Game, Not Fight

This article argues that in the long run gaming (i.e., managing unstable equilibria while maintaining societal sustainability) serves better as a strategy against the undesired effects of global change (GC) than fighting (i.e., understanding only one’s own standpoint, but not the standpoint of one’s adversaries). GC is believed to be driven by a bundle of drivers, some of which are global long-term trends that are almost impossible to change. Climate change is only one component of this syndrome. GC exerts a bundle of effects on society. Given this interlinked and systemic character of GC, an explorative, reflexive, dialogue -driven strategy allowing for continuous adaptation, rather than a theory -driven predesigned solution, is advocated. Taking roles allows actors to perceive the paradigms and perspectives of adversaries. Hence, game-based (but structured) procedures allow the taking of adversarial positions without being compromised. As an example of such procedural structuration, the negotiation game SURFING GLOBAL CHANGE (SGC, © Gilbert Ahamer) published earlier in this journal is recommended. The social dynamics of SGC is graphically analyzed. SGC was implemented three dozen times with students within several university curricula such as Environmental Systems Science or Global Studies training developmental cooperation. Through changing roles, SGC allows one to walk through the complex argumentative landscape while gaming. This article proposes several conclusions to the way in which gaming should respond to the complex patterns of GC.