In the most recent economics lecture, we were taught about the Nash equilibrium which is a situation in which economic actors in interacting with one another choose their best strategy given the strategies that all the others have chosen. A good example would be to look at the prisoners’ dilemma:
|
Prisoner B Stays Silent |
Prisoner B Betrays |
|
|
Prisoner A Stays Silent |
Each serves 6 months |
Prisoner A: 10 years |
|
Prisoner A Betrays |
Prisoner A: goes free |
Each serves 5 years |
We all see that the best scenario, not on individual basis, would be for both to remain silent which would result in both of them serving 6 months. On the other hand, if both decide to betray, they would each have to serve 5 years. Let us now consider the best strategy on the individual level. In fact, the best strategy for each of them is to betray the other party. Take the case that B stays silent. The better option for A would be to betray because he would get to get away scot-free. Similarly, if B chooses to betray, the better option for A would again be to betray because he would definitely want to serve 5 years rather than 10. Therefore, the best/dominant strategy is for A to betray and the same is for B (try it out).
What I find is interesting about this is that it is not only applicable in economics context but also in our daily lives. More often than not, we are selfish and choose the best possible option to benefit ourselves. Because of this selfish nature, we would always want things to go our way by hook or by crook despite the fact that cooperating would clearly be the best option. We might even want to dominate over others so as to do the way we want it to. Take the example of a family. Parents may have a certain mindset on the path which the child has to take whereas the child sees himself taking another route. What usually happens is that the parents choose to dominate over the child’s life in the sense that everything is decided for him – which group of friends he should mix with, what subjects to take after Secondary 2, where to go after O levels, which course to take in university, even what career to take or worse, which girl to marry. I am not saying that parents should not be involved but I believe that, especially after a ‘certain age’, there should be decisions which the child should make himself/herself because it is after all his/her own life or else the child might turn out rebellious since he/she would also want his/her own way. What can and should be done is for both parties to learn to cooperate by sitting down to discuss about these issues instead of forcing it down the throat of each other.
How does this then apply to war and terror? Looking at World War II, we see two forces that wish to exert their power through a huge region so that the world’s influence would be in their hands. First of which is Germany who, under the leadership of Adolf Hitler, sought to re-establish a Third Reich so that they could control valuable resources in North Africa and the Middle East. The other party, Japan, sought to extend her rule in Asia under the leadership of Japanese Emperor Hirohito. In the first case of Germany, the Nazis could have been satisfied even if they did not owned all the land but the majority of it so that they would be the one in power. Relating to what was stated in the earlier paragraphs, we see that it is the case whereby not only do they have their own agendas, they want the world to have the same agenda as them and are willing to effect the use of violence to force it down the throats of those who go against them. Needless to say, it resulted in many deaths.
Although it may sound quite moralistic or even sweeping to put it to such a simple root cause, I feel that if we were to question to the end of the matter, this is what we will get. I end off with a quote by Plato – “only the dead have seen the end of war”. Our selfish desires are powerful enough to kill. The question is, do we allow them to be that powerful?
