Competition

    • Competition

      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?
    • Re: Competition

      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.
      [SIZE=1]"Religious suffering is the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature... It is the opium of the people." ~Karl Marx [/SIZE][SIZE=1]
      “Everything must justify its existence before the judgment seat of Reason, or give up existence”~ Engels[/SIZE]
    • Re: Competition

      jnifw3nloi wrote:

      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.


      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.


      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.


      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.


      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.
      And your very flesh shall be a great poem.
      -Walt Whitman
    • Re: Competition

      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.
      [SIZE=1]"Religious suffering is the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature... It is the opium of the people." ~Karl Marx [/SIZE][SIZE=1]
      “Everything must justify its existence before the judgment seat of Reason, or give up existence”~ Engels[/SIZE]
    • Re: Competition

      jnifw3nloi wrote:

      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.)
      And your very flesh shall be a great poem.
      -Walt Whitman
    • Re: Competition

      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.
      [SIZE=1]"Religious suffering is the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature... It is the opium of the people." ~Karl Marx [/SIZE][SIZE=1]
      “Everything must justify its existence before the judgment seat of Reason, or give up existence”~ Engels[/SIZE]
    • Re: Competition

      Really? Progress? When people are constantly killing each other? Is that progress? Much more can be accomplished in union.
      [SIZE=1]"Religious suffering is the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature... It is the opium of the people." ~Karl Marx [/SIZE][SIZE=1]
      “Everything must justify its existence before the judgment seat of Reason, or give up existence”~ Engels[/SIZE]
    • Re: Competition

      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.
      It is a sad day when an innocent nation's flag is decried as hate speech.

      If I say it, I believe it. Most of the time, anyway. :lol:
    • Re: Competition

      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.
      [SIZE=1]"Religious suffering is the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature... It is the opium of the people." ~Karl Marx [/SIZE][SIZE=1]
      “Everything must justify its existence before the judgment seat of Reason, or give up existence”~ Engels[/SIZE]
    • Re: Competition

      jnifw3nloi wrote:

      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.
      And your very flesh shall be a great poem.
      -Walt Whitman
    • Re: Competition

      First, let me state a policy advocated by Charles Darwin that most of you are familier with: Survival of the fitest.

      Now, changes (in Darwins case, evolution) are not always due to competition. But 99% of the time, they are. A notable exception would be the fainting goat- and animal that collapses easily under stress and is thus easy prey. Animals- which, as the purest form of nature are reflective of possible human tendancies- sometimes do live in symbiosis. For example, the clown fish and the sea anemone. Each has something to gain in this relationship: the clownfish its food, the anemone cleanliness. This factor, however, has proved unsuccesful when used on large scale. The fall of the communist regime in Russia, as well as thoose in the surrounding countries, proves this point. Another point worth of consideration- mob rule.
      It is a sad day when an innocent nation's flag is decried as hate speech.

      If I say it, I believe it. Most of the time, anyway. :lol:
    • Re: Competition

      I must ask that you elaborate your rahter nebulous remarks.
      What makes you say that living in symbiosis does not work? All things are based on such a princicple. One man cannot produce all of the things that he requires in order to live, thus he depends on another man to provide such goods. In turn, he provides the goods the other man needs to live. Is this not symbiosis?
      Furthermore, I cannot see why you consistently use the Soviet Union as a "failed" example of communism. Where is the progress of capitalism in the third world? Where is the benefit to the workers there? One cannot judge communism as a faliure after its first implementation has not resulted in an Eden. It has takes centuries for democracy to be implemented, to some degree. And Capitalism is still far from perfect.
      [SIZE=1]"Religious suffering is the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature... It is the opium of the people." ~Karl Marx [/SIZE][SIZE=1]
      “Everything must justify its existence before the judgment seat of Reason, or give up existence”~ Engels[/SIZE]
    • Re: Competition

      FutureNavyMan08 wrote:

      First, let me state a policy advocated by Charles Darwin that most of you are familier with: Survival of the fitest.


      "Survival of the fittest" was a term coined by Herbert Spencer, who borrowed Darwin's ideas and applied them to socioeconomics.


      Now, changes (in Darwins case, evolution) are not always due to competition. But 99% of the time, they are. A notable exception would be the fainting goat- and animal that collapses easily under stress and is thus easy prey. Animals- which, as the purest form of nature are reflective of possible human tendancies- sometimes do live in symbiosis. For example, the clown fish and the sea anemone. Each has something to gain in this relationship: the clownfish its food, the anemone cleanliness. This factor, however, has proved unsuccesful when used on large scale. The fall of the communist regime in Russia, as well as thoose in the surrounding countries, proves this point. Another point worth of consideration- mob rule.


      Stalin's Russia was neither competition nor symbiosis; it was oppression. In the environment, symbiosis is extremely common. Even mitochondria--the cell organelles that give us energy--are evolved from a mutualistic relationship inside our cells. Cooperation and mutual dependency plays a very undervalued role in evolution.

      You can't always draw parallels between biological evolution and the evolution of human societies. In evolution, it's genes that are trying to survive. In human societies, it's people that are trying to survive, and not merely to survive but to live happy and meaningful lives. That requires a lot more than competition for bare survival and reproduction--although some people seem to think that eating and fucking are only ends of human existence.
      And your very flesh shall be a great poem.
      -Walt Whitman
    • Re: Competition

      I do not recall this thread being about communism. Hrm... You know what Churchill said about fanatics, "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." If you are this, I suggest leaving this thread.
      [SIZE=1]"Religious suffering is the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature... It is the opium of the people." ~Karl Marx [/SIZE][SIZE=1]
      “Everything must justify its existence before the judgment seat of Reason, or give up existence”~ Engels[/SIZE]