Technology as the ultimate non-zero-sum game

I read two quotes recently that I think are related in a very deep and abstract way:

I think a reasonable case can be made that the discovery and facilitation of non-zero-sum games is both objectively (i.e., metaphysically) and subjectively valuable. Furthermore, I think a reasonable case can be made that we have literally evolved to find this process deeply meaningful and to socially reward people who are very good at engaging in it.

The above is from Brett Andersen’s Substack. If we think about all of the things we love – from art to sports to the best institutions from religions to businesses – they are all prime examples of ultimate success at non-zero-sum games.

Soon after I read this quote:

It would not surprise me if we saw another axial awakening someday, powered by another flood of technology. I find it hard to believe that we could manufacture robots that actually worked and not have them disturb our ideas of religion and God. Someday we will make other minds, and they will surprise us.

That is from uber mensch Kevin Kelly.

With Apple launching their AR headset, with AI dominating every tech headline, with self-driving actually working in major cities, with Boston Dynamics robots doing Olympic caliber back flips, it seems we are on the cusp of an awakening of some sort. A technological revolution in both mind (AI) and body (robots / physical reality). AI alone is already disturbing society’s ideas about relationships and intelligence and emotion.

One of the best definitions I’ve ever heard of technology is “technology is anything that breaks a constraint.” And what is a constraint if not a zero-sum boundary condition of some sort.

Thanks for listening to my ted talk. Cheers

“By 2011, numbers had dropped sharply, but there were still 176,632 people who told the government they were Jedi Knights.”

I recently came upon this The Guardian article which does a great job of clearly describing religious trends in the world today. Here are some of my notes.

If you read nothing else, just read the first paragraph:

If you think religion belongs to the past and we live in a new age of reason, you need to check out the facts: 84% of the world’s population identifies with a religious group. Members of this demographic are generally younger and produce more children than those who have no religious affiliation, so the world is getting more religious, not less – although there are significant geographical variations.

Asia is not only the most religiously populated region in the world, it’s also home to the largest population of the religiously unaffiliated: China.

Asia-Pacific is the most populous region in the world, and also the most religious. It is home to 99% of Hindus, 99% of Buddhists, and 90% of those practising folk or traditional religions.

The region also hosts 76% of the world’s religiously unaffiliated people, 700m of whom are Chinese.

But it’s important to remember that 700M Chinese are “religiously unaffiliated” because communism. Without the Cultural Revolution, this 700M number may have been much lower, which makes sense when we observe the sustained growth of Christianity inside China:

China has seen a huge religious revival in recent years and some predict it will have the world’s largest Christian population by 2030. The number of Chinese Protestants has grown by an average of 10 % annually since 1979, to between 93 million and 115 million, according to one estimate. There are reckoned to be another 10-12 million Catholics.

Islam will likely overtake Christianity as the world’s largest religion in a generation or two, barring any big changes to demographics and fertility rates.

And even though Christians will also outgrow the general population over that period, with an increase of 34% forecast mainly thanks to population growth in sub-Saharan Africa, Christianity is likely to lose its top spot in the world religion league table to Islam by the middle of this century.

And finally, there’s this:

In 2016, the Temple of the Jedi Order, members of which follow the tenets of the faith central to the Star Wars films, failed in its effort to be recognised as a religious organisation under UK charity law. In the last two censuses, Jedi has been the most popular alternative religion with more than 390,000 people (0.7% of the population) describing themselves as Jedi Knights on the 2001 census. By 2011, numbers had dropped sharply, but there were still 176,632 people who told the government they were Jedi Knights.

The Dao that can be spoken is not the eternal Dao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name.

This sentence, the first in the Dao De Jing, is just so…I just like it so much. Lol. So here are five different translations of that one sentence:

**

The Dao that can be spoken is not the eternal Dao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name.

The Dao that can be understood cannot be the primal, or cosmic, Dao, just as an idea that can be expressed in words cannot be the infinite idea.

There are ways but the Way is uncharted. There are names but not nature in words.

The way that becomes a way is not the Immortal Way; the name that becomes a name is not the Immortal Name

The divine law may be spoken of, but it is not the common law. Things may be named, but names are not the things.

**

Five different translations, five different flavors.

And here’s the original Mandarin:

道可道,非常道。名可名,非常名。

The 10 practices of patience, according to the Shandilya Upanishad

The Upanishads are a set of Indian religious texts written almost 3,000 years ago. They were written so long ago that Hinduism wasn’t even really a thing. Just a bunch of idealistic truth seekers writing stuff down on parchment paper.

The Shandilya Upanishad is considered a minor text, and its focus is yoga. In this context, “yoga” doesn’t mean shavasana while wearing Lululemon, but rather the yoga philosophy of action, of doing, of engaging with the world

Within the Shandilya Upanishad is a list of 10 forebearances. You can think of them as 10 practices to build patience, or 10 sources of self control when mastered.

Religions love lists, and there are many similarities among these 10 forebearances with other great lists in religious history, from the Commandments to the Precepts. We’ll compare them in future posts. But for some reason, this list has stuck with me. So here they are.

1. Ahimsa – to not be violent to any living being, whether a human or a fire ant

2. Satya – to always express and act truthfully

3. Asteya – to not covet another’s possessions, whether a Tesla Model 3, or a happy family

4. Brahmacharya – to remain celibate while unmarried, and faithful while married

5. Daya – to act kindly toward all living beings

6. Arjava – to refuse to deceive or wrong others through any of your words, thoughts, or deeds

7. Kshama – to accept suffering while forgiving those who incur suffering upon you (“But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn the other also” – Jesus)

8. Dhriti – to remain calm and composed during periods of great gain or loss, whether of money or friends

9. Mitahara – to consume all things in moderation (“everything in moderation, including moderation” – attributed to Oscar Wilde, Ben Franklin, etc)

10. Saucha – to cleanse the body and the mind

It’s interesting that three of the 10 focus on truth – numbers 1, 2, and 6. Kind of like pledging in court to tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”. I suppose deception is a core human struggle?

It’s also interesting that number 8 encourages you to stay calm not only when you’re doing poorly, but when you’re doing well.

Which items resonate with you the most?

“Why Strict Churches Are Strong”: Because followers give up more of their life outside the church

I recently read the academic article “Why Strict Churches Are Strong” [UChicago], which explains the phenomena of why stricter religions and denominations – eg, Orthodox Judaism, or Mormonism, or Sikhism – tend to have more active members and more growth, at least in recent generations.

The article is fascinating and widely cited, and largely uses rational choice theory to explain the outcome. My very basic understanding of rational choice theory is, “assume that people generally make choices out of rational self-interest”. Yes, I’m sure there’s a lot more to it.

The article’s conclusion:

The strength of strict churches is neither a historical coincidence nor a statistical artifact. Strictness makes organizations stronger and more attractive because it reduces free riding. It screens out members who lack commitment and stimulates participation among those who remain

Some highlights and excerpts:

Statistical studies have confirmed that denominational growth rates correlate strongly with “strictness” and its concomitants, and new historical research has revealed that the mainline’s share of the churchgoing population has been declining since the American Revolution

I shall argue that strict demands “strengthen”a church in three ways: they raise overall levels of commitment, they increase average rates of participation, and they enhance the net benefits of membership

The Mormon church has distinctive behavioral requirements and makes heavy demands on members’ time and money, yet is the fastest growing religion of the modern era

“Perhaps the gravest [peril] of all lies in the fact that these colonies are threatened as much by success as by failure…If they attain prosperity they attract a crowd of members who lack the enthusiasm and faith of the earlier ones and are attracted only by self-interest.” This perverse dynamic threatens all groups engaged in the production of collective goods, and it applies to enthusiasm, solidarity, and other social benefits no less than to material resources.

Instead of subsidizing participation, churches can penalize or prohibit alternative activities that compete for members’ resources. In mixed populations, such penalties and prohibitions tend to screen out the less committed members. They act like entry fees and thus discourage anyone not seriously interested in “buying” the product. Only those willing to pay the price remain.

Commenting on his religion’s distinctive dress and grooming requirements, a Sikh put it thus: “The Guru wanted to raise a body of men who would not be able to deny their faith when questioned, but whose external appearance would invite persecution and breed the courage to resist it

Relative to their more mainstream counterparts, members of sectarian groups – both Christian and Jewish – attend more religious services, contribute more money, and (in the Jewish case, at least) choose more of their closest friends from within their religion. They are also less involved in competing activities. They hold fewer memberships in outside groups, contribute less to outside causes, and have fewer outside friends.

Simply put, those most likely to join are those with the least to lose. Losses grow in proportion to both the quantity and the quality of one’s ties to the outside world. You are therefore less likely to join (or remain active in) an exclusive sect if you have an extensive set of social ties to friends and family outside the sect. You are more likely to join if you lack many such ties and are still more likely to join if you have friends or family in the sect.

Stark and Bainbridge (1985, p. 134) arrived at a conclusion that fits the rational choice model perfectly: “Many sects fail to grow (and are never transformed into churches) because their initial level of tension is so high as to cause their early social encapsulation. Once encapsulated, a sect may persist for centuries, depending on fertility and the ability to minimize defection, but it will rarely be able to recruit an outsider.”

They conclude that “particularly in dynamic social environments churches must engage in a continuing balancing act, trading off between religious traditions and social norms…A certain amount of tension with secular society is essential to success-the trick is finding, and maintaining, the right amount.”

Finally a very interesting chart: