1. Cool Game Idea - Economics WAS: ...Want to help?
--=====================_5688719==_.ALT
Hostilities are an extension of politics. Politics are an extension of
economics. Economics is an extension of survival. Survival (if you follow
Darwin) is programmed into the beast or to re-phrase Von Clausewitz: "War is an
extension of Economics by another means."
As we have evolved as societies, survival has become based upon economics. We
(I'll speak for the apparent majority of US citizens - though I'm not in that
majority) are "mimetically programmed" to individual survival and superiority -
to !@#$ with the rest of anybody and everyone that gets in the way of that.. To
put it simply: "If you have the money you want to keep it. If you don't have
the money you want to get it."
So the late '80s game "Balance of Power" did not tell it quite as it is.
"Balance" in a world based upon individual survival is only sought in the
political arena when a "decisive win" is beyond your economic means. The
popularity of such games such games as Civilization & StarCraft bring this
economic basis to the "playing field." But the player is STILL an individual
and she adopts the individual survival motivatons of the "race" she is playing.
Historically those civilizations based upon "co-operational survival" have not
survived. Can you name one that today exists and is economically viable? Some
how I don't think people are interested in co-operative survival or success
because it runs in the face of the desire for individual survival.
If you look a 99.9% of the games available (Board, table, computer) you'll find
the motivation is ultimately economic. So for a twist on this: make your
Hostilities based upon competing economic theories (socialism, communism,
tribal, capitalism, what have you) mixed with a genetic algorithm that selects
for survival of the best economic theory and see who wins.
At 11:31 PM 02/28/2000 +0100, you wrote:
>You know what surprises me: almost every time when 'Cool Games' are the
>issue, I read the words 'enemy', 'hostile', 'destroying', etc, etc.
>I think it's time some clever mind comes up with a game were cooperatian is
>rewarded and hostile actions only give minus points.
>Don't you think, maybe if there are more of these kind of games, and our
>children are playing them, that a better world can evolve? (What an
>idealism; but what else can you expect from someone who grew up in the era
>of love and peace?)
>
>Give it a try, it won't hurt you!
Joel H. Crook
Manager, Information Services
Certified Novell Administrator
Microsoft Certified Professional, OS Specialist
Kellogg & Andelson Accountancy Corp.
14724 Ventura Blvd. 2nd Floor
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
(818) 971-5100
--=====================_5688719==_.ALT
<html><div>Hostilities are an extension of politics. Politics are an
extension of economics. Economics is an extension of survival. Survival
(if you follow Darwin) is programmed into the beast or to re-phrase Von
Clausewitz: "War is an extension of Economics by another
means." </div>
<br>
<div>As we have evolved as societies, survival has become based upon
economics. We (I'll speak for the apparent majority of US citizens -
though I'm not in that majority) are "mimetically programmed"
to individual survival and superiority - to !@#$ with the rest of anybody
and everyone that gets in the way of that.. To put it simply: "If
you have the money you want to keep it. If you don't have the money you
want to get it."</div>
<br>
<div>So the late '80s game "Balance of Power" did not tell it
quite as it is. "Balance" in a world based upon individual
survival is only sought in the political arena when a "decisive
win" is beyond your economic means. The popularity of such games
such games as Civilization & StarCraft bring this economic basis to
the "playing field." But the player is STILL an
individual and she adopts the individual survival motivatons of the
"race" she is playing.</div>
<br>
<div>Historically those civilizations based upon "co-operational
survival" have not survived. Can you name one that today exists and
is economically viable? Some how I don't think people are interested in
co-operative survival or success because it runs in the face of the
desire for individual survival. </div>
<br>
<div>If you look a 99.9% of the games available (Board, table, computer)
you'll find the motivation is ultimately economic. So for a twist on
this: make your Hostilities based upon competing economic theories
(socialism, communism, tribal, capitalism, what have you) mixed
with a genetic algorithm that selects for survival of the best economic
theory and see who wins.</div>
<br>
<div>At 11:31 PM 02/28/2000 +0100, you wrote:</div>
<div>>You know what surprises me: almost every time when 'Cool Games'
are the</div>
<div>>issue, I read the words 'enemy', 'hostile', 'destroying', etc,
etc.</div>
<div>>I think it's time some clever mind comes up with a game were
cooperatian is</div>
<div>>rewarded and hostile actions only give minus points.</div>
<div>>Don't you think, maybe if there are more of these kind of games,
and our</div>
<div>>children are playing them, that a better world can evolve? (What
an</div>
<div>>idealism; but what else can you expect from someone who grew up
in the era</div>
<div>>of love and peace?)</div>
<div>></div>
<div>>Give it a try, it won't hurt you!</div>
<br>
Joel H. Crook<br>
<br>
Manager, Information Services<br>
<font size=1>Certified Novell Administrator<br>
Microsoft Certified Professional, OS Specialist<br>
<br>
</font><b>Kellogg & Andelson Accountancy Corp.<br>
</b><font size=1>14724 Ventura Blvd. 2nd Floor<br>
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403<br>
(818) 971-5100<br>
</font></html>
--=====================_5688719==_.ALT--
