zlacker

> We cant seem to keep trade secrets anyways.

Zero sum thinking.

It is possible that we can improve the entire world and ourselves, but for many the reasoning is "It's not enough that I should win: others must also lose."

>>mullin+(OP)
The problem is the competitive landscape by which other nations which are Anti- us, are taking but not giving. And are happy to see us go down the drain to their own profit.

It's less about zero sum and more about the existence of enemies in the world who are even willing to lose smally if we lose bigly. (to speak like dilbert)

>>mullin+(OP)
That is not zero sum thinking. It is a classic free rider problem.

>>maerF0+D
> who are even willing to lose smally if we lose bigly

Realistically though, this has nothing to do with geopolitics. This wouldn't be happening if the research community were driving around in trucks with MAGA flags and sleeping with Dear Leader body pillows.

This regime is entirely transactional and it's a howler to pretend otherwise. The academic research community could be dealing literal tons of hard drugs and they'd get a pass as long as they were card carrying party members.

>>jandre+M1
The free rider problem is a natural consequence of all-encompassing progressions that benefit multiple parties at the least expense of themselves and each other.

Even the logic behind a pareto optimum necessitates the presence of the free rider problem, to prove the point.