My last post went a little off the rails. While it is still technically on topic, providing a specific example of what I’m trying to explain, it spent more time criticizing the actions of a certain individual south of our Canadian border. In this post, I will aim to stay on track and provide a much more coherent explanation of what I’ve been talking about.

To further my aim, I decided to discuss the topic with ChatGPT. Once again, this is technically a real life specific example of the theory I’m trying to express, but at this point, I feel it is necessary for me to get to the point.

In talking to an AI about my ideas, I was finally able to identify more precisely in what areas or fields it falls. That is, as is often the case, my idea is not necessarily new. There have been others exploring these ideas for some time, even as far back as Aristotle I am told. The theory most closely related to my discussion is called the “tragedy of the commons” and is associated with the “Commonize Costs–Privatize Profits Game” (CC–PP Game) from game theory. Though these other theories are very similar, there are some differences as well, mostly in focus.

In the tragedy of the commons, the focus is on a resource that is limited. The idea is that if everyone has access to this resource, and if everyone is utilizing the resource for their own benefit without bearing the cost, then the limited resource will eventually disappear as a result of over utilization of the resource. That is, if I consider everyone as being something like an infinite demand and I consider the resource as something like a finite supply, then it should be clear that the infinite demand will eventually outpace the finite supply. There are a lot of assumptions that play into this, but the idea is that as progress is made, and as individuals (or groups) identify the common resource’s benefit without having to bear the cost, they will eventually grow their utilization until there is nothing left of the resource. In my theory, I am focused more on the socialization aspects of this situation than I am of the resource. Or, perhaps my focus is in an intangible resource, such as the future.

In the CC–PP Game, the scenario is focused on determining the most likely beneficial decision given the conditions of the situation. Specifically, if there are 2 individuals, both vying for the resource, then each has 2 options: to take the resource, or not take the resource. If both take the resource, they each get a portion of the benefit. If one decides not to take the resource, opting to preserve the resource, then they will receive much less benefit and the other gains a greater benefit than before. However, if both parties decide to not take the resource, both trying to preserve the resource, they will both gain much more of the resource at a later time. The following image from Wikipedia shows an example of this game with groundwater utilization:

As often happens in game theory, the optimal choice an individual ought to make is the one that is least beneficial in the long run. That is, if I am individual A, then I have to make a choice without knowing what the other will make ahead of time. If the other opts to preserve, then I can either preserve as well for a $100 benefit, or I can extract for $80 benefit. However, if the other opts to extract, then I can either preserve for a $20 benefit, or I can extract for a $50 benefit. In the case where the other preserves, both options are quite reasonable, but if the other decides to extract, then my benefit reduces significantly, especially if I chose to preserve. Ultimately, looking at the numbers, it is in my best interests to extract, because the least I will benefit is $50, regardless of how the other behaves.

Putting this another way, if it is possible for me to trust the other party to make a choice to preserve, then I ought to preserve, as that will benefit me the most. But if I cannot trust the other party to make a particular choice, then I am better off extracting. So the key here is the question of trust.

As it turns out, in the case of the tragedy of the commons situation, one needs to remember there are many, many more than 2 individuals involved. There may be hundreds or thousands of individuals in this array, and the results become much more complex. However, the take away is simply that if all parties cooperate, then all can benefit. But if even one of the parties decides not to cooperate, they will run away with a much greater benefit, essentially stealing the benefit from all others. Thus, the technically correct maneuver is to extract, as it is the safest option for me.

Again, this is not precisely my theory, but it is very much related. For my theory, I am concerned with the social aspect. I am concerned with how the outcome affects things in the long run, regardless of how decisions are being made in the short run. And when I described my theory to ChatGPT, it provided the following much briefer explanation of what I was describing:

“Imagine a competition where the winner is whoever is willing to sacrifice the most. At first, people give up comfort, safety, or honesty to win. But eventually, they start sacrificing the future itself—resources, stability, trust—just to stay ahead.

Someone tries to stop that spiral. They show restraint, think long-term, try to preserve the future. But that makes them weaker in the short term, and they’re overtaken by those who don’t hold back. Even worse, the biggest winners are those who pretend to care while still exploiting everything.

Here’s the twist: because these short-term winners gain power, they get to write the rules. They shape laws, standards, and culture to reflect their values—aggression, consumption, dominance. They even rewrite history to glorify themselves.

So the system not only rewards self-destruction—it locks it in. It turns reckless behavior into the new normal and buries the alternatives.“

I know it is not my words, but I thought ChatGPT did a reasonably good job of explaining my concern. Certainly more succinct than I have been up to this point. I hope it is clear why the case of Donald Trump as president of the United States fits this description so very well.

So my theory is that humans are in this very competition presently and have been for a very long time. It is possible that this is simply a model for life itself, but I would need much more research to determine that. Human life, in modern times, definitely fits this description. There are those who are willing to do whatever it takes to be successful. They will utilize all resources at their disposal, regardless of who owns them or even whether they are entitled to the resources at all. And the main resource I always end up talking about is the future.

When I say “the future,” what I am referring to is the tragedy of the commons. The resources available to me are always limited and finite. There are no infinite resources. There may be “seemingly infinite” resources, as in resources that I could never hope to use up in my lifetime, but if I and my progeny were to utilize those resources in an exponential fashion, there will come a point when those resources will most definitely become exhausted. If you do not believe me, try paying yourself a dollar at the beginning of the month, and then double it each day. How long until you cannot afford to pay yourself? (Hint: you will have to pay yourself over a billion dollars before the end of a typical month.)

The thing ChatGPT said to me that I thought was particularly poignant was “It doesn’t even require bad people—just people playing the only game available.” Like the example of paying myself, it is just a cold calculation that gets away from me very quickly. This is why I tend to focus on the seemingly insignificant things that happen in the world. The noise pollution that many generate without thinking about it. The growing use of leaf blowers to push the dust and debris around to clean the sidewalks. Even just letting the faucet drip. All these things seem completely innocuous, and yet over time and with enough people, these things have a devastating impact on our world.

But that isn’t even the part that is most concerning to me. It is that those individuals who sacrifice the future for their own benefit, particularly in the short term, are setting precedence. They are the ones who are our “leaders.” They are the ones who set standards and create laws and promote their ways of being to the populations at large. Like how a celebrity can use their influence to drive consumers to purchase particular products. The culture I now live in is such a culture, carefully crafted and adjusted over centuries by all those who came before me.

One of the concerns I expressed while taking philosophy was that those whom we were reading may not have been the individuals who originated their ideas. Like my handicapping theory, I am certain there are those out there who thought my thoughts before I did. But what makes those particular philosophers special, such as Jean-Paul Sartre, was that they were the first to put pen to paper and publish these ideas. And because they did, they get the credit. Whomever might have originated their ideas will never be known because those poor individuals never published, for one reason or another.

But there are sometimes glimmers of hope. Sometimes someone does eventually get some credit for their work, such as Simone de Beauvoir, whose works only really started gaining popularity in about the past 15 years. While I have no direct evidence to support this, I am of the belief that it was Beauvoir who was responsible for many of Sartre’s ideas. After studying both, I feel that Sartre’s ideas are just poorly understood copies of Beauvoir’s ideas. Unfortunately, as both individuals are now dead, there is no way to tell. And even if they were not dead, I think Beauvoir’s love for Sartre would prevent her from disparaging him in this situation, regardless of the truth of the matter.

At the end of the day, my theory of handicapping is my fear for the future. I have spent the better part of my life trying to preserve the future. I have been the one handicapped, by my own choices. And of late, I have been forced to cease that practice, little by little. I cannot continue to handicap myself for the sake of the future any longer if I hope to preserve the present for those that I love.