1/ Here are my notes from @robertwrighter's book - Nonzero: the logic of human destiny. I enjoyed the book very much.
The basic premise of the book is that history has a direction which favors co-operation and non-zero sum games, and that causes an increase in complexity.

For example, eukaryotic cells - the ones animals and plants have - emerged when two proto-cells merged, and one took the role of energy generator (mitochondria), the other specialized in protection.
So M&A is not a recent phenomena, entities have been merging because of common interests ever since life started.
This is truly a non-zero sum game.
Like, even though we're a family and there's a single ice-cream left in the fridge, you'd want to have it.
This "trust" enables them to specialize and co-operate together for better survival. Some become specialists at taking in oxygen, and others at writing poetry.
What I thought was perhaps the most clever idea in the book: ideas that support co-operation and specialization survive and get adopted because they enable win-win deals for idea holders. (Non-zero sum games)
As writing skill spread, more and more people entered into simple written contracts that helped people co-operate and specialize.
In this way, war or threat of war actually causes people to come together as a nation-state.
The book discusses EU and UN as early and emerging examples of a possible future "world govenment" (whataver shape it may take)
Similarly, the book argues, if humans vanish, perhaps our close cousins (primates) will have an oppurtunity to evolve towards greater level of co-operation and reinventing writing, capitalism and culture.
More from Paras Chopra
More from Culture
In a recent article published in the Stern, there is now a criminal complaint filed against Michael Inacker, the then CEO of the PR firm WMP for what includes allegations of the knock out payments from the emirate of Qatar to hide a dossier for their role in financing Hezbollah
That allegedly 750,000 euros, which would have been divided between Jason and Michael.
In return, "Jason" was supposed to keep to himself the information he had researched in Qatar, that a high-ranking person in the emirate of Qatar was financially supporting Hezbollah.
https://t.co/TdaAECu35a
There is an interesting point in the article, WMP (Inacker) still had PR contracts with both Qatar and Saudi and “Jason” had some information about arms deliveries organized by people from Qatar with suppliers in Belarus, Serbia, Macedonia, and Yemen.

That allegedly 750,000 euros, which would have been divided between Jason and Michael.

In return, "Jason" was supposed to keep to himself the information he had researched in Qatar, that a high-ranking person in the emirate of Qatar was financially supporting Hezbollah.

https://t.co/TdaAECu35a

There is an interesting point in the article, WMP (Inacker) still had PR contracts with both Qatar and Saudi and “Jason” had some information about arms deliveries organized by people from Qatar with suppliers in Belarus, Serbia, Macedonia, and Yemen.
You May Also Like
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x