Playing A Different Game: The Path To Transitioning To A Better Civilizational System

By Messan Bokor

To frame our current circumstance and preface the following discussion bluntly, our civilization is at a crossroads with two paths---two futures---laid out in front of us. One path leads to our maturation and the transition to a better civilizational system that is built upon the collective prosperity of ourselves and the things we depend on for our life. The other path is one that engulfs our civilization within a self-terminating system that will push our society off a cliff’s edge into some form of a dystopian future which will most likely eventually result in the effective death of our entire planet dooming all the life it supports. The latter path is the current one we are on, and we are quickly losing our chance to switch direction towards a better future.

Linked above is the basis for the following discussion we will have regarding our situation. It is a discussion between Daniel Schmachtenberger and Eric Weinstein in which they discuss our current path and breakdown this system which has engulfed our society and pulls us ever closer to a civilizational cliff’s edge. They refer to this current societal and civilizational system as Game A. Game A is a system built upon the current power structures pervading over our society and is characterized by many different components, but the most concerning—and the ones which we will focus on within this post—are the rival-risk dynamics it fosters within societal interactions/relationships, the self-terminating practices that result from the Prisoner’s Dilemmas created by these dynamics , the distortion of rational reasoning as well as ethical and moral standards that arises as a result of the cultural atmosphere it fosters, the suppression of non-normative thinking (thinking deemed outside its established guidelines of conduct) which enables it to sustain its operation, and the dangerous/reckless technological arms race that is being fueled by the societal environment it has created. Although I will touch on all of the following, my goal with this blog is not just to do a breakdown of the components of this system, how they function, and how it maintains its hold over our society (I highly recommended listening to the full discussion between Eric & Daniel linked up above for this). Rather, my goal is to build upon the solutions they proposed within their discussion and share lessons that may help those navigating through the challenges of playing a game separate from the one being upheld by this current system and navigating through the mechanisms and mental traps that make up the societal environment that sustains it.

Breaking Down The Components Of Game A & The Civilizational System It Has Created.

Eric and Daniel start off their discussion on this topic by briefly outlining the various existential/catastrophic risks humanity faces. In explaining why there aren’t more different ideas trying to address them, Daniel remarks that a large part of the reason why is because:

“…we have created a self-perpetuating dominant system that looms over our civilizational system which encompasses the intersection of our academic systems, our monetary systems, our government systems, our media systems, our information systems, our communication systems, and our culture. This dominant system threads through all the other systems that operate our society and, most importantly, has become the main system that confers power to the people and mechanisms that make it up. Everything that supports this system gets more power within the system and everything that would possibly threaten the core relevancy or validity of the system threatens the people that are doing well within the system, so it gets spit out by the system which functions as a strong normative force within the societal structure...”. (1)

He goes on to point out that this type of civilizational system is "inexorably self-terminating", and the only way forward is to progress to a new social and civilizational system that doesn’t generate catastrophic and existential risk through its operations and doesn’t impede societal progress through its function to push out non-normative solutions that threaten the power structures established as a by-product of its architecture.

To quickly review their breakdown of this dominant system, let’s hone in on the first two of the central components that I listed in the intro: the rival risk dynamics it fosters the and the resulting prisoner’s dilemma traps these dynamics have ensnared our society within. As described by Daniel, rival risk dynamics refer to environments where “…the well-being of each agent within the system can be optimized independently—and even at the expense—of the other agents in the commons which provides an incentive to do fucked up stuff” (1). This effectively nullifies decision-making based on societal or collective benefit and, instead, promotes a psychology based around rational self-interest. By doing so, it turns what is supposed to be a cooperative game predicated on creating a tide that lifts all boats to one that pits the players against one another in a conflict for their individual progression even at the cost of everyone else. In short, these environments stifle cooperative behaviors in favor of rivalrous ones. While the relationships of those engaged in these dynamics can sometimes be mutually beneficial, they are oftentimes derived from selfishness. The most dangerous thing about this is that it erodes our capacity to effectively cooperate on any scale---but especially on larger scales---and it breeds internal conflict within civilizational systems. As evidently seen throughout our history and as shown through game theoretic research, "selfish human beings---whether acting alone in a bar or in great aggregations---are likely to wind up in states of war" (2).

Rival-risk dynamics also corroded the functioning of the systems and institutions that we create to maintain the health of our society---rendering them completely ineffective, or, in some cases, operating against their stated purpose. As Eric mentions within the discussion:

“…whenever we have perverse incentives, we’re going to have some situation by which we’re being incentivized by a system of selective pressures to do certain things that may not be in the stated interests or whatever the directive is of our institution. For example, the directive is to do the business of the country, but in fact, you’re loyal to the team that you’re on because that’s what brought you to this place and if you were to lose your team inside of this internal game, you couldn’t really function...” (1).

Before we continue, we should briefly touch on a phenomenon Eric terms as the “personal responsibility vortex”. According to his description, this is when one rationalizes immoral decisions on the chance that, if they do not, someone else---who they deem to be more ethically compromised than they are---can then take that opportunity and occupy the space within the game that the decision places them in. Which may lead to worse externalities than if they were to occupy that space themselves. As he puts it:

“...when you listen to people who say: ‘well you know, even if you’re incentivized to do the wrong thing, you should still do the right thing’---that becomes self-extinguishing. Then you’ll simply be replaced by something less ethical than you are so it’s actually incumbent upon you not to be so virtuous that you remove yourself from the game—leaving open a niche for some less scrupulous person to swoop in...” (1).

Essentially this is when someone forgoes a moral decision in favor of an immoral one in order to occupy a space that they fear may go to someone less ethical than they are. This is indicative of the Machiavellian principle that has dominated much of our societal and geopolitics throughout history: the belief that the ends justify the means. In response to Eric’s description of this phenomenon, Daniel replies: “...this is how an unethical system convinces ethical people to compromise their ethics to become a tool for the system”. I believe Daniel is right here. The answer to the potential existence of immorality is not to then embody that immorality yourself. It is to build safeguards against such immorality. The former is essentially just another way to rationalize spreading the consequences of such immorality, and the latter means limiting the consequences of said immorality. The personal responsibility vortex is also predicated on the fallacy that just because you occupy an immoral space within the system, that someone else cannot simply occupy that same space in a different way. In other words, just because you made an unethical decision, doesn’t mean someone else can’t make that same decision too.

Now back to our discussion.

The true danger of rival-risk dynamics lies not simply in its distortion of social interactions/relationships and rational decision-making in favor of self-interest, but in its enablement of situations which Daniel terms as “multipolar traps”. This refers to what develops when some agent in the system—whether its a person, corporation, or nation—does something that produces negative externalities for the majority of the system in the long term but is really advantageous for them in the near term—-enabling them to get so far ahead of everyone else that they can use the power they accumulated against everyone else. This pushes everyone else to do that same thing in order to get ahead in the race which results in a race to the cliff’s edge (1). At its root, this is a form of the prisoner’s dilemma---a game theoretic trap that leaves those caught within it worse off due to a rationality derived entirely from short-term self-interest---except that, in multi-polar traps, the decision-makers are shielded from the negative externalities that result from such decision-making. Instead, the commons bear the consequences. The example Daniel used to exemplify this was the current arms race we are ensnared in regarding advanced technological tools and weapons. Another good example is the growing crisis of climate change. The very nature of the climate crisis reflects how the individualistic decision-making of a minority can result in severe negative externalities for the commons. In this case, the adherence to harmful individual practices in addition to profit-driven corporate decision-making is significantly fueling the negative externalities that are resulting in the erosion of our atmosphere and the degradation of communities halfway across the world who are forced to deal with their homes and crops burning, wilting, or disappearing under tidal currents as rising sea levels and worsening climate environments increase the prevalence and severity of droughts, floods, and wildfires.

Another example of this can be seen in our handling of digital technology, specifically our digital platforms and social networks. Rather than the original intended aims of connecting the world, facilitating the spread of information, and enabling greater coordination within our civilization, the rival-risk dynamics permeating the corporate environments these systems have been built upon has plunged them into a multi-polar trap that distort the original aims of the digital revolution and lead technology designers and managers to switch to design models predicated on the manipulation of data, the control of the flow of information, and the captivation/neurological hijacking of the user in order to influence their behavior---all to the detriment of those who these tools were originally intended to serve. Moreover, this form of stewardship results in disastrous consequences for our societal and civilizational well-being. This is a large part of the reason why a lot of the civilizational crises we hoped to solve ended up being exacerbated by the very technology we created to solve them. For example, Facebook was created as a connection tool but turned into a disinformation and polarization machine. Twitter was designed as a town square but turned into a platform built upon the fueling of tribalism and cults of personality centered around argumentative—and often toxic—discourse between opposing groups/viewpoints. Instagram was conceptualized as a way to share experiences with friends but turned into a platform built upon the propagation of false realities that boosts users’ digital brands but damages our mental health and well-being. (click here to read a separate blog post in which I discuss how this came to be and the effects this has had on our digital tools and our overall society).

This “Tragedy Of Commons”, as Eric terms it, plays out all the time within the current game---most commonly through companies raising their margins through externalizing some cost which forces all their competitors to figure out how to externalize some cost of their own in order to keep up. This need to “keep up” is a large part of the reason why so many forgo their values and make unethical compromises because not doing so means you lose within the game. These kinds of traps and the environments they foster within the system fuel a significant percentage of the catastrophic risks we now face as a civilization. As Daniel puts it, “...[this] creates a lot of different race-to-the-bottom type scenarios but with exponentially more powerful technology, the races-to-the-bottom results in much deeper bottoms”. (1)

Transitioning To Game B & Building A Better Civilizational System

Later on in this episode, Daniel and Eric discuss the potential transition to a Game B as an alternative to Game A. This Game B doesn’t have to be rival-risk and, as a result, self-extinguishing. It also isn’t entirely market-dependent. In this game, the market takes into better account things like sustainable resource management and the negative externalities that can result from market activities. This game also does not dump these externalities onto the commons. This is because, in order to break free from the hold of the system maintaining Game A, Game B has to solve the problem of multipolar traps. Solving this issue of multipolar traps requires removing from the game the rival-risk dynamics that serve as the foundation for the individualistic rationality these traps are built upon and replacing it with a different foundation that cultivates compassion, wisdom, and has the collective prosperity and well-being of our world and civilization at its center. Doing this allows us to foster an environment that discourages and prevents unethical compromises in order to get ahead. In other words, Game B cannot be rivalrous and market-dependent. As Eric explains, the market has to be adapted into a system that takes into better account the negative externalities that can result from market activities (1). This transitions us away from incentives to act in self interest in order to gain an advantage in the race to incentives that foster collaboration towards mutually shared goals (the example they gave within the discussion was cancer treatment research companies sharing information in order to expedite the creation of a viable treatment as opposed to safeguarding research as IP in hopes of monopolizing a treatment as is the case for many of the treatments developed today). This kind of transition would have to be predicated on anti-rivalrous relationships between the entities in the system and a shift in perspective that takes greater responsibility for the various externalities that can result from the decisions we make. As Daniel states:

“...you still have incentive to figure out how to game the game as long as we still have separate interest…these separate interests—which is that any in-group can advantage itself at the expense of an outgroup or any individual can advantage himself at the expense of another individual—I do think is an inexorable basis of rivalry…rivalry in a world of exponential tech does self-terminate...” (1).

Now that we have defined the core of what this Game B would be, let’s explore a question posed by Daniel when discussing the transition to a different game predicated on a better civilizational system:

“...how do we make a social system that is conditioning not just individual humans but also collectives to do good choice-making…omni-positive kinds of choice-making?” (1).

What Daniel is alluding to here is the importance of cultivating within our society things that ground us in the strong mental and moral foundation that is needed to help us transcend the rivalrous nature of the current game we have ensnared ourselves in. The kind of grounding I am referring to here are the moral perspectives and value systems that can be derived from the universal spiritual and philosophical tenants inherent in the historical philosophical tradition as well as from many spiritual philosophies and practices. These tenants enable a greater awareness of---and responsibility for---the world we live in, the entities that make it up, and the short-term to long-term consequences of our actions on our collective ecosystem. This kind of grounding results in a mental and moral foundation that nurtures a deeper sense of being, greater clarity of thought, and a more responsible approach to the life you live. But before we expand on this, let’s explore the basis for Daniel’s question and discuss why/how our current society suppresses omni-positive choice-making and why having this kind of foundation is necessary to changing this.

To answer Daniel’s question bluntly, there is a physical, emotional, and mental backlash to working outside the normative limits defined and imposed by the dominant system of Game A which suppresses ethical and omni-positive decision-making. A strong moral and mental foundation built on a strong value system and a greater perspective of Life and our civilization’s future is necessary for having the resilience and strength of mind necessary to break free from it.

One of the biggest reasons why the current system of Game A has maintained its hold over our society for so long is because, when it determines you to be a threat to the power dynamics it upholds—and, that in turn—maintain it, it will try to suppress you. There are various ways that it will try to do so. The main ways that it has available to it are through environments that incentive individualistic rationality, corrosive psychology that enables the propagation of a perverse kind of “common sense” or “common practice”, corrupted micro-systems and institutions that are levers to carry out the systems operation (and act as gatekeepers against those that threaten it), and through individuals that act as the system’s gatekeepers themselves because of their dependency on its operation. I mention this to say that whether physical, emotional, or mental, you will inevitably have to confront these elements and face the backlash of going against the system if you seek to go against its common practice or dominant psychology. This backlash is the deterrent to the omni-positive kinds of decision-making that Daniel refers to in his question. To put things into perspective, I often harken back to the leaders and changemakers of the past, ranging from those that confronted apartheid with Nelson Mandela, those that stood against the British empire with Gandhi, those that fought for independence within the American Revolution, and those that marched with Dr. Martin Luther King during the Civil Rights Movement. Throughout history, those that stood against previous forms of this dominant system, and the power structures it upholds, have always had to deal with the backlash of doing so. Whether it was being locked away in a cell, being physically beaten while protesting, fighting a war, enduring physical/mental torture, or being ostracized and shunned by society—these pillars of the past all had to walk through the inferno, confront these elements, and push past the walls constructed by this system in order to push our society forward. Doing this requires a foundation that grounds you in a moral perspective that goes beyond your own self-interest and guards against any attempted distortion of your character and moral responsibility.

As Daniel points out in the discussion, “...the dominant system ends up eating psychology through declaring that the psychology that supports the dominant system is healthy psychology, and anything that is dissenting is not. It ends up eating spirituality, virtue, ethics, and academia in order to basically say that the behaviors that support the system are good so the thinking that supports those behaviors is good and anything that’s dissenting is bad…dominant paradigms co-opt psychology to define healthy psychology as supportive of the paradigm...” (1). This is the most effective tool it has in suppressing any kind of decision-making that could threaten its operation. Before we can ever break free from its hold, we have to free ourselves mentally from its corrupt psychology and individualistic rationality. The best safeguard we have against this is the mental resilience that can be derived from the moral perspective inherent in many philosophical and spiritual traditions. The kind of perspective I am referring to here is a perspecive of our collective well-being and prosperity that is best cultivated by the love, compassion, and moral strength that stem from the value systems and philosophical reasoning these traditions nurture. Regardless of the traditional or spiritual philosophy you may adhere to, every philosophy conveys the same message regarding moral responsibility which is predicated on the love and compassion for one another which, in turn, cultivates individual responsibility to collective prosperity. In other words, if we truly love one another, we will make decisions that uplift our collective well-being---including the well-being of those that will inherit this world after us. There’s a reason why a lot of the great leaders and advocates for a better world like Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. came from a strong spiritual and philosophical background. There’s a reason why much of his speeches were delivered through sermons at his church. The strength of mind and character that results from the greater perspective that these kinds of foundations give you is key to building an unbreakable spirit and an unyielding commitment to a better world. The essence of what I just described here is best summed up by what Daniel terms as “abstract empathy”, which means the ability to empathize with others expanded to a larger scale that goes beyond just caring about the suffering of those we can see and interact with. This means taking into account the effects of our actions on the full scope of our society and all the entities that make it up. This scope goes even further to include the consideration of those that will be in future states of our civilization/society and the effects our decisions will have on them.

To exemplify this, Daniel brings up the example of Buddhists who have successfully detached themselves from the corrosive nature of the human condition and succeeded in fostering a deep sense of compassion for themselves, those around them, and the greater world they live in. As he points out, these are people who have lived throughout the last few thousand years more or less in peace—completely detached from the competition for resources and power dynamics that the greater part of humanity was engaged in. They are a kind of people who have a strong opposition to use violence even against bugs and insects. This is because:

“...the Buddhists were able to train abstract empathy—not just empathy for the people who I see hurting, but empathy for all sentient beings throughout time and space…they were able to have a sense of the positive coupling of my well-being and the well-being of another rather than the inverse coupling: they get ahead and its decreasing my ability to get ahead...” (1).

Buddhism, Christianity, and many other traditional and spiritual philosophies are all examples of a fundamental pillar of the transition to Game B—that we are not, as Daniel puts it, "inexorably rivalrous". The compassion, moral perspective, and collective responsibility that they teach nurture abstract empathy and is key to navigating through our current system and transitioning to one that encourages omni-positive decision-making. As Daniel puts it:

“...when we really start to think about this clearly, we recognize that this direction is self-terminating and that when I die it ends with me…there is actually only a kind of self-transcendence and permanence in the way that I touch the world which does ripple ongoingly…I’m proposing that there is something like spiritual growth that is actually necessary for civilization to make it...” (1).

In conclusion, I want to leave you with a few practical pieces of advice if you strive to play Game B instead of Game A. First, you need to recognize that every journey has its respective mountain that you must climb---though the way you climb it is up to you. There is no one path to the mountain top and not all paths are made equal. There are good paths that can get you there safely but may take a bit longer and there are bad paths that may seem quick but end in a landslide or a dead end. Before you begin that climb, take the time to survey the landscape and plot out the benefits and potential downsides of all the paths you have available to you. Do not allow yourself to be rushed or coerced into the corrupt psychology that Game A propagates. Nor should you model your actions based on the norms of the society it has created. Instead, take a step back to get a view of the whole picture in order to find the right path with the right people that are working towards the same endgames that you are.

Inevitably, if you seek to play Game B, you will have to confront the levers that enable Game A’s continuous operation and bear the backlash of thinking outside the normative limits imposed by its governing system. This, most often, takes the form of peer pressure and cultural/societal expectations. Navigating this requires you to go against much of the “common sense” that our society tries to force on you and build your own common sense predicated on your personal values and end goals. This is why having a spiritual and philosophical foundation is so crucial. Never compromise on what you believe in. Though you may run across a hundred naysayers, there are thousands of like-minded people all over the world. Drown out the noise and walk forward on your own terms, at your own speed. As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once put it:

"If you can't fly, then run. If you can't run, then walk. If you can't walk, then crawl, but whatever you do, you have to keep moving”.

Regardless of whatever journey you choose to embark on, whatever path you take, or whatever hurdles you come across, the most important lesson you should takeaway from this post—aside from the moral responsibility to one another that we need to cultivate in order to break free of the traps of the current game we are stuck in—is the importance of building a tribe that is playing the same game as you. That family of like-minded people that you will meet throughout your journey will form the crux of the collective foundation you need to break free of Game A’s system and transition to Game B. This is the central message behind the principle: divided we are weak, but together we are strong. The challenge here is finding the right people who truly share the same perspective, values, and commitments that drive you. Essentially what you are looking for are those who are playing the same game as you---allies who are working towards the same goals. That is often the hardest part of the journey but once you find those people, everything else becomes easier.

As a final thought, I want to leave you with a closing note from Daniel concerning the life he wishes to live and the kind of civilization he hopes we can build one day:

“...[a society formed around people] coming from a place of wholeness, actual love for the beauty of life, and the desire to have their life be meaningful to life—that my life ends but Life with a capital “L” doesn’t end—and that Life starts to be central to my awareness more than my [personal] life is and my life becomes meaningful in its coupling to Life…this answers all the other questions...”

References

1. Schmachtenberger, D. (2020, April 28). Daniel Schmachtenberger on The Portal (with host Eric Weinstein), Ep. #027 - On Avoiding Apocalypse. (E. Weinstein, Interviewer)

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_b4qKv1Ctv8

2. Tobin, J. (n.d.). The Prisoner's Dilemma. The University Of Michigan's Heritage Project.

Source: https://heritage.umich.edu/stories/the-prisoners-dilemma/