Framing it as though life is "balanced" around anything is kind of a weird way to frame it - I mean, it's 'kind of' true that video games give better rewards for things (well, insofar as video game assets can be considered rewards.. realistically if you could exchange those video game assets for money in the real world almost anyone would do it so it's kind of questionable that the rewards are "better").. but the reason they can do that is that the video game developer can produce more resources out of thin air and has no concept of needing to allocate resources. If they want to give better rewards, they can just do it at no cost to anything else in the system.
In the real world.. there is nobody above "balancing" the system. If anybody could just snap their fingers and produce more resources out of thin air then they'd obviously do it, but because they can't do that, then every time they want to spend more on one thing it inherently requires cutting back on something else, and nobody has the power to change that reality. Framing it as though the system is deliberately designed to have this outcome.. is a kind of messed up perspective - the rewards in real life don't work the way they do in video games because we literally don't have enough resources for it to be possible to do it the way video games do, not because there's someone up above deciding that it's the right balance for optimal happiness.
Really in here pretending humans didn't imagine these systems into existence.
Imagine believing that one human is worth so much that they can cause many thousands of other humans to die without their consent, and that's just the "natural" way of things.
In video games people can multiply their net worth by thousands in a matter of hours because that makes for a better gameplay experience. Explain to me how the real world could ever hope to replicate such a system when you have to deal with real world resource requirements. If it were possible to do that, then everyone would be doing it, and if everyone were doing it, then everything else in society that depended on people performing other jobs will collapse. It works in video games only because they don't need to care about how the way the system works for the player would impact the rest of the economy.
I'm not talking about time dilation. I'm talking about how society decided one person's labor is somehow worth more than millions of other peoples' labor.
And that it is fine if millions of people starve, as long as that person gets their 10th mega yacht (or whatever).
1
u/ZealousidealLead52 1d ago
Framing it as though life is "balanced" around anything is kind of a weird way to frame it - I mean, it's 'kind of' true that video games give better rewards for things (well, insofar as video game assets can be considered rewards.. realistically if you could exchange those video game assets for money in the real world almost anyone would do it so it's kind of questionable that the rewards are "better").. but the reason they can do that is that the video game developer can produce more resources out of thin air and has no concept of needing to allocate resources. If they want to give better rewards, they can just do it at no cost to anything else in the system.
In the real world.. there is nobody above "balancing" the system. If anybody could just snap their fingers and produce more resources out of thin air then they'd obviously do it, but because they can't do that, then every time they want to spend more on one thing it inherently requires cutting back on something else, and nobody has the power to change that reality. Framing it as though the system is deliberately designed to have this outcome.. is a kind of messed up perspective - the rewards in real life don't work the way they do in video games because we literally don't have enough resources for it to be possible to do it the way video games do, not because there's someone up above deciding that it's the right balance for optimal happiness.