Competition vs. Cooperation

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

I wanted to bring politics down to its fundamental level to explain why I believe in what I do. While I want to succeed in life personally, what's far more important to me is the survival of the species. One reason why I can't buy into certain religious beliefs is I love humanity. We may be flawed, but I don't think it makes us wretched sinners who need the guidance of an arguably more enlightened wretched sinner.

We do some terrible things throughout the world but I think its our competitive nature that is at the fundamental heart of these conflicts. We form various divisions and then compete, sometimes in friendly ways, sometimes in not-so-friendly ways.

Yes, in nature competition is a basic principle that drives evolution. Survival of the fittest ensures the survival of the species that are strong enough to make it, and those who don't cease to exist. And while technically we may be animals ourselves, we have one thing they don't have: conscience.

It's basically the herd mentality taken to a conscious level. We care about each other because there's strength in unity. We often consider people who risk and sacrifice for others to be heroes or noble.

Of course we also admire those who win, those who achieve. But does competition still make us better? In some ways it has. It's driven us to create new technologies to help us compete, so it's contributed greatly to our technical evolution. I just don't think that competition makes us better people, just stronger persons. I think of Terrel Owens and many others who may be among the best at what they do, but they are hardly an example that many of us wish to follow.

We have in us the ability to transcend the fundamental need for competition and to truly work together. Can you imagine what could be accomplished if we stopped fighting over ethnic, religious, and political grounds and worked purely toward our betterment as a species? A lofty dream perhaps, but I think it's one of two inevitable results. The other is we lock ourselves in eternal struggle until we all die. Personally, I'd rather have the first option.

Comments

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

I just don't think that competition makes us better people, just stronger persons.
All else being equal, a stronger person is a better person.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

No, they are just stronger.

Gandhi may not win a boxing match but he's a better person because he dedicated his life to helping others.

The strongest man in the world can still be a douchebag.

[savagemind.livejournal.com]

This is why I supported Obama for the Presidency. I'm pretty sure he could beat McCain in an arm wrestling match.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

pressing [search keyword: Obama]
results: N/A

pressing [search keyword: Limbaugh]
results: N/A

Running away, crying.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

So this.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

If you want I can add this line to the end:

In conclusion, Obama > Rush

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

It has been said that the Right rejects evolution but accepts its implications, the Left accepts evolution but rejects its implications. This post is part of the evidence of how true that statement is. Evolution is both true and indicates there are severe limits to human organization and to how much we can and can't co-operate.

And animals have both culture and conscience also, to judge by the Common Chimpanzee. Humans always focus on trivially tiny divisions instead of a broader uniting basis, there's not even that much that really separates Christianity and Islam, and yet which two battling bands of idiots monopolized world discourse since the rise of the Banu Ummaya? Given the pathetically easy means of dividing the species, Pan-Humanism is and always will be an illusion. If New York's West Side cannot understand its East side, how is the US to work together with people like the Bushmen or the Pashtuns?

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Aren't we getting too vague and general? Give one example of thorough interaction between the US and the Bushmen (save for the The Gods Must Be Crazy interpretation).

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

It's only an illusion if we continue to believe it's so. I feel that unity is inevitable, but then again when it comes down to it I'm an optimist at heart. Part of my Daoist nature I suppose.

It's not going to happen in our lifetimes, but it WILL happen. Or like I said, we'll eventually kill each other and probably take this planet out in the process.

[ex-lost-kit.livejournal.com]

I think that even if people were inclined to work together perfectly, their inability to make unbiased collective priorities would predictably doom the entire process.

On the other hand, cooperation and competition aren't exactly mutually exclusive. I'd essentially make the Hayekian critique here: Society is waaaaay too complicated for most allocative decisions to be effectively made in some centralized manner, even if the allocators could be trusted. Competition can then be engaged in within an overall framework of cooperation in order for individuals with good information to succeed in the marketplace and ultimately reconfigure it in a favorable manner. Consumer sovereignty is an incredibly easy, low-cost way to determine allocation based on value.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

Yes it would require a fundamental change in humanity in order for cooperation to be viable. The first step is to stop emphasizing our differences and to realize our common humanity. Spiritually we're not ready for such a change yet. However, like I said, I think it's inevitable.

I agree, society is way too complicated right now. We'd have to strip away a lot of baggage before we can look at things in its simplest terms, which is the only way we'll discover our common ground.

[gillen.livejournal.com]

"Can you imagine what could be accomplished if we stopped fighting over ethnic, religious, and political grounds and worked purely toward our betterment as a species?"

Yes, and the sooner the other guys stop opposing us, the sooner we can get down to doing just that. ;)

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

Yeah! Selfish bastards.

The answer should be obvious: both tactics are valid and necessary.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

Organisms use both in nature more or less equally.

In fact, what is any multicellular organism but an advanced colony of individual cells cooperating, while at the same time competing for resources from the bloodstream?

Pack hunters work together to find and take down prey, then compete to see who get's the best share.
Herd animals stay together for safety from predators, but compete for food, mating rights, etc.

Use each tactic where appropriate.
Discarding either is stupid.

Re: The answer should be obvious: both tactics are valid and necessary.

[weswilson]

Yes.

To deny that competition breeds excellence is to remain oblivious to the natural behaviors of man. To ignore the strength in unity and the value of specialization is to deny the behaviors of nature.

That being said, I think we are in a new period of evolution. We have stopped requiring our bodies to evolve to deal with our environment and have started requiring our minds to evolve. I'm unsure that physical evolution has much applicability anymore. Our apparent goal to our species as we find ways to maximize our wants is to find a way to balance our wants and our needs. Damn hippie-talk, I tell ya.

Re: The answer should be obvious: both tactics are valid and necessary.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

But we're not wolves or cows or whatever. We have it in us to transcend all that. We're too cynical to accomplish it now, and self-centered, but like I said I believe it is an inevitable step in our evolution.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

Makes me thirsty.

[paris-of-priam.livejournal.com]

Damned if a lot of hippies didn't get laid to the sound of that tune.

[lordtwinkie.livejournal.com]

evolution (natural selection) and survival of the fittest are two different things

[savagemind.livejournal.com]

Yes, one exists and the other is an invention of the Devil.

[savagemind.livejournal.com]

Competition vs. cooperation is a good way to put it. Both have their merits, but I think that it's the thoughtful union of the two that achieves the most success.

You mentioned Terrel Owens. Football is a good example of this; a competition with defined boundaries. The field needs to be kept open enough to allow the stars to shine, but the rules shouldn't be so open that the match devolves into a mass flogging where everyone just beats the living crap out of one another. People who think that flogging style of competition work don't have a lot of sympathy for their fellow man and usually have the added advantage of being handed a very large club at birth.

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

True. Hell I love football, it's thrilling and fun. I think if we continue to limit competition to the "friendly" kind that we'll be okay. The Olympics, for all its flaws, is a good example of competition and cooperation working together.

I just think competition's outlived its usefulness in real world application. We can continue to evolve and develop without it, hell I think we'd evolve even faster if we'd stop competing.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Competition vs co-operation is a black and white world. However it's not black and white.

Every religion seems to teach a third alternative; Sacrifice. Islam is derived from the Arabic verb Aslama, which means "to accept, surrender or submit." Jesus died on the cross for us and our sins. Buddah gave up everything. Sacrifice is the ultimate lesson, the most difficult and painful deed.

I have been a VHEMNT (http://www.vhemt.org/) supporter for many years. People generally go "Whoa!" when I first mention this. I don't believe we should all just kill ourselves ASAP. I do believe in discouraging breeding. I do believe that the current population is unsustainable and that almost all the problems we currently face can be solved with a population decrease. Of course this takes some sacrifice.

Think about the world problems. Peak oil. Pollution. Disease. The economy. Religious/political intolerance. I suppose if we co-operate, some of these problems could be solved. Maybe all of them. But I'm not sure that the world has the luxury of enough time to work out differences and co-operate for the common good.

The sacrifice of voluntary extinction resolves what co-operation can't. And in the time frame of a generation.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Did the extinction of the Neanderthals save European megafauna? Humans going extinct won't fix our mess or the presents we'll leave behind. About 3 or so years after we're all extinct and the nuclear power plants blow sky-high....the animals will have preferred our continued existence to our disapppearance. Then again, chimps might take up where we left off.....

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

I've been thinking about this and have concluded that the fastest and most expedient means to get all of mankind to unite would be for aliens to invade the earth.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Aliens invade at their leisure. It like watching paint dry and stay watching until it fades and peels.

Far more expedient would be for super volcano's, global flu pandemics, and other natural disasters to unite us.