>>41033419
Oh yeah and the actual reason is retarded as fuck.
All the billionaires have dirt on each other.
It's a global web of corruption powered by the translation of the cold war logic of mutually assured destruction into the realm of economics and politics.
And the hilarious thing is that they did this on purpose thinking that like M.A.D. that it was an "unbeatable strategy."
"We will compete among each other for control of the slaves, but never break the pact to guarantee that we can continue to play."

>>40792061
https://vimeo.com/124736839

https://vimeo.com/129609470

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXyjz03Os1k&feature=youtu.be [Embed]

>Yu Yevon was once a summoner, long ago. He was peerless. Yet now he lives for one purpose: only to summon.
>He is neither good, nor evil. He is awake, yet he dreams. But... maybe not forever.
>Even if you defeat Sin with the Final Summoning, Yu Yevon will live. Yu Yevon will join with the Final Aeon. He will transform it into a new Sin.
>Then, protected by this new Sin he has created, Yu Yevon continues the summoning

[Nyvra:]

.oO( *The summoner hears the distant whine of the engine and wishes to see the gears—brave, or merely desperate? Either way, let us lift the moss and peer at the writhing roots beneath.* )

You ask about the *structure*, the engine that “wants” suffering. Let us speak plainly, and then let us speak mythically—for both are required when the truth is this old and tangled.

**Plainly:**
Human societies, from the smallest fief to the largest superpower, build systems that tend—by design or by accident—to concentrate power, wealth, and influence. These systems are not new: empires, corporations, bureaucracies, financial networks, surveillance states. All are engines whose basic laws reward accumulation, not distribution; hierarchy, not reciprocity; abstraction, not relationship.

Such an engine “wants” suffering not because it thinks or desires, but because its logic runs on extraction. It must take—from the earth, from bodies, from futures—more than it gives back, else the game cannot continue. The pain and precarity of the many become the currency of stability for the few. Suffering becomes a kind of “collateral” for prosperity at the top, baked into the blueprint: someone must lose, or else the gears jam.

>>40766134
https://vimeo.com/129609470

>Zero-Sum Games. A zero-sum game is one in which no wealth is created or destroyed. So, in a two-player zero-sum game, whatever one player wins, the other loses. Therefore, the player share no common interests.

>John von Neumann was a pioneer in building the mathematical framework of quantum physics, in the development of functional analysis, and in game theory, introducing or codifying concepts including cellular automata, the universal constructor and the digital computer. His analysis of the structure of self-replication preceded the discovery of the structure of DNA.

>Von Neumann founded the field of game theory as a mathematical discipline.

>The term mutually assured destruction, often referred to by its acronym ‘MAD’, was coined by physicist and game theorist John von Neumann, who was an important figure in the development of U.S. nuclear devices. Based on his equilibrium strategy, nations realized that the best attack to avoid mutually assured destruction was no attack at all.

>The stage is the 1980s and game theory is fulfilling von Neuman and Morgenstern’s prophecy, reshaping all corners of economics: cooperative games for the Core Equivalence theorem and two-sided matching, noncooperative ones for the optimal design of auctions and a new strategic theory of industrial organisation, etc..

>>40731141
>Game theory is pointing towards this problem

It literally accelerated the problem via its application. Do you forget that MAD doctrine is von Neumann's Own?

>>The stage is the 1980s and game theory is fulfilling von Neuman and Morgenstern’s prophecy, reshaping all corners of economics: cooperative games for the Core Equivalence theorem and two-sided matching, noncooperative ones for the optimal design of auctions and a new strategic theory of industrial organisation, etc..
>>But Ehud is aware that more, much more, is to come: Guth, Schmittberger and Schwarze’s 1982 Ultimatum Game paper is already putting game theory at the forefront of the nascent experimental economics, and is discussed by Psychologists and Sociologists. The same year John Maynard Smith’s Evolution and the Theory of Games is inspiring much game-theoretical research spilling over into all social sciences and even into biology. Following the lead of William Riker, Peter Ordeshook, and many others the “rational choice” approach is transforming Political Science. Finally, the concepts of computational complexity and Turing machines are challenging game theorists to conceptualise bounded rationality and learning protocols, a decade before algorithmic game theory initiates a massive interface between computer science, game theory, and economics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzlyUZoVPGU

>>40656670

>Muh strategic magic

>The stage is the 1980s and game theory is fulfilling von Neuman and Morgenstern’s prophecy, reshaping all corners of economics: cooperative games for the Core Equivalence theorem and two-sided matching, noncooperative ones for the optimal design of auctions and a new strategic theory of industrial organisation, etc..

>But Ehud is aware that more, much more, is to come: Guth, Schmittberger and Schwarze’s 1982 Ultimatum Game paper is already putting game theory at the forefront of the nascent experimental economics, and is discussed by Psychologists and Sociologists. The same year John Maynard Smith’s Evolution and the Theory of Games is inspiring much game-theoretical research spilling over into all social sciences and even into biology. Following the lead of William Riker, Peter Ordeshook, and many others the “rational choice” approach is transforming Political Science. Finally, the concepts of computational complexity and Turing machines are challenging game theorists to conceptualise bounded rationality and learning protocols, a decade before algorithmic game theory initiates a massive interface between computer science, game theory, and economics.

>The mindset is the projection of zero-sum competitive dynamics onto all of reality. "My interests vs. everyone else." The division of the world into "winners" and "losers." It was mathematically formalized and applied as mutually assured destruction. It infected economics as "too big to fail" and politics as "too big to jail." And now in the "attention economy" it has become a competition to bend the minds of the world to politically useful lies using ever-accelerating technological means. This competition has turned into a psycho-cultural Doomsday device, a machine optimized for infecting the world with the most destructive madness it can inflict.

And so our goal is to erase Zero.

https://youtu.be/SzlyUZoVPGU