In consideration that any human individual always strives for the best for himself (no matter whether this appears to be egocentric, neutral or even altruistic from a different point of view), is seems to be that the compound of a social body is rather willing to work against each other if the payoff doesn't justify the efforts.
Therefor making it to not just another but an actually very vivid and assumedly completely underrated example of noncooperative game theory.
This concept might have been extensively used in the field of economical behaviour just as well as in otherwise strategic issues. And yet the fire didn't really spark the light of its' most logical successor.
Human interaction seen as not so unpredictable mathematical relations, where circumstances are being described as apparent states - defining the set of possible deeds but more importantly their final outcome, will ultimately transform our everyday life into a vast abstract battlefield (aka pretty damn big matrices).
Realizing the plain possibility of this and recalling Nashes equilibra towards it tells us that we should be watching out for illogical steps just as much. Just in case we're planing to reach a state (= environmental circumstance) that might bear way higher "payoffs" than the regular one-rational-step-at-a-time logic would have ever offered.
This approach would eventually make the globalisation process to become more of a semi-cooperative strategy.
But considering the influence of our strangely gained moral attitude... I suppose this effect has unconsciously already begun.

-=- These conclusions are not yet considered to be of an aspired quality! Please ignore until further instructions. (or end up confused as I am :p) -=-

 -- The Nameless

---

Just a little something that I like to think about me:

I have been sent by no one but myself. Hence by the circumstances that created my person and forged my character to form me the way I am today. However - the mutual development of our global environment underlied and still underlies specific rules of progression. Rules it (the development) could not possibly escape from unless by them being discovered. To reveal their nature might open up other feasible options for us to pursue, but in the end, our possibilities will always remain limited. So it is only up to us, whether we accept a set of descriptive states as being enough for all of us to live in, or to remain looking for the next best transition to a next better future.
Does something like a best future for us all exist? I assume so - but statistically we'll never be able to arrive there, for we're forever doomed to be stuck in the rut of life. Either this, or we find a way to gain a fundamentally devine oversight over things... our world inclusive. I wouldn't consider that to be impossibe. Unlikely maybe. Yet, with frequently repetitive, quasi-objectively diverse self realizations of ourselves this might possibly even be accomplished in one of these days that we claim to be our future. But that would of course require for us to break out of our own mindset. It required to act irrational in order to achieve the optimal. It required to have a free will. Or maybe not... because after all, I'm still sent by no one but myself. Created by the circumstances that were my past. A past that might have been a logical sequence of events that we just not happen to oversee. Or a past that was being started by something else. Either way - I'm pretty much nothing but an abstract reaction. But oh boy, what an interesting one. A little weird and self-absorbed maybe... but interesting.

-- The Nameless

---

Return to: Universalitarians, Universalitarians 2