It is not possible to know if my intelligence will produce more QOL. However, it is the only option I have, provided by brain evolution over millennia, to plan my action in the next instant. If I find that a loss of QOL has occurred, then I turn to my intelligence to repair that loss. I still believe that I am intelligent, although I have to eventually repair certain losses.
The quality of life game III
With the general rules we already have, it is possible to begin JQVI analysis experiments by studying gains and losses, their possible causes, and the likelihood of increasing gains and decreasing losses.To make the work easier, let us remember the rules and strategies assumed so far with which we define this JQVI.
s1: commute mode strategy for work.
s2: strategy of using the intelligence of the individual.
s3: strategy of trial and error always assuming the use of intelligence of the individual.
F1: JQVI rules are changeable, unstable and unpredictable.
F2: The rules of JQVI are not respected by everyone and are asymmetrical and confuse with strategies.
R1: Biological energy is the largest source of QVI.
R2: The social system is the main threat to QVI.
R3: The food chain recalls the fierce dispute over the Biosphere's limited resources.
R4: The individual is an important opponent of himself in JQVI.
R5: The Biosphere is the main player of JQVI.
R6: The state is an important opponent of the individual in JQVI.
R7: Society is the biggest opponent of the individual in the JQVI.
R8: The social dispute over QOL has been going on for millennia.
Each reader can simulate their quality of life through a JQVI using the rules above. It should be remembered that no mathematical game will account for the complexity associated with its life, but paradoxically could not perceive important features of it in an objective way without using a mathematical model.
A possible example of JQVI analysis is as follows.
I ask: how can I improve my performance in the social dispute for QVI under the prism of the rule? R8?
Firstly, I need to understand why there is the social dispute for QOL. The answer is simple: Because QoL depends on Biosphere resources that are limited and Homo sapiens sapiens does not control its population to adequately stay within these limits.
Secondly, these limits are not known and are difficult to determine.
The argument that human goods exist in sufficient quantity for all is ineffective because it despises the human urge to retain goods to take individual comfort and social advantages from this possession. That is, the argument does not know the rules R2, R3, R5 and R7.
Therefore, I observe that I am immersed in a “Malthusian” scenario of fierce dispute for space, time, and material and immaterial goods. Malthus imagined that population growth tends to outpace food production and that the improvement of humanity is impossible without imposing limits on its reproduction. The second part of this imagination strikes us as a brilliant observation in view of what happens, for example, in big cities.
The criticism that Malthus was wrong because he did not foresee the agricultural revolution that caused an exponential increase in food production bringing prosperity to more people is evidently fragile. Simply because it does not calculate "how many more people" and insists on ambiguity by stating that "the number of hungry people is now being reduced by wars or disastrous economic policies of governments." If I, as a private individual, want to improve my QOL, I need to protect myself from the social dangers of being included among those who are still hungry, regardless of government or warriors. Malthus was brilliantly correct, though through inaccurate or inaccurate discourse, that overpopulation is an important cause of low QoL.
We pause for a moment more about the Malthusian scenario. In our way of analyzing this JQVI, Thomas Malthus was one of the most important observers of the serious implications that would follow from the population's attitude of mechanically and irrationally reproducing itself. The population did not evaluate, and still does not evaluate, what the world would look like with a larger number of individuals vying for Biosphere resources and human goods. The way Malthus presented his perceptions may have questions, for example, he seems to have failed to mention the obvious dispute for physical and social space, but he was right in signaling that serious problems are associated with overpopulation. So Malthus somehow realized something analogous to the rules R2, R3, R5, R6, R7 and R8.
The most evident feature of the biosphere, which generates dispute, is physical space. The more individuals in the biosphere, the less room for an individual, me in particular, to move or to settle. Many move to other cities, change ways to work, change travel times, change schedules
to do things, etc., habits in general change anxiously, but the options are limited and insufficient for everyone. Most cannot effectively protect their QoL. Among those with greater social power, most can only mitigate the problem without solving it.
Some cities in Europe, the developed and richest region of the planet, hold, perhaps for another hundred or two hundred years - or forever - the characteristics of their overcrowding waves from the late Middle Ages onwards: dwellings huddled together. It is an excellent illustration for Rule 8 in the sense that social problems are not resolved, only dragged or disappeared by a force majeure that in turn introduces new socially insoluble problems.
This social phenomenon is repeated in poor and backward countries, socially and economically, in the form of slums or 'matchbox' spikes, which appear to be seen from a distance, or various other types of housing. The meaning of the dragging expression of problems for millennia can be easily grasped by this example.
From the cold, dark caves terrified by big hominid predatory felines and wolves, to the fire-lit and warmed caves, the housing problem for all hominids has not been solved. The fact that it has resolved itself for some is neither sufficient nor convincing because the likelihood that I, as a particular individual, will be among those who squeeze is not small. Just that I am born among them. Here is an interesting psychological question: What if I, a particular individual, are born again, or have been born several times? Well, it's fortunate that memory fades because it would be unbearable to go through this age-old problem of homelessness or discomfort thousands of times.
Therefore, it is difficult to imagine a solution for all individuals with regard to housing. Individuals adapt to their problems by somehow mitigating them, or cultivating delusions that they do, and some solve them completely, but the universal problem is not solved and a condition to improve my QOL is to be aware that The problem is robust, that is, resistant to any attempt at solution, and requires rigorous dedication. Any misstep and this present life will no longer be long enough to solve the problem. Thus, I note that Rule 8 is a robust rule that I check by example of housing. If I want, therefore, to improve my QOL from the perspective of Rule 8, I must prepare myself to face a situation that has been going on for millennia and affects millions of individuals.
To examine the chance of seeing one of my specific QOL problems solved, or mitigated, I can do a simple mathematical experiment: calculate the number of family members such as grandparents, uncles, cousins, and siblings, and then calculate the number of those who found a solution to a specific QoL problem and then make a division and get the percentage of family members who had an improvement in that specific QoL item. This number will give you an idea, although not a determining number of anything, of the likelihood of a family member resolving or mitigating that QoL item in this society.
The rules R6 and R7 They warn us that it may not be a good idea to expect the state or society to solve problems such as housing for us.
Back to columns<