🐈

Behind most arguments there's the idea that "This world would be better if there were more of me" and it's shadow "This world would be better if there were less of you."

Since attention is a zero-sum game, these are synonymous. If there's more of me, by necessity there's less of you. The only way this isn't zero-sum is by manipulating the boundaries around the circles of attention. E.g. forming tribes, groups, countries, communities, etc...

One of the reasons families and children may disrupt the conflict snowball is because children allow you the "More of me" victory without having to deal with the "Less of you" violence. (overall population growth also increases the attention pie)

Violence is 'bad' when it's only purpose is "less of you" without a corresponding "more of me" drive that makes the violence more 'honorable'. It becomes purely destructive and seems to actually have internally accepted that "more of me" isn't good or possible.

We create our own demons by deeming humans hopeless and cutting them off from the light.

Though attention of individual humans is finite, actual attention isn't. E.g. companies fight over the attention of "John" with credit card number 123 and 50K to spend. But actual "John" is a Ship of Theseus.

What companies fight over is the "identity" that controls a pool of money. What individuals fight over is the identity that controls pools of friendship/status/power/etc..

But because that identity is technically every-changing in a "you can't step in the same river twice" way, a certain type of attention is infinite, even at the micro level. It's similar to how young children see everything in the world as interesting. Boredom isn't possible.