GAME B

Game B should be a renaissance not revolution,

Before any game B theorising is possible, we need to meditate deeply on why progressive movements so often fail. We actually do need grand narratives and utopian visions, to articulate a ‘promise land’ or a ‘city on the hill’. But evolution is a slow and messy process.

The discussion of Game B dynamics has to be grounded in an understanding that Game A — or that rivalrous, competitive dynamics are powerful, deep, habitual, often irrational, and built into our very biological drives. And often they have their utility and logic. In general, we should not ‘fight’ them, but let them collapse of their own accord.

We should resist the petulant desire to want to change everything right now, no matter how urgent we believe the situation is…People change slowly, and to to accelerate their development unnaturally — or through radical change without their consent — is counterproductive and dangerous.

The problem is we cannot build a new civilization merely with theoretical models or by ‘allowing Game B to emerge’

The danger is: Game B could be either weaponized, or turned into an ineffectual kind of ‘kumbaya’, a meaningless couple of syllables to beat your ideological drum to.

In any case, we should be very cautious—if not cynical—about boyish dreams of trying to engineer a new civilization— knowing the human propensity for war, corruption, and the omnicidal (rather than omni-win/win) behavior that is our speciality.

To put it in plain English: Game B is about creating a new, prosperous, and peaceful society based on cooperation rather than rivalry. Sound nice? Yes. Sexy and effective? I’m less convinced.