Talk:Zero-sum fallacy

Validity check please. --Sgeo | Talk 01:40, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

It's a real concept, but this article is bunk. The included "proof" is lacking, due to quite a few assumed premises. Rhobite 02:40, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Removed text:

The zero sum fallacy is a belief that attributing a zero sum quality to all relationships that involve an exchange of resources is incorrect because some resource exchange relationships are non zero sum.

In light of the fact that the Earth is a sphere and that all life on the earth constitutes the biosphere, it is apparent that the Earth and all life on it are quantifiably finite. Additionally, the amount of solar energy that hits the surface of the Earth each day is finite.

- I've had a go at a rewrite. Some of the removed ideas could possibly be reincorporated if rephrased. Andrewa 16:16, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've restored the example from green politics that was the original motivation for this page (since its last deletion anyway). I'm not at all happy with the wording, but I think it's important to mention this as it is a common citation. Andrewa 11:48, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

--Witchboy 15:59, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The example from Green Politics seems like a total non sequitur to me. It also puts a partisan political spin on what is simply supposed to be a definition. (I know the earlier example could also imply political leaning, but it's much more general case.) The pollution part of the green politics seems to make no sense at all. Also, I cannot find a "commonly cited" example of the green politics argument.

I tried fixing the wording on the Green Politics example, but for all I know, I completely changed what the original author intended. --Cvaneg 22:36, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Political affilition aside, can we have a clearer example? Something more general? This entry is simply supposed to define zer0-sum fallacy.

Merge

Someone pointed out that this article should be merged with lump of labour fallacy and after reading it and checking on Google, I think we should just wipe out this article and redirect to that one. It seems to be a more commonly accepted term, and the article covers all the bases without that confusing Green politics example. Any objections? --Cvaneg 23:01, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Duplicate articles a merge option should have been placed on both pages. It was only placed on one. Also there was a vote of 10 to 0 on Talk:Lump of labour fallacy not to rename Lump of labour fallacy in the five days before the 22 April 2005 Philip Baird Shearer 10:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to redirect this page to Zero-sum thinking. "Zero-sum fallacy" is most commonly used for "Lump of labour fallacy" in economics (though even economists also use it for fallacies related to trade or growth). In other fields, "Zero-sum fallacy" refers to other fallacies caused by zero-sum thinking. Zero-sum thinking links to "Lump of labour fallacy" quite prominently. Polyamorph, Lithopsian, Philip Baird Shearer, Cvaneg, views? HLHJ (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The question is not so much whether the term is used in other fields (I don't think anyone would deny that it is), but whether there is a primary topic, and of course whether that primary topic is the lump of labour fallacy. The lump of labour fallacy always seemed a little obscure to me, but then I'm not an economist. You could try the change and see if anyone object, or alternatively discuss at WP:RfD, or one followed the other if necessary. Lithopsian (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I suspect that many non-economists would argue that Zero-sum thinking is the broad-concept article, and many economists would argue that the lump-of-labour fallacy is the primary topic. It's a reasonable disagreement; I have no idea how many people would have any association at all with the term, let alone which association.

I made two perhaps misguided attempts to make "Zero-sum fallacy" into a disambiguation page, and I don't want to edit war. I'll leave it for a while, and in the absence of contrary opinions here I'll do as you suggest (or someone else can, if I forget to return to this page). HLHJ (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

It's been a month, so I'm making the edit you suggested, Lithopsian. If anyone objects, they can revert and we'll discuss it further. HLHJ (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

References