For years, the talking heads of the world have been warning us about a "zero sum game." The term zero sum game is used to describe a situation where one side's gain is exactly offset by another side's loss.
People have used this concept to describe how our modern economy works: either one person wins, or everyone loses equally. It is a scarcity mindset which implies that there's only so much pie in the world - once someone gets some of it or all of it, there's less left over or none at all for everyone else. A classic example is playing a poker game; if you win $100 in a poker game, then your opponent loses $100.
Zero Sum Games - Then And Now
The idea of a zero sum game is not new although the stakes or the size of the pie has been raised by technology. It's been around since the dawn of civilization.This isn't just about money, it can be about power and influence too. In politics it can mean elections: if one party wins a seat then another party loses that seat as well as any chance at winning an overall majority (and thus forming government).
You'll also see this with respect to sports franchises when two teams are competing for top spot or even first place in their division or league; whoever comes out on top will deprive the other team of being number one and earning bragging rights for the season ahead—and possibly earn themselves more money.
However, technology has changed the nature of zero sum games (to a certain extent): where once there were only two sides competing against each other now there are many more—anyone with access to social media could become part of a competition without even realizing it.
The effect is quite crazy and in a way, it has changed the dynamics of competition. IMO, this is both good and bad. It depends on where you're look at it from.
The Total Value Of Technology Is Not A Fixed Pie
It's actually a positive sum game, meaning that the more people who are involved in creating and using technology, the more value it produces for everyone involved.In a positive sum game, there are multiple winners: everyone gets access to new products and services that improve their lives, but this doesn't mean that someone else has to lose out.
In fact, no one has to lose in order for others to win—think about how many losers there were during the Industrial Revolution and consider how much more wealth there is today compared with then.
I think one of the reasons why some argue that technological advances are zero-sum is because they misunderstand how innovation works: they assume that any new technology must be replacing an existing technology or service (like horse-drawn carriages vs cars) or displacing workers from jobs that can't be automated (like farm laborers).
But this isn't always true; sometimes technologies create entirely new industries where no jobs existed before (think Apple and smartphones).
And even when technologies replace certain occupations like farming jobs (which were lost due mostly because farmers couldn't compete with companies growing food), these workers weren't displaced permanently.
They moved into other fields such as manufacturing until those too will replaced by automation advances like 3D printers. I wonder where will they move next?
We are entering a post-zero-sum era where the pie is bigger and there are multiple winners, but this does not mean the old rules do not apply.
One of the old rules is putting in the work. Just because they pie is bigger doesn't mean you'll get a share or it will be handed to you. You still have to put in the work to earn your share.
The second rule is the value of being an early adopter. No matter how massive the pie is, those who come early will have more share than those who come later provided they capitalize on it.
In Conclusion
We already know that technology is a great enabler, but what we might not realize is that there are more opportunities for everyone. There can be multiple (and even quadruple) winners. That's the optimistic (in part realistic) approach one could have towards technology rather than seeing it as a zero sum game where one individual/company winning means all the rest would lose.
Thanks For Reading!
Profile: Young Kedar
Recent Posts;
● Fiat Currency And The Lack Of Trust
● Studying Patterns In The Economy
● Simple Ways To Not Drain Your Pocket During The Holidays
● Web 3.0 And The Opportunities It Presents For Early Adopters
● Innovation Is An Incremental Progress
Dolphin Support: @cryptothesis