Oh, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It's not effectively a zero-sum game until you near saturation. Before that point, the dynamics are the same as for an infinite resource.
How's about a game of poker with grains of sand as chips?
Second, you already admitted that the amount of attention can grow. There's only a finite amount of wealth represented in the balance sheets of everyone alive on the planet right this second, but no one claims wealth is a Zero Sum Game because there's no clear upper bound.
A finite number is always finite, even if it's so large that you can't comprehend it in normal human terms.
Oh, and arguably the amount of fame there is to be had is nowhere near unfathomable. I can list off the top of my head probably hundreds of "famous people", and I don't give a shit about celebrity. The only limit there is my memory, not a lack of famous people to think about. Our culture is absolutely packed with famous people, it's pretty clearly saturated.
A finite number is always finite, even if it's so large that you can't comprehend it in normal human terms.
You apparently misunderstood the point I made in the gp post. That has almost nothing to do with my argument. So, you are saying that any game where the scores at any moment are finite numbers is a zero-sum game.
Various economic activities are subject to many iterations across time.
"no one claims wealth is a Zero Sum Game"
Objectively wrong.
Okay, not enough words for the slightly uninformed to understand. There are people historically who have put forth theories based on the idea that globally wealth is zero-sum. I don't think anyone in economics takes them seriously any more.
Our culture is absolutely packed with famous people, it's pretty clearly saturated.
The >culture< -- meaning I presume, the general culture -- are you so soft-headed that you think this directly relates to the context of getting hired in a particular field or this discussion?
Exercise for the less than completely clued -- where in the previous discussion did I frame the relevant context of notoriety. Locate that, and reframe your arguent in that context. Then I might consider this intellectually worthwhile. As it is, I keep on having to explain things to someone who half-understands arguments.
Actually, this says nothing. Context matters greatly. Who cares if the issue is getting hired for a geology job in Houston, but the population of Bollywood stars is exploding?
How's about a game of poker with grains of sand as chips?
Second, you already admitted that the amount of attention can grow. There's only a finite amount of wealth represented in the balance sheets of everyone alive on the planet right this second, but no one claims wealth is a Zero Sum Game because there's no clear upper bound.
Oh, and BTW, hahaha...