could draft an international order in which nearly everyone could participate and become a responsible stakeholder,” said Hal Brands, a global affairs professor at Johns Hopkins University and senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. “The original Trump insight from 2016-17 was that this wasn’t happening.” > What we are now experiencing, especially in the United States, is effectively a rejection of the belief in abundance and cooperation. It is an uprising against the premise that many groups can gain at once — a cynical, contagious us-or-them attitude, spreading across countries, communities and families. > With kids’ games, maybe zero-summing feels like tough love. But on a national and global scale, it’s increasingly hard not to ask: What are we losing with a win-or-lose approach?

oldpersonintx 2y ago

[dead]

pfdietz 2y ago

Those pushing the new approach would argue we never left the non-cooperative setting, we just set ourselves up to be exploited. A great deal of what Trump is doing can be understood this way. Things that are being done for the "greater good" are perceived as setting the US to be the sucker, paying for benefits accruing mostly to others.

eightysixfour 2y ago
I would love to talk to someone/read someone's content who is seriously thoughtful and believes this to be the truth. Even the "best" content I can find does not thoroughly describe to me what they think the world looks like if they're successful in tearing down the current system.
libertine 2y ago
How is the perception of US being the sucker while being the most prosperous Nation at the same time? It's one of the most absurd takes. Like, why do you think the US had privileged access to deals, and had a welcoming seat at the table? Countries were forced to do it? Or you think that the US, of all countries, was being gullible and extorted all while amassing wealth? It's funny that the demise of the US came finally at the hand of Russian propaganda, and ignorance will make sure that it will come through.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  I think it comes from Trump being a con man? The last thing he wants to be is the chump being taken advantage of. That's the other side of the table.
  - jleyank 2y ago
    Also, each transaction seems to be independent - no history and no concern about the future. Thus, there's no "lose one to win two" kind of thinking. And as everything has to be a win-lose, the US will be a last-resort kind of player for others.
  - libertine 2y ago
    What advantage are you speaking of? Do you realize that for example China trying to have access to Ports and Military bases is massive endeavor. For example, Russia losing Syria and its ports and airbases is one of the biggest blunders in modern History. Yet you have the idea that US power projection and getting free access to bases and ports is being a "chump being taken advantage of"! It's not the other side of the table, it's ignorance. You can make the case that it isn't valuable, but Russia and China sure as hell are trying hard to get these perks, and they will fill the void.

jleyank 2y ago

Well, the logical response is to do the same - make sure that any alternative to the US is examined first. Because working with the US will mean you're supposed to lose...

Herring 2y ago

It's a known problem. Eg check out optimal strategies to the prisoner's dilemma. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma > The winning deterministic strategy was tit for tat, developed and entered into the tournament by Anatol Rapoport. It was the simplest of any program entered, containing only four lines of BASIC,[10] and won the contest. The strategy is simply to cooperate on the first iteration of the game; after that, the player does what his or her opponent did on the previous move.[11] Depending on the situation, a slightly better strategy can be "tit for tat with forgiveness": when the opponent defects, on the next move, the player sometimes cooperates anyway, with a small probability (around 1–5%, depending on the lineup of opponents). This allows for occasional recovery from getting trapped in a cycle of defections. Extremely straightforward, and in real-world settings (business, politics, relationships), moderate forgiveness usually wins in the long run.

MichaelZuo 2y ago
Those percentages don’t seem right. I’ve never heard of anyone in the tech industry even lasting through 20 rounds of mutual defections with a peer opponent, in any real world conflict. Let alone 100 rounds, or to continue as a live player. Because in reality there’s almost always escalation to higher and higher stakes.
- Herring 2y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean, those orgs last for decades and countries last for hundreds of years. But I'm sure you can tweak the percentages depending on the situation and your own judgement. It's a rule of thumb too and can be exploited if you're not careful, eg someone can save defections for when it really matters (getting a supreme court seat). > Because in reality there’s almost always escalation to higher and higher stakes. Well clearly no, because the world is not constantly at war (the highest escalation).
  - MichaelZuo 2y ago
    Can you provide an example of one “org” in the tech industry that has defected twenty times in a row against a peer? > Well clearly no, because the world is not constantly at war (the highest escalation). The world is not constantly at war because it’s almost always settled way before the count hits 20.

jauntywundrkind 2y ago

I'd just commented elsewhere, the book Non-zero: The Logic of Human Destiny was a super valuable read for me in undergrad, did a lot to sell me a view that civilization is built on cooperation & collectivized planning & shared efforts. That that is where humanity as a species distinct from the animals originated from. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonzero:_The_Logic_of_Human_Destiny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonzero:_The_Logic_of_Human_De... Its incredibly dark times that dark side energy has so taken over the noosphere, has got its claws in & clawed more attention that any other way of viewing the world. This framing, of zero versus non-zero sum thinking, is incredibly useful for grappling with & seeing what's happening in our time. Very glad to see this idea surface, and I hope it can be a resounding message, that can help steer our challenged species's long term orientation.