"If only we knew how to create those conditions without having to fight a world war first."
Funnily enough, zero-sum thinking would provide a solution for this.
In order for your society to thrive, opportunity must be created. If nobody knows how to create sustainable (read, not based on subsidy) opportunity, it can always be manufactured at the cost of a target group. (Ethnic groups, 'the rich', other countries, etc. Pick your favorite.)
In terms of a housing shortage, you can create housing for your 'team' by taking existing houses from those who aren't on your 'team'.
In business or in academia, you can force hiring or admittance practices/rules/quotas that prioritize your 'team' over other 'teams'.
There lies the crux.
There is always gain to be had by those who simply choose to take it.
Even the promise of a world order where such choices are unthinkable isn't protected. All it takes is one group who chooses to prioritize themselves, and then if the remaining group is not strong or numerous enough to fight them off, a new order is established and equity is abolished in favor of a new dominance hierarchy.
Depends. Do you actually live in a zero-sum world, or not?
If you live in a zero-sum world, that's an interesting tactic. It might be effective. If you don't, though, then you opened your opponent up to a better way of doing things, while you're still stuck in a less optimal way. That's a losing move.
Is there in fact a limited supply of energy and physical materials?
If so, the universe is finite and thus zero-sum as bounded by the efficiency of use.
Do humans asses things more through impartial objectivity or via relativistic comparison?
If yes to finite resources and relative assesment, we live in a zero-sum world.
If no to either, we do not (ie, if we have functionally unlimited resource abundance, or if we don't care about how we are situated relative to our neighbors).
Funnily enough, zero-sum thinking would provide a solution for this.
In order for your society to thrive, opportunity must be created. If nobody knows how to create sustainable (read, not based on subsidy) opportunity, it can always be manufactured at the cost of a target group. (Ethnic groups, 'the rich', other countries, etc. Pick your favorite.)
In terms of a housing shortage, you can create housing for your 'team' by taking existing houses from those who aren't on your 'team'.
In business or in academia, you can force hiring or admittance practices/rules/quotas that prioritize your 'team' over other 'teams'.
There lies the crux. There is always gain to be had by those who simply choose to take it. Even the promise of a world order where such choices are unthinkable isn't protected. All it takes is one group who chooses to prioritize themselves, and then if the remaining group is not strong or numerous enough to fight them off, a new order is established and equity is abolished in favor of a new dominance hierarchy.