100 times happier, part 2

People love the game of going out there and grabbing all they can. People love games. Games involve struggle, challenge, excitement, suspense, hope, the carrot of reward. So people accept the system of unlimited fortunes. The bigger fortunes are, the more they feel that they too can do the same. People don't connect the game with the world violence. But when everyone just goes for all they can get their hands on, the fact is that 99% of people lose. 99% of people would get more by having a system of everyone getting paid what they earn, no more or less. And 90% of people would get 10 to a 1000 times more. And 50% of people would get 100 to 1000 times more. So do we really love this game? It is a good game, if we ignore the downside, the underpay for 99% and the super-extreme violence for 100%. The strangulation of the world economy, the waste of 90% of talents, the braking of progress. Now near causing extinction for 100%. But if we face the downside, do we want this game? Would we prefer a modification of this game? A less dangerous form of this game? Fairpay, the challenge of survival in nature, was good enough for millions of years of our ancestors. Our explosion of toolmaking, our technological intelligence, has created plenty for all. And we have played this dangerous game with it. Given ourselves super-hell with it. Are we that reckless, devilmaycare?
Two children with two lunches. They can each eat one lunch, and then play together happily. Or they can engage in a game to try to get two lunches, which will put both in a perpetual struggle to get one lunch and the peace to eat it. If they choose the latter, and then find themselves in an acceleration of violence that is about to kill both of them, will they stop?
100 children, 1000 sweets. They can take 10 sweets each, eat them, and play happily. Or they can engage in a game to get all the sweets, which will put them into constant battle. If they reach a point where this game is causing, not fun, but anger and pain, hunger and cruelty, trouble and excessive labour, will they choose to stop?
Our choice.
The pool of wealth is limited. It is limited to the sum of the products of the work of everyone. it seems to some that it is unlimited, because great gobs of new wealth appear with new technology. But these are piles of wealth raked from the pool of wealth made by products. New technology is just very good at raking wealth. Bill Gates is legally permitted to take US$50 million of products of work from the pool every fortnight he had worked. He has not put in US$50 million worth of goods into the pool with every fortnight's work. He would have to do the work equivalent of building 50 US$1 million houses every fortnight. From scratch, from planting the trees and mining the ore. He takes out far more than he puts in, others have to take out far less than they put in. Do we want to play this game? One in 50 humans are dying each year from this game. 100 million people a year. And 5 times that number are seriously injured in this game. Overpaid and underpaid are dying in this game. If there was a person going around killing 2% of the population every year, we would put a stop to it. We wouldn't be inactive about it. So do we want this game, of all-grab-all?
When we play the game of running a footrace, the losers lose little. Would we play that game if 2% of the losers and winners each year lost life? If 10% were seriously injured each year? If 100% were brought nose-close to extinction? So do we want to play this game?