[Rury]

I disagree with the notion that life isn't zero sum. It only looks this way using a definition that conflates wealth with value, or from a viewpoint far from the limits of nature that would otherwise make this kind of nature obvious. Arguably what we've done, is merely transformed wealth into other forms we valued more.

Certainly value isn't zero sum, as we can always change our minds and value something else more, but I don't think this is a good argument for life (or wealth) not being zero sum. Anything we create, takes energy or resources from elsewhere (zero sum). Every path you choose to go down in life, is a path you didn't go down (zero sum). Simply put - everything has a cost. Sure we may not value costs equally (not zero sum), but remove our arbitrary valuations for things from the equation, and it is zero sum.

[FloorEgg]

It seems like your conflating the meaning of zero-sum. It's specific to limited contexts where one party's gain must come at an equal loss to another party. "Every path you choose to go down in life, is a path you didn't go down" has nothing to do with the concept of zero-sum.

Our entire civilization is built on non-zero-sum cooperation. Technology is the byproduct of non-zero-sum cooperation.

If you're going to try and argue against game theory, your going to have to bring a much better argument.

[riehwvfbk]

^^ Redefines meaning of life to be dollars, accuses opponent of redefining zero-sum.

Silicon Valley is built on the attention economy. That term is a euphemism for making people spend their waking hours on addictive crap, taking away from the useful sum total. That's my definition.