Living and Banking Systems Comparison: Prisoners' Dilemma "Win-Win" is not the Solution

Abstract

To survive that is 'to eat and not to be eaten' so as to live on. Whatever its spatial and temporal level of organization, every living system owns 7 invariant qualitative degrees of freedom. Any living system is formed by embedments and juxtapositions of pre-existing systems. The same goes for man banking systems! How are the local quantitative laws of the spatial-temporal structuring and functioning of banking systems associated with the basic law of survival of living systems? How do the local actors become mutually integrated into their global whole? And reversely (systemic constructal law), why and how is the global whole reciprocally integrating the local parceners? Is victory a strategic success? What are the roots of interdependence, conflicts and strategic order challenges? How is emerging a new power balance? Can banking systems survive as parasitic systems? Like a “food chain“ is a “money chain“ a way of violence escalade? The evolution of living systems is often seen as a “cooperative evolution” resulting from altruist behaviours. It could be modelled and simulated using games such as the prisoners' dilemma game, a game that shows why 2 individuals might not cooperate, even though it appears to be in their best interests to do so. Is the “prisoners' dilemma“ game justifying extortion? What can we learn from Reinforcement Learning Dynamics in Social Dilemmas? In reality, humans display a systematic bias towards cooperative behaviour, much more so than predicted by models of "rational" self-interested action. Models based on different kinds of payoffs and driving forces (where people forecast how the game would be played if they formed coalitions to maximize their forecasts) are shown to make better predictions which resemble reality.