Wolves and Sheep

[Paul B. Gallagher]

Timothy D. Sergay wrote:

> Dear Robert and All,
>
> "Win-win" is also inherently paradoxical: it's just as "impossible"
> as volki syty/ovtsy tsely. It's a metaphor from organized sports, in
> which there are two sides that by definition cannot both "win,"
> applied to "zero-sum" situations (as in "predator/prey relations")
> where two persons or parties are pursuing (or seem to be pursuing)
> directly conflicting interests.

The problem with the assumptions outlined above is that not all games
are zero-sum games, so win-win is often possible. For example, the
traditional clear-cutting approach to logging produces a one-time gain
and destroys the forest, but a sustainable approach allows the logging
company to continue harvesting over many years (they win) while the
forest remains alive and vital (it wins). Similarly, the investment of
feeding and caring for your sheep provides the benefit of wool (you
win), while the sheep experience the benefit of health and survival
(they win).

> If you resolve those interests artfully enough, you can represent
> the outcome as, surprisingly, win-win.

Win-win, cynics' criticism notwithstanding, is not always a
misrepresentation.

> I doubt that the Russian expression is invariably used ironically,
> and I doubt that win-win cannot be used ironically. But the test of
> any translation solution is always how convincing and readable it is
> in the context at hand, which we don't have.
> We're simply brainstorming potentially useful solutions.

Mm-hm. Here are some more musings...

In the wild, predators and scavengers play a useful role in keeping
populations within sustainable limits (overpopulation will just lead to
a sickly herd and perhaps a crash), and also in weeding out the less-fit
members of the prey herd. A herd that is allowed to reproduce without
any controls tends to preserve and distribute disease and
maladaptations.

Human owners of domesticated herds generally don't view predators as
useful. They want to maximize their profit by preserving *all* their
animals -- or at least those that can be profitably maintained. The
worst case for them is when a predator takes a young animal, which is
not very fit in terms of escaping from the predator but represents a
great potential profit as it grows to adulthood. So traditionally they
fight off predators at every turn. In that paradigm, a sated wolf is
good (no threat to the herd/profit), and when that can be achieved
without paying a price in sheep, the shepherd is delighted.

--
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
--
Paul B. Gallagher
pbg translations, inc.
"Russian Translations That Read Like Originals"
http://pbg-translations.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
  options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
                  http://home.attbi.com/~lists/seelangs/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------