Competition

jnifw3nloi · 04-26-2007, 06:54 AM

Competiton. BAH! Excessive competition is the worst. Whu should humanity constantly compete with itself. We have long outstripped the need for competition in order to survive. We are no longer the mindless animals that abide by the laws of Darwin. We are sentient beings. We are self aware and we work much better united than divided. I do not mean to say that all competition is bad. The casual friendly competition is all well and good, it keeps people thinking.
But the constant competition to the knife in the world damages what humanity has created.
Men compete with each other to see who is the smartest. In the end it is the man that is only slightly smarter, slightly faster, slightly more attuned that gets all of the credit. And those who tried jsut as hard, who did just as much, who contributed just as much but did it a little slower are left behind.
Their acomplishments mean nothing. Their imput is unimportant. Their existance? HA. Why should they exist? They are not the best. They are always slightly worse, they do not matter.

Such competition benefits only one man. One of many. One who, despite his intellect and prowess in his field, still depends on the work of his "lesser" comrades. Who still must stand on the shoulders of his predecessors. Who can help humanity progress but only with the help of his "lesser" peers. But the "lesser" man's contribution is always unseen, unheard and, to the "greater" man, unimportant.
It was not one man who built civilization. It was not one man who hoisted humanity from the depths of oblivion. It was not one man who revolutionized the world. It was not one man who changed it. But it often takes only one man to take the fame and claim the glory.
For example, Sir Issac Newton, who was in his own right a genius, is often credited with the entirety of what is written in his Principia. I am not saying that he believed everything was his own, but that is what the vast majority sees.
Newton was not the sole creator of calsulus, his theories or his Principia. The foundations upon which his Principia rest were built by many men over many years. Many men who did just as much as Newton. Who conceived things that were deemed heretical at the time. Tho drove progress, but they are seldom remembered or mentioned.
The needless competition that goes on today does nothing but stifle human growth. It elevates one person above all for nithing but being a little better. It harms humanity. Many can no longer engage in thought or play or creativity because doing so would let others compete with them. It would let others take away the accomplishments of the person who is resting. What he did would mean nothing because someone else did it a little faster, or a little better.
Thoughts?

killy750 · 04-26-2007, 06:56 AM

the reason why the humanity competes is because evryone wants more that the other, thats the only reason, the only one that doesnt compits is the one that is already pleased with what he has

jnifw3nloi · 04-26-2007, 07:18 AM

Is that the only reason?. People can still want much and compete so viciously to attain it. Should society encourage cut-through competition?

killy750 · 04-26-2007, 07:19 AM

competition is everywhere you look at it, i think it will be many time befor we can fix it

jnifw3nloi · 04-26-2007, 07:36 AM

It takes understanding. I want a great deal of things. But I understand that no amount of labor and competition will fufill all of my want. This must be taught.

godless_musician · 04-26-2007, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jnifw3nloi

Competiton. BAH! Excessive competition is the worst. Whu should humanity constantly compete with itself. We have long outstripped the need for competition in order to survive. We are no longer the mindless animals that abide by the laws of Darwin. We are sentient beings. We are self aware and we work much better united than divided. I do not mean to say that all competition is bad. The casual friendly competition is all well and good, it keeps people thinking.

If by the laws of Darwin you mean the laws of natural selection, we can't escape that. It's a simple fact that those who are more successful at reproduction will be more populous. (But we are evolving as a society much faster than we evolve biologically, so I see your point.)

I don't think there is anything wrong with competition per se, but if it is harmful to the competitors or compassion is ignored than it is negative.
I think that any competition can be good so long as the competitors involved understand that winning is not everything--more in the spirit of a game than of a fight to the death.

Quote:

But the constant competition to the knife in the world damages what humanity has created.
Men compete with each other to see who is the smartest. In the end it is the man that is only slightly smarter, slightly faster, slightly more attuned that gets all of the credit. And those who tried jsut as hard, who did just as much, who contributed just as much but did it a little slower are left behind.
Their acomplishments mean nothing. Their imput is unimportant. Their existance? HA. Why should they exist? They are not the best. They are always slightly worse, they do not matter.

Competition does not *always* divide people so clearly into a single winner and all the rest losers. Often there is a graded scale of success, especially with biological evolution, for an example. In that case the slightly smarter or slightly faster are rewarded only slightly more. I think systems like that are much more accurate and honorable.

Quote:

Such competition benefits only one man. One of many. One who, despite his intellect and prowess in his field, still depends on the work of his "lesser" comrades. Who still must stand on the shoulders of his predecessors. Who can help humanity progress but only with the help of his "lesser" peers. But the "lesser" man's contribution is always unseen, unheard and, to the "greater" man, unimportant.

But what you just described isn't competition. That's a degree of "cooperation", or if you like, parasitism. In competition the competitors don't depend on one another. Society works by many different types of relationships--among them competition, parasitism, mutual aid, and worst of all mutual harm.

Quote:

It was not one man who built civilization. It was not one man who hoisted humanity from the depths of oblivion. It was not one man who revolutionized the world. It was not one man who changed it. But it often takes only one man to take the fame and claim the glory.
For example, Sir Issac Newton, who was in his own right a genius, is often credited with the entirety of what is written in his Principia. I am not saying that he believed everything was his own, but that is what the vast majority sees.
Newton was not the sole creator of calsulus, his theories or his Principia. The foundations upon which his Principia rest were built by many men over many years. Many men who did just as much as Newton. Who conceived things that were deemed heretical at the time. Tho drove progress, but they are seldom remembered or mentioned.

Although Newton synthesized a great number of ideas into his own (as we all do,) he himself had to be the final step in that synthesis, and his work did take a lot of human genius. Yes, he did acknowledge that he "stood on the shoulders of giants," but at the same time you have to acknowledge that an individual *can* make a huge single contribution to society. There are not just large masses of people toiling anonymously, there is also the occasionial hero in the bunch.

Quote:

The needless competition that goes on today does nothing but stifle human growth. It elevates one person above all for nithing but being a little better. It harms humanity. Many can no longer engage in thought or play or creativity because doing so would let others compete with them. It would let others take away the accomplishments of the person who is resting. What he did would mean nothing because someone else did it a little faster, or a little better.
Thoughts?

That's true, partly. As I said above, it isn't always "one man wins, all the rest lose." Also even the less-than-winners can enjoy the competition not for the sake of winning the big prize but of testing their own skills and abilities.

As an example, there are thousands of pianists out there who are far, far better than I am or will ever be. I do have to compete with them. But I am honored to. Although they will always outstrip me, trying to keep up will be a joy.

Keep in mind a lot of the "competition" you talk about is infused with exploitation as well. I don't consider that true competition.

jnifw3nloi · 04-27-2007, 07:58 AM

That is precisely my point. It is in reality cooperation. But society does not see that. It regularly elevates one above all else. Something that does nothing but skew belief and reality.
The occasional hero does make a huge difference. But he is not an indispensible part. The theory of Relativity would have eventually been created even without Herr Einstein. Gravity would have been described, even without Newton.
Still, even is people are awarded based on their accomplishments, the ones who are "better" will always get much more credit than is due. Much more credit than is needed.
There is not true competition, there will be no true lack of competition. These are the very unfortunate facts that must be seen and judged.

godless_musician · 04-27-2007, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jnifw3nloi

That is precisely my point. It is in reality cooperation. But society does not see that. It regularly elevates one above all else. Something that does nothing but skew belief and reality.
The occasional hero does make a huge difference. But he is not an indispensible part. The theory of Relativity would have eventually been created even without Herr Einstein. Gravity would have been described, even without Newton.
Still, even is people are awarded based on their accomplishments, the ones who are "better" will always get much more credit than is due. Much more credit than is needed.
There is not true competition, there will be no true lack of competition. These are the very unfortunate facts that must be seen and judged.

In that case I agree with you. But about heroes: I disagree that those few great individuals are "not indispensable." They are incredibly indispensable. Some of the major syntheses, the major leaps forward are simple ideas which only an individual--not a group working together--could make. I think you ascribe too broad a sphere of things to groups or collectives and too narrow a domain to individuals. Although groups together can accomplish much more than an individual working alone, only an individual can: think, learn, reason, feel--in the same way that only an individual can eat or sleep. Without those *individual* capacities to reason and judge, groups would be ineffective, except as factories for brainless toil. And without the great and indispensable individuals of history, all mankind would make only petty crawls forward. This is why competition is wonderful in its true form; it forces individuals to use their own minds and means to their full extent, instead of merely submitting to the will of a group. Keep in mind that the greatest individuals have been those who *wouldn't* do what society wanted them to--instead they competed and won, and in the process everyone gained (except those who refused to accept the contribution.)

jnifw3nloi · 04-30-2007, 04:09 AM

It was not my intention to devalue the individual. Only to show that the rights of the individual are no more important than the rights of everybody else. The well-being of one individual should not be held above the well-being of an entire peoples or an entire nation.

FutureNavyMan08 · 04-30-2007, 04:16 AM

Competition brings progress. Enough said.

jnifw3nloi · 04-30-2007, 04:21 AM

Really? Progress? When people are constantly killing each other? Is that progress? Much more can be accomplished in union.

FutureNavyMan08 · 04-30-2007, 04:31 AM

In union there is no motivation. Ever wonder why technology is constantely advancing? Because companies are constantely competeing with each other. They bring in new products to get an advantage over the competition. To get rid of competition, you must give one company a monopoly. This leads to higher prices. Plus, people would be forced to purchase only that companies goods. There would be no choices. The less companies in competition, the less people that are making money.

Lack of competition is economic suicide.

jnifw3nloi · 04-30-2007, 05:17 AM

I do not remember mentioning the economy in my posts. Union does not mean then end of motivation. Competition is not the only engine that drive the progress of humanity. Curiosity is much more powerful. The greatest achievements were not the result of competition, but the result of curiosity. Einstein is an example of this. He was not competing with anyone, he was acting on curiosity. Similarly, Newton and Maxwell, their discoveries were not the result of competiton but of curiosity. And they have influenced the world.

godless_musician · 04-30-2007, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jnifw3nloi

I do not remember mentioning the economy in my posts. Union does not mean then end of motivation. Competition is not the only engine that drive the progress of humanity. Curiosity is much more powerful. The greatest achievements were not the result of competition, but the result of curiosity. Einstein is an example of this. He was not competing with anyone, he was acting on curiosity. Similarly, Newton and Maxwell, their discoveries were not the result of competiton but of curiosity. And they have influenced the world.

Hmmmm... Thomas Edison is a notable counterexample. Although competition also drove him to electrocute elephants... poor things.

You're quite right. Competition is far from the only thing that drives progress. Even in biological evolution a lot of it is driven by cooperation between species, rather than mere tooth-and-nail competition for survival.