SOME THING TO HOPE FOR: Why polarisation means no one wins the game.

Two Sides One Coin – Heads or Tails.
As with the TPPA and NZ National Labour collaboration – the the two side one coin phenomenon riddles US politics. Trump and the Republican support Saudi Arabia so does the DNC. Trump and the hawks in the Republican want war with Iran so to is the desire of the hawks within the DNC. And thus the drums of war never stop.

The West is dominated by neo-liberals wanting liberal reforms (but still wanting their own fiscal privilege as they push right wing madness) and neo-conservatives wanting to halt liberal reforms to protect their privilege built on right wing madness. Absence a voice saying we wreck it so we should pay.

No were does this play out more tragically than in the way we face the emerging issues of climate, food, water, energy consumption and waste on this earth – what ever your position on this there no arguing were not treating this planet very nice and could do a lot better.

Image result for henry kissinger national security 200 quote

Everyone looses
And yet both fractions ultimately look for ways they can make opportunity of crisis (to enhance their power and wealth and control of the monopoly board.

This plays out by global approach which lays the blame on the poor (over population), those who individual carbon foot print/ energy/resource use is minute individual compared to the massive corporations. The corporations are singular entities, seeking rights with little accountability, whose wealthy shareholder expect the poor to collectively pay for their contribution to the planets ills as the corporations themselves lobby the global bodies and government (attempting to referee the game) so that may be allowed to keep trucking on in achieving their unsustainable goal of making ever increasing profits.

Both parties are trapped in a cycle of trying to achieve dominance via polarization (your with us or against us) that puts the middle class [5%’s] against the 99% in the interest of the 1% to maintain a status quo which is clearly not working.

Because it fix on the idea their must be winner and a looser to the point “the fruits of victory would be ashes” in the mouth of the winner to paraphrase President Kennedy who in this case was talking about global nuclear war. Yet the point remains the same as the pressure of the current approach to ‘the game’ ultimately ends up in destructive conflict non-constructive competition where the ambition to win – keep control – at all costs means in the end every one looses.

Image result for realpolitiks board game

The leaders of both fractions are effectively still pursuing what Henry Kissinger called the “super solider” or ‘real politiks’ approach to ‘The Game’ which is just a fancy way for saying not only ‘he with the biggest club wins’ but just like chess the game can only end with one winner. When the reality of this approach means every one will ultimately loose.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik

A Beautiful Mind.

Image result for end game theory walter nash

Is their an alternative – the counter culture solution so every one wins.

Dr Walter Nash, the Nobel prize winning mathematician, upon which the movie ‘A Beautiful Mind’ is based, End Game Theory shows their is a way forward.

Their is a solution to the current power grid lock, that a constructive alternative does exist, by championing a counter culture of building bridges, which realise the little people, regardless of race – religion – political preferences – wealth – location, or whatever the key plank of conflict or rivalry is, are not actually the problem but the solution.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stratfor/2015/06/01/john-nashs-legacy-a-mathematic-theory-with-strategic-implications/#2606a4763aba

The New Yorker sum up the situation nicely; “This is where Nash came in. He started out by defining a particular solution to games—one marked by the fact that each player is making out the best he or she (or it) possibly can, given the strategies being employed by all of the other players. Then, applying a deep-mathematical theory that had been developed earlier by the Dutch mathematician L. E. J. Brouwer, Nash demonstrated that such an equilibrium exists in any game with a finite number of players and a finite number of moves to choose from”.

Over the decades Nash’s work has being put through the wringer and poked at from every corner as academics seek to expand, find fault, and generally add their dime’s worth.

Image result for ""Someone to love, somewhere to live, somewhere to work and something to hope for."

Love Actually Is the Answer:

Yet it still boils down to the same issue.

Nash’s End Game formula showed mathematically if you want to play and win ‘the game’, achieve your key goals, you will have more success if you work to all help all the players or ‘opposing’ sides (nations, religions, class, sex, economics) in ‘the game’ also win. If you work to co-operate not compete all parties in ‘the game’ get to eat the lolly that lies inside regardless of how the players may have packaged their own chosen sweeties. It symbolise the achievable common goals shared by all fractions.

Every one winning the victories most important to them?

Sounds complicated?

Not really for as New Zealand Prime Minister Norman Kirk succinctly points out this is in fact quite simple. Because when all was said and done eight billion people on this planet want the very same thing,

“Someone to love, somewhere to live, somewhere to work and something to hope for.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s