The Fundamental Problem with “Winner” and “Loser” Systems

I have often written about bad faith, system implosion, civilizational stagnation and collapse etc. However these are merely manifestations of a few, but rarely mentioned, basic issues.

Foremost amongst them is the “winner” and “loser” problem. Any system that creates “winners” or “losers” based on either arbitrary or rational sounding criteria will always be unstable.

Why?

The reason comes down to group cohesion. A system in which there are “bigger winners” and “smaller winners” maintains cohesion because almost nobody has a ‘good enough’ reason to abandon the group or act in bad faith.

However a system with clearly defined “winners’ or “losers” will always create the perception of unfairness. Now this perception might not be too dangerous for a group of hunter gatherers or relatively primitive civilizations like the roman empire. The capacity for damage and mayhem that “losers” could inflict on primitive isolated systems was very limited, as was the ability to cause damage through neglect.

Higher levels of civilizations require people to act in good faith to merely keep the system from collapsing (over extended periods of time). Religion, nationalism, education along with meager occasional rewards etc can help brainwash some “losers” into accepting their place.

But what happens when most of your information and exposure to the world is lateral and uncurated rather than vertical and from “trusted sources and experts”. Combine that with the lack of occasional rewards for compliance or the need to do so.

How will that work out?

Comments?