Tamas asked:

Has any philosopher addressed the question whether or not LIFE (the creation and process of all
living) is a zero-sum game (e.g., for everything organizing into life, must something else disorganize
into oblivion, or for anything staying alive must something living die?). If it is a zero-sum game, what
scientific evidence is there? If it is not, are Homo-sapiens the only living things trying to make it into
one?

============

To answer your question I must keep it simple. So humans developed in an evolutionary process a la
Darwin. In such a process only energy is changing shape, nothing vanishes. A zero-sum game
supposes an opponent. This is the one that changes, but in evolution things themselves are subject
of change. So there is no need of an opponent, only objects causing the direction of change. Similar
to a game, in evolution life changes after 'choices'. The extra rule is that it behaves like a one-way
road and seldom crosses the same point.

Do humans try to make life a zero-sum game? Certainly there is to much 'enemy'-thinking, it obstructs
cooperation. Politics often seems playing zero-sum. Bargaining like, if you do this then I do that. The
outcome is often far from being a solution for the original problem. What is needed more is treating
the really observed problems, without first considering opponents. And on top of that the direction of
change is too much in trying to make it only one specific kind of game, an only rational game.

Bargaining is a way of handling things of fearful people. It is the opposite of believing in one's own
strength. Of course part of it is necessary for communication, but too often most of it hides uncertainty

I don't know any philosopher who treated this view, but maybe others.

Henk Tuten