Consistent winning, in a finite context, is just another way to lose

As our recognition of the inter-dependantness of all things deepens, so too does the absurdity of the psychology of sustainable winning (growth) in a finite environment become more apparent.

Let’s use the game of monopoly as an example. The game has a finite number of players, money, resources and properties -- just like planet earth. Inevitably, and in a relatively short time one player through chance or skill emerges the winner. But at that point the game breaks down and comes to an end. And when the game comes to an end the winning itself turns to loss, because the game has ended, even winning itself.

And when the game ends all lose, and the only winning is the memory of winning.

It's worthwhile noticing that the strategy of development and growth is initially useful as properties are purchased and developed. But at some critical point in the game when development has run its course, when everything that can be commercialised, has been, for the game to continue the rules need to radically change.

From growth to consistency, from private ownership to communal use and from competition to care. In that space the game now has a chance to evolve and bring forth new potentials unrecognised and not needed during its phase of growth.

In our human evolution, we have come to that point. The rules of the game are changing as we recognise the inevitability of loss, the inter-connectedness of all things and the finiteness and fragility of this small planet we call home.

Waiting for the old game to end so we can start a new one is not the option we want to be shooting for.