Is life a zero-sum game, meaning if you win, others will lose?

Question

This is an economics term, and I think this is the reason why people compete, because of scarce resources. If one person consumes an item, there is one less item for others to consume.

This is also another reason, why people are so reluctant to help others, and I believe that it is because of a fear that someone else may end up taking a scarce resource, instead of themselves, which can also seem like selfishness, which is not necessarily bad.

There are ways to make do with some scarce resources, like land.
However, I have read stuff that says that life is not a zero sum, but for some skeptics this is not true, and wishful thinking.

I know that life is dynamic and so yeah some economic models don't take certain dynamic things into consideration, to simplify explanations I suppose.

But in a basketball game, there can only be one winner and one loser, even after overtime. Or if there is one specific girl with that specific look or personality or DNA code, that you like and two other guys are also interested in her, then wouldn't you have to compete to get her, especially if she might be interested in the two other guys? You wouldn't just sit there and go, I don't have to compete because she will go for me regardless of whether I compete for her or not? Is this realistic, because I have thought that before, but I have been wrong and sometimes the girl ends up going with the other guy who she thinks may be better than me. This is the same way with a job or college admissions, right?

This is what I am talking about, by zero sum. But I understand that in some cases if you take one thing.. (cont.)

then there are still plenty to go around, or that it will take some time to grow more. Like if everyone takes an apple from a tree and eat it,and you are left out, then the tree will grow more later on, but you just have to wait till more are grown, or you look elsewhere for other apple trees.

Would you it be realistic to wait for the apple tree to grow more apples, before you were to eat one?

Most likely you would have to look for other apple trees that no one had gotten to if you were hungry. Or you would have to hope that someone else gives you some of their apple to eat. This is what the government does, to help those who have not, or are basically losers in life.

But let's apply this to a company with only a certain number of positions open. Doesn't this same principle apply. That if you don't end up getting a job, that you have to look elsewhere, or start one if you can do it, but this doesn't guarantee that you will make money on it either.

Answer 1

Theoretically it would be a bizarre assumption to say it was, because then there must be some arbitrary balancing act carried out. No-one has even posited such a thing, even Xians say to everything there is a season, implying things go down the 'hole for a lot of people at the same time.

The case of limited resources suggests a malthusian answer. However this does not mean it is zero-sum: until the possibilities of the world are taken up then we cannot see this. Most of the problems come because we don't know even 20% of how to make lives go better.

People are more likely to help someone in situations where there are less people around- so the gain from doing a good deed would be more likely to bring favour from someone there. There are man answers as to why this should be but the one I like is that we are status-beings and we are reluctant to take the stage when others are around- but those who have a role know how to help and do. So altruism is not a limited resource, it is one that society can develop, should it choose.

Answer 2

Zero Sum Game Meaning

Answer 3

Life is not a zero sum game and it is a very naive and simplistic economic view that resources are limited and competed for in a zero sum facility. This is the motive force behind socialistic systems that claim the few are taking from the many and don't deserve their wealth, thus it is better for all to have a central allocation fixture, usually government, distribute wealth or assets.

Some resources are indeed finite, however, as we now know, zero population growth is not a boon to an economy, but its death knell. Because without growth in population, there is no meaningful growth in a consumer base or production base. There is stagnation.

I don't think humankind in general is reluctant to help others. There is a lot of aid and charity worldwide and it is part of most every system of tradition and religion on the planet.

Also, it is usually the sphere an economy occupies, that ends up overvaluing land or some other resource, like water, women, or anything else that creates injustices and lack of equilibrium. Why? Because a society that prizes land and cannot utilize it efficiently to feed its population will come to use aggression to hold the land. This is not seen where land use does not translate to nutrition like the U.S. or Canada. Where few farmers feed millions of people.

The resources do exist to ease a great deal of the poverty and suffering in the world, and true, many people, especially leaders, are petty and greedy and make life difficult for us all. But the economic model that could help solve some of these problems is not one based on the concept of zero sum, but better, more transparent utilization and exploitation of resources and market stability on a global scale.

Answer 4

Didn't John Nash when a Nobel prize for proving that it's not zero-sum? If I am happy with my spouse, there's no loss because there's no proof that any other person would be equally happy with him.

Life is not a basketball game, but let's take that metaphor. The five guys who lost the game lost, that's true, and maybe the fans are equal in losers and winners, but the people who work in the arena are winners just because the game took place. So are the sportswriters, the TV camera men, the announcers, the parking lot attendants.

Two boys are fighting over an orange. One must lose and the other win, or they will split it and each have half of what they wanted. A little discussion, however, will yield information that makes each a winner: one takes the pulp and eats it; the other takes the peel to make pot pourri.

In an ecosystem, who are the winners? Well, obviously the ones who survive, but many survive. Lions win because they eat antelope, but antelope win because they eat grass, and so on.

Answer 5

Life is not a zero-sum game.
Take a look at some important technological achievements in our history.
Think of Henry Ford and the Model A. True, he got rich, but just look at how he enriched the lives of others. An affordable car was available to the middle classes. Suddenly people could expand their horizons as they traveled distances in hours that might have taken days previously. Every one of those new car owners thought his life was enhanced, not dimenished. They paid money and received value in exchange.
Look at the development of refrigeration and how it changed people's lives for the better. Suddenly meat could be processed in central locations like Chicago and shipped around the country. The average person's protein consumption went up by a long shot.
The lesson is that value can be created. All value isn't simply "stolen" from one person so that another can benefit.
And just look at the world's prosperity today. In general the world's people are becoming more prosperous. In India and China, more and more people are enjoying the benefits of prosperity. If Africa suffers, that is primarily a result of bad leadership, of theft. Africa has a managment problem, and her problem is NOT that life is a zero-sum game and she is getting "zeroed."

Answer 6

NO life is not a zero sum game
Truth is your premise is not really true. You, and most other people, fail to realize that time changes everything. You sat if one person consumes something that is one less item, but if the item is corn and a farmer consumes it to give him energy to grow more then we all have more to consume. I find it difficult sometime to discuss in depth economic topics because most people view the world in static terms. The think if we raise taxes we will get more tax revenue, if we stop importing goods we will have more jobs, etc. All of these things do not include the fact that the world is dynamic, it changes. Everytime you do something any result based on the way the world was before you changed it will no longer be valid

Answer 7

I see how you got to where you are. If the basic Economic idea of scarcity is true, (infinite wants, limited resources, opportunity cost) then life is a zero sum game and the rich are stealing from the mouths of the poor in order to be rich.

However, money grows as it circulates. Wealth is created by spending and investing. The Robber Barons of the 1900s actually were good for the US economy because they created millions of jobs that put people to work, thus giving them cash money to spend themselves. This is cash money that they never would have seen before when they worked on the farm.

These farmers came into the cities from the farmland because life was better in the cities working in the factories. Jacob Riis made himself famous by taking pictures of crowded streets and homeless children, but no one went out into the countryside to take pictures of the grinding poverty and lack of opportunity. Thus, we remember the 1900s as a time of terrible industrial stink. In reality, it paved the way for the modern society we currently live in.

This would not have been possible if rich people did not exist. According to your zero-sum theory, these people created the urban poverty. In reality they alleviated the crushing rural poverty by creating opportunities for jobs with their wealth.

Hope this helps,
Good luck!

Answer 8

life sum game meaning win lose

Answer 9

Life is a positive-sun game. If it were not so, the standard of living would not increase over time.

Answer 10

It is challenging to even imagine that a book can help people to alter their fates however } countless guys and women, individuals that they have actually benefitted in a big