NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a misunderstanding, largely furthered by advocates of a completely laissez faire system (also usually those who think America is hated due to 'jealousy' and other false hopes). Competitiveness only goes so far, it exists in the man made field of work - I would argue that Compassion is more of a instinctive human virtue more so than competition (we feel it all the time, et we hardly ever carry these feelings through and do something about it - because we have been taught that 'greed is good', that is not instinctive) - we are not so driven by greed that we exist in a virtual human money chain (as some capitalists would have you believe) where those at the bottom are killed by those at the top who have more money. It reminds me of a quote by the great Noam Chomsky.

TM: Wow. Well another unquestionable idea is that people are naturally competitive, and that therefore, capitalism is the only proper way to organize society. Do you agree?

NC: Look around you. In a family for example, if the parents are hungry do they steal food from the children? They would if they were competitive. In most social groupings that are even semi-sane people support each other and are sympathetic and helpful and care about other people and so on. Those are normal human emotions. It takes plenty of training to drive those feelings out of peoples heads, and they show up all over the place.

Like competiveness only goes so far, so does compassion. My proof for the naturalness of competiveness is MMORPGs. If you don't know what they are, I'm not going to point them out, but in almost any of these games, there are no built in controls on the economic systems and they all turn into capitalistic economies very quickly.

A MMORPG is hardly a fair parralel to draw to the real world - the emotion of compassion does not exist in a fictional world as there is nothing to drive this emotion.

A compassionate Nazi, thats a first!

...who believes in Communism over Capitalism...

I agree completely. Modern capitalism has taught people that competitiveness is good, it is not a natural virtue.

This is a misunderstanding, largely furthered by advocates of a completely laissez faire system (also usually those who think America is hated due to jealousy). Competitiveness only goes so far - I would argue that Compassion is more of a instinctive human virtue more so than competition - we are not so driven by greed that we exist is a virtual human money chain were those at the bottom are killed by those at the top who have more money. It reminds me of a quote by the great Noam Chomsky.

TM: Wow. Well another unquestionable idea is that people are naturally competitive, and that therefore, capitalism is the only proper way to organize society. Do you agree?

NC: Look around you. In a family for example, if the parents are hungry do they steal food from the children? They would if they were competitive. In most social groupings that are even semi-sane people support each other and are sympathetic and helpful and care about other people and so on. Those are normal human emotions. It takes plenty of training to drive those feelings out of peoples heads, and they show up all over the place.

Feeding your children IS competitive. Those children can then carry your genes on to the next generation. Not so if you starve them. However, this only goes to a certain extent. if you are hungry, you will feed your children. If you are starving you will not. No one will EVER starve themselves to death to feed their children (especially when you consider that if they die their children will probably starve)

A capitalist woman I once knew made the comparison with buying a hat.
You can either buy food for your child, or you can buy a hat for yourself
Now, as long as you value your child's life over the hat, the selfish thing to do is to feed your child.
Only if you value the hat over your child is feeding your child an act of selflessness

The Human race is NOT naturally competitive

And you'll fight to prove that?

Familes? watch children compete for their parents attention!

What about organised sports? What could be more fundamentally pointless than running up and down a football field risking quite serious injuries just 'to win', Win what? 'the comp' Why bother?
The reason we *need* organised sports is to redirect competitive instincts into a comparatively harmless venue, so that we don't have mobs of lager louts demanding we invade France.

That said, I don't like laissez-faire economics. If competition on the sports field requires rules, umpires and peope being sent off, why wouldn't competition elsewhere?

Well I could go into some parents (biological antecedents may perhaps be a better term) I know who are jealous of attention paid to thier children and Munchausen by Proxy disorder, but that would distract from meaningful dialogue.

I had a great argument about compassion being a vestige of early cognitive development when the child's concept of the self as distinct from thier enviroment was incomplete, and the only fully developed psyche was the true sociopath, but I just don't want to argue that one. It's probably defensible even though it turns childhood psychology on its head, but I just really cannot bring myself to leave it where some impressionable youngster might find it.

It's an interesting topic and I wonder where it will go.

I'll make a couple of points on this matter. Humanity's equal oldest profession is that of mercenary. It's longest standing activity, with the exception of procreation, and pre-dating agriculture, is warfare.

We are a predatory species, one of very few primates with carnivorous facets to their diet. Omnivorous only by virtue of the transitional phase of evolution we were caught in, between our tree-dwelling ape-like (NOT APE... ape-like. So shoo all those who wish to poo-poo my assertions on evolution) and plains-dwelling pure-carnivore.

We hunted (and, in some parts of the world, disregarding urban centres for the moment, continue to hunt) in packs, bringing down larger prey using equipment specifically designed for the purpose. Even at this stage, groups of humans fought each other, more often for direct survival than anything else, but fought nonetheless. Those who were unable or unwilling to fight to defend what was theirs very quickly fell by the way side. Homo Sapiens drove Neanderthals out of the better territories at spear-point, and spread across the world's surface like wildfire.

As time went on, warfare, in its capacity as both competition, and armed robbery writ large, has remained the ONLY constant throughout every inhabited continent (including Australia, where the aborigines implemented some fairly strict protocols for its conduct). To argue that humanity is NOT competitive is futile.

However, competition and compassion are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and there exist many examples of supreme altruism alongside supreme cruelty and brutality.

you mean like the compassion we had when we killed all the other human species?
or maybe the compassion of the khmer rouge?

well as a society, humans are naturaly both competetive and compassionate. for example when i run a cross country race i compete and want to beat every one else. but if someone gets badly hurt, i am the first one to help. I have compassion for the people of iraq but I had none for saddam hussein also. it is human to have both characteristics not one or neither.

Anyone who thinks we need to teach our children to be competitive has never watched a pair of two year olds fighting over a toy....

Our compassion may overrule our competitiveness, but it is still there and manifests itself in many areas of our lives.

The human race is very competitive. Compassion exists in a far lesser degree than the instinctual want to better the life for oneself. If compassion is so great an instinct, pray tell why are there wars, starvation, homelessness. Tell me how many upper class rich make donations to charities not for tax breaks but because they actually care. To say the human race is not naturally competitive is much like saying Imperialism never existed. It's like saying that jingoism was nothing but a funny word. It's like saying that two shop owners who operate the same type of store will help the other at the expense of his own profits.

That's ludicrous. Competitiveness is an instinct NECESSARY for the survival of a species. If competition is not natural how did humans get to the top of the food cahin? By cooperating with the other species? No by domination and control. By at first competiting with other species and then when having enough power dominating them and controlling them.

I think society itself teaches people to be competitive - Because its all we have ever known since Political Evolution started from The Feudal System a Millenia ago. I don't think its a case of Competitiveness inherent in people - just competitiveness being inherent in our society. There has been a great clamour to praise the virtues of being competitive over the prievous decades - mostly in attempts to undermine the Communists in the ideology war.

As for humans beings characters having some element of competitiveness in them, I do not deny that - 1500 years of Society leaves an indellable mark on a species character. However I believe that for the most part - compassion simply outweighs competitiveness. And that as Political Evolution begins progressing towards Direct Democracy (if the prievous centuries trend of halting it stops) then competitiveness will play a far smaller role in our lives than it does today.

Well put. Competition, and the urge to be competitive, is a requirement for the success of a species that is assailed by other species that will, if possible, eat it, or eat what it eats. Any non-competitive members of the species will rapidly find that their gene-stock isn't spreading very far. It is only now, as more-or-less undisputed top of the food chain on this planet that we have the luxury of, in some instances, choosing not to be competitive. A choice which, even now, is fraught with hazards and socio-economic pitfalls.

Well put. Competition, and the urge to be competitive, is a requirement for the success of a species that is assailed by other species that will, if possible, eat it, or eat what it eats. Any non-competitive members of the species will rapidly find that their gene-stock isn't spreading very far. It is only now, as more-or-less undisputed top of the food chain on this planet that we have the luxury of, in some instances, choosing not to be competitive. A choice which, even now, is fraught with hazards and socio-economic pitfalls.
But competition between two species is not the same as competition within a species. Most individuals of a species competes with other individuals of the same species and individuals of different species, but humans cooperated with other humans in order to outcompete the other species. People don't inherently need to compete with people.

Direct Democracy IS competition. People would still begin to want their views to be instated as law and would begin to campaign for certain issues, thus competing with the others. So how can you tell me that competition is not natural. IT is not only natural in society but in individuals. There is a basic instinct for possesiveness... People want something for themselves. Even as children, before any values really sink in. We want things for ourselves. We compete for them, because the most logical solution is to share them. That's why if competitveness was not a natural instinct, then direct democracy would be no government at all. One would do what he wants and the other even if his natural rights are infringe would oblige.

But if some desparate soul steals you wallet you won't say, "Oh I'm so happy, the man probably needed it." You would be angered because you and your family lose something thats valuable to you.

yep - no one competes over...let's say...mates...

No, that's not natural at all

I think society itself teaches people to be competitive - Because its all we have ever known since Political Evolution started from The Feudal System a Millenia ago. I don't think its a case of Competitiveness inherent in people - just competitiveness being inherent in our society. There has been a great clamour to praise the virtues of being competitive over the prievous decades - mostly in attempts to undermine the Communists in the ideology war.

As for humans beings characters having some element of competitiveness in them, I do not deny that - 1500 years of Society leaves an indellable mark on a species character. However I believe that for the most part - compassion simply outweighs competitiveness. And that as Political Evolution begins progressing towards Direct Democracy (if the prievous centuries trend of halting it stops) then competitiveness will play a far smaller role in our lives than it does today.

1500 years probably wouldn't be enough time to "leave a mark" on a species.

Competitiveness is a basic "instinct" for every living thing. Everything competes with others of the same/different species for resources and the ability to reproduce.

Compassion (Cooperation) only arises because we live in social groups, where the "hurt" to you when you help someone is offset by the return you gain later on or in other ways. And that evolved back when we lived in close groups, not spread out across the world.

There's a great deal of literature in the field of socio-biology that talks about this. It's quite fascinating. :)

competition is a biological process whereby we have evolution. humanity has evolved this into social competition... but it is still the same old game.

People don't inherently need to compete with people.
So why do we? Is it because we as a society are educated to do so? No we in kindergarden learn to share, but still we do not form utopian colonies where there is communism and cooperation.

Why does communism fail? Because people want to be better than one another. You may probably tell me that the dictatorship communism failed because of corruption and brutal tactics of the leaders. But then again look how many utopian colonies were set up and failed when their good hearted founders died off.

But competition between two species is not the same as competition within a species. Most individuals of a species competes with other individuals of the same species and individuals of different species, but humans cooperated with other humans in order to outcompete the other species. People don't inherently need to compete with people.

There are, as I have previously covered, as many, if not more, examples of humanity competing with itself than there are examples of humanity co-operating. But the truth of the matter is that, as social organisms, we must be both competitive and co-operative. The two aspects just come in varying degrees, depending on the context in question.

Put another way, if everyone was co-operative, I'd be out of a job

1500 years probably wouldn't be enough time to "leave a mark" on a species.

Competitiveness is a basic "instinct" for every living thing. Everything competes with others of the same/different species for resources and the ability to reproduce.

Compassion (Cooperation) only arises because we live in social groups, where the "hurt" to you when you help someone is offset by the return you gain later on or in other ways. And that evolved back when we lived in close groups, not spread out across the world.

There's a great deal of literature in the field of socio-biology that talks about this. It's quite fascinating. :)

I have just explained that competitiveness arises due to the political systems that exist today and have existed for the prievous 1500 years. Compassion is part of the basic human character, and I would agree that, as society progresses, compassion becomes more evident all around us - However the current stalling of political evolution is helping nothing. I remember that Podhoretz dismissed the "Political Dissedentry" during The Vietnam War as the "sickly inhibitions against the use of military force", but surely this dissedentry that rose during the 60's is, by definition, an advance in democracy and a major step in political evolution.

Sorry for bringing this a bit off topic - but I really hate those of stand in the way of direct democracy. Reagan won the election in the late 70's, but the policies he declared after his inaguration were not wanted by 80% of the American populace - yet he could go ahead and do them anyway - because democracy in this day and age is simply 'vote for a leader and then take a spectatorial role.' What ever happened to the ideas of the great visionaries of Ancient Greece?!

1500 years probably wouldn't be enough time to "leave a mark" on a species.
The human race is not just "any" species. Even 30 years can obviously leave a mark on a single person, and this person would have an extremely complex set of social behaviors.


Competitiveness is a basic "instinct" for every living thing. Everything competes with others of the same/different species for resources and the ability to reproduce.

True, but that doesn't have to be promoted to a point where competition is viewed as a desirable thing. People can be taught to suppress that feeling and be made to instinctively recoil from competition in favor of cooperation, in all instances, life or death.


Compassion (Cooperation) only arises because we live in social groups, where the "hurt" to you when you help someone is offset by the return you gain later on or in other ways. And that evolved back when we lived in close groups, not spread out across the world.

But cooperation is even more important today because of all the different people with different occupations that may be beneficial to us. We have to interact with countless numbers of these people.

But if some desparate soul steals you wallet you won't say, "Oh I'm so happy, the man probably needed it." You would be angered because you and your family lose something thats valuable to you.

Thats a stupid example - it just proves you are another right winger who likes to bring up incredibly common hypothetical situations - but change them by having the character involved say something relative to the opinion of what I am saying about a different topic. But I tend to break down crime into 3 Categories.

- Crime due to Social Problems (lack of education/wealth/opportunities e.t.c Basically can be solved by solving social issues).

- Mental defficiencies leading to crime (can cover rape, murder e.t.c. Can be solved by extensive counselling).

- Passion Crimes (They will always exist).

I have just explained that competitiveness arises due to the political systems that exist today and have existed for the prievous 1500 years.


Apparently you were not listening - there has been competition as long as men have been after women...so basically forever...

We are talking about competitiveness in the business sense. Political systems that have existed encourage this. Using the example of humans being naturally competitive when desiring those of the opposite sex does not necessarily equate to competitiveness in business being inherent in the human mind.

And would you kindly not flame?

Sorry for bringing this a bit off topic - but I really hate those of stand in the way of direct democracy. Reagan won the election in the late 70's, but the policies he declared after his inaguration were not wanted by 80% of the American populace - yet he could go ahead and do them anyway - because democracy in this day and age is simply 'vote for a leader and then take a spectatorial role.' What ever happened to the ideas of the great visionaries of Ancient Greece?!

So is Germany a direct democracy now?

Ancient Greece? Where the wealthy males were able to vote?

So why do we? Is it because we as a society are educated to do so? No we in kindergarden learn to share, but still we do not form utopian colonies where there is communism and cooperation.
Kindergarten forms maybe 4 hours a day for 180 days in a year. The rest of the time you are immersed in a highly competitive society in which parents are always taking kids to activities "for the resume" and massive accumulations of wealth is promoted. When this type of society is repealed, and Kindergarten will not be overruled by an opposite message from society people will get in the habit of cooperating all the time.

Why does communism fail? Because people want to be better than one another. You may probably tell me that the dictatorship communism failed because of corruption and brutal tactics of the leaders. But then again look how many utopian colonies were set up and failed when their good hearted founders died off.
I believe communism is possible but nearly impossible. The social conditioning of people is so extremely difficult to overcome that you have to raise people to be communists from day one of life, and any other people tainted with the past society would not be able to participate in the new society. And such a scenario is very hard to achieve.

We are talking about competitiveness in the business sense. Political systems that have existed encourage this. Using the example of humans being naturally competitive when desiring those of the opposite sex does not necessarily equate to competitiveness in business being inherent in the human mind.

And would you kindly not flame?

flame?

It translates perfectly

So is Germany a direct democracy now?

Erm, what?

As far as I can tell, all you persist in doing in this thread is flaming - if you don't stop I will report you to the mods. Consider this a warning as it is MY thread and I want to keep this debate based on intellect rather than stupidity.

True, but that doesn't have to be promoted to a point where competition is viewed as a desirable thing. People can be taught to suppress that feeling and be made to instinctively recoil from competition in favor of cooperation, in all instances, life or death.
We aren't arguing whether cooperation or competition is better, we are arguing whether or not humans are naturally competitive, and you just admitted they are, and not only that, but also that they should suppress their natural urges to force the artificial cooperation :confused:

Thats a stupid example - it just proves you are another right winger who likes to bring up incredibly common hypothetical situations - but change them by having the character involved say something relative to the opinion of what I am saying about a different topic. But I tend to break down crime into 3 Categories.

- Crime due to Social Problems (lack of education/wealth/opportunities e.t.c Basically can be solved by solving social issues).

- Mental defficiencies leading to crime (can cover rape, murder e.t.c. Can be solved by extensive counselling).

- Passion Crimes (They will always exist).


Haha! ME? A right winger? Wow thats a good one.

So crime is due to social problems, but still, if you are so compassionate why can't you think that the man needed the money more than you? And how are you so sure that these social issues can actually be solved.

And please give me some surefire proof that mental defficiencies leading to crime can actually be solved by extensive counseling. And if you are going to find some statisitic please don't forget all vital information involving the setup for the study experiment... All the alpha and beta errors... How the data was collected. Etc. Don't give me a number.

Oh and also... I find it strange that you quote only one example and seek to disprove it while you ignore all other examples of competition I mentioned.

We are talking about competitiveness in the business sense. Political systems that have existed encourage this. Using the example of humans being naturally competitive when desiring those of the opposite sex does not necessarily equate to competitiveness in business being inherent in the human mind.

Uh...no?

1) Thread title = "The Human race is NOT naturally competitive" - Competitiveness for sexual partners does indeed disprove the title of the thread.

2) Civilization and the business world and politics aren't really natural in the sense that you are talking about so of course competitiveness wouldn't be natural...of course, neither would compassion...

3) Politics doesn't work if there is no competition.

Erm, what?

As far as I can tell, all you persist in doing in this thread is flaming - if you don't stop I will report you to the mods. Consider this a warning as it is MY thread and I want to keep this debate based on intellect rather than stupidity.


What are you talking about? My asking about German democracy is flaming, but your glee over the Cole bombing is ok.

So...is it a direct democracy?

We aren't arguing whether cooperation or competition is better, we are arguing whether or not humans are naturally competitive, and you just admitted they are, and not only that, but also that they should suppress their natural urges to force the artificial cooperation :confused:
Yes, natural urges can be suppressed. People do not have to be inherently competitive. They can be trained by society to be inherently cooperative. Not all instincts are given at birth... for example a fighter pilot will instinctively pull the control stick in a certain way to avoid hitting something. That instinct was not there at birth.

Uh...no?

1) Thread title = "The Human race is NOT naturally competitive" - Competitiveness for sexual partners does indeed disprove the title of the thread.



Thank you

We are talking about competitiveness in the business sense. Political systems that have existed encourage this. Using the example of humans being naturally competitive when desiring those of the opposite sex does not necessarily equate to competitiveness in business being inherent in the human mind.
One leads to the other. Because of our natural competitiveness in choosing a mate, we compete for the best job, so you have the best clothes, the best car- then you'll get the best girl
(surely there are other reasons- like competing for food, etc...)
and besides, you just claimed that we are not naturally competitive (which is objectively false) and even mentioned an example of competing for food- instead of business competition

And would you kindly not flame?
I wonder if calling someone a flamer for disagreeing with you in your own thread counts as a flame?....hmmm.....

Haha! ME? A right winger? Wow thats a good one.

So crime is due to social problems, but still, if you are so compassionate why can't you think that the man needed the money more than you? And how are you so sure that these social issues can actually be solved.

And please give me some surefire proof that mental defficiencies leading to crime can actually be solved by extensive counseling. And if you are going to find some statisitic please don't forget all vital information involving the setup for the study experiment... All the alpha and beta errors... How the data was collected. Etc. Don't give me a number.

Well, there are limits to compassion - mainly when they infringe on your civil liberties. But I don't think thats the point - there are 'extents' to compassion just like there are extents to competition, as Professor Chomsky said 'You wouldn't steal off of your own family to keep yourself individually competitive would you?

As for Mental Defficiencies - Extensive studies of the Human Mind still need to be carried out, though we understand the mind far better than before and we also comprehend that prison only serves into making and individual that has mental defficiencies even more bitter about society as a whole. Many psychologists draw upon Mental Defficiencies as a cause of crime because it is relative to acceptance in society. Somebody with say, Dyslexia is statistically more likely to commit a crime than somebody without dyslexia - though I would not argue that this is because they are stupid - but rather because they feel they are not accepted in society as a whole. If society can find a place for these people, then we can make progress.

Yes, natural urges can be suppressed. People do not have to be inherently competitive. They can be trained by society to be inherently cooperative. Not all instincts are given at birth... for example a fighter pilot will instinctively pull the control stick in a certain way to avoid hitting something. That instinct was not there at birth.
if they are naturally competitive, then they are inherently competitive- natural is the definition of inherent
But the question, as I said, was simply whether or not it was natural for us to be competitive, which you've conceded. We aren't arguing the goodness or badness of it- there are other threads open for that

Would someone please disprove all the points I made in my post or stop posting on this thread? I do believe I completely killed this conversation.

Uh...no?

1) Thread title = "The Human race is NOT naturally competitive" - Competitiveness for sexual partners does indeed disprove the title of the thread.

Competition for sexual partners does not even need to be the instinct of a human. There are primitive societies where males share females, and of course there are those infamous hippie orgies. As mind boggling as it may seem to those of us who have been living in a 5000-year old monogamist society competition can be eliminated from everything in our lives.

2) Civilization and the business world and politics aren't really natural in the sense that you are talking about so of course competitiveness wouldn't be natural...of course, neither would compassion...

Civilization is very natural... it is the human species' way of adopting to its environment, just like the dambuilding habit of beavers. Compassion is a natural consequence of civilization.

3) Politics doesn't work if there is no competition.
Likewise where there is no competition there is no politics.

Uh...no?

1) Thread title = "The Human race is NOT naturally competitive" - Competitiveness for sexual partners does indeed disprove the title of the thread.

this is true...
2) Civilization and the business world and politics aren't really natural in the sense that you are talking about so of course competitiveness wouldn't be natural...of course, neither would compassion...
this is also true
3) Politics doesn't work if there is no competition.
this is definitely true
feel better? :) :fluffle: :cool:

Competition for sexual partners does not even need to be the instinct of a human. There are primitive societies where males share females, and of course there are those infamous hippie orgies. As mind boggling as it may seem to those of us who have been living in a 5000-year old monogamist society competition can be eliminated from everything in our lives.
We're not talking about whether or not compitition for sexual partners is necessary. We're talking about whether or not it is existent.

EDIT: And if you were wondering...it is.

One leads to the other. Because of our natural competitiveness in choosing a mate, we compete for the best job, so you have the best clothes, the best car- then you'll get the best girl


I don't understand your correlation between naturally wanting to compete for a girl (which revolves around lust). And then wanting the best car e.t.c, as this is mainly more relative to consumer culture. After all you don't 'lust' after a job that you want do you? Because you don't have a natural reason to (i.e. you don't 'feel' turned on when you see a good job ad) - You simply want it because the political system and consumer culture intertwine to give you a feeling of competitiveness to want the best things.


and besides, you just claimed that we are not naturally competitive (which is objectively false) and even mentioned an example of competing for food- instead of business competition


That was not my argument - that was a quote from Noam Chomsky, I usedit as an example in the extreme case.


I wonder if calling someone a flamer for disagreeing with you in your own thread counts as a flame?....hmmm.....

Well, if he would have posted a structured argument then I would have replied equally so. However he didn't and his posts seemed more to revolve around poor attempts to annoy me rather than construct a validated opinion of his own. After all, you disagree with me and I am not accusing you of flaming, am I?

Competition for sexual partners does not even need to be the instinct of a human. There are primitive societies where males share females, and of course there are those infamous hippie orgies. As mind boggling as it may seem to those of us who have been living in a 5000-year old monogamist society competition can be eliminated from everything in our lives.
I feel it necessary to mention that we are talking about whether or not competition is natural
you've said at least 3 times now "yes it is" but have continued to argue, which I can't understand... :confused:

Are we or are we not competing with each other over who is and is not correct on this issue? Nuff fucking said.

if they are naturally competitive, then they are inherently competitive- natural is the definition of inherent
But the question, as I said, was simply whether or not it was natural for us to be competitive, which you've conceded.
On that fact I concede, or agreed with in the beginning.

We aren't arguing the goodness or badness of it- there are other threads open for that


Well the starter of the thread surely intended to argue for the goodness or badness of competition, given his slanted language and his promotion of communism in this thread, so take it easy.

Well, there are limits to compassion - mainly when they infringe on your civil liberties. But I don't think thats the point - there are 'extents' to compassion just like there are extents to competition, as Professor Chomsky said 'You wouldn't steal off of your own family to keep yourself individually competitive would you?

As for Mental Defficiencies - Extensive studies of the Human Mind still need to be carried out, though we understand the mind far better than before and we also comprehend that prison only serves into making and individual that has mental defficiencies even more bitter about society as a whole. Many psychologists draw upon Mental Defficiencies as a cause of crime because it is relative to acceptance in society. Somebody with say, Dyslexia is statistically more likely to commit a crime than somebody without dyslexia - though I would not argue that this is because they are stupid - but rather because they feel they are not accepted in society as a whole. If society can find a place for these people, then we can make progress.

Well the fact is... Your family... IS your family. And a familial instinct exists along side the competiveness. And that is why the example of the family is not appropriate to wholly disprove that competitiveness is a natural instinct. This is because usually in a family there is a bond to protect one's young to quite obviously further the speicies. The young thus feed off the parents until they are ready to become independent and leave. The original bond sometimes remains or sometimes weakens. But taht is getting off topic. Now what I'm getting at, is that competition does not usually apply to families. Since that is "your" "faction"... your "tribe". However, there is no one who would wholly trust a gruff and intimidating stranger in the street. There is no one who would feel compassionate for just some stranger. Often times we don't even notice the woes of others that are not blood relations.

However even familial bonds sometimes succumb to the instinct of competition. There have been families split over such things as inheritence... over trivial material things. When there is a divorce... a competition over who gets the children. And the etc.

What are you talking about? My asking about German democracy is flaming, but your glee over the Cole bombing is ok.

So...is it a direct democracy?

But. Why? Why does Germany have any relevance to this argument? I never used Germany as an example, nor did I bring up any of thier policies as useful ideas. I don't understand where you could derrive this obssession from.

Oh and as for the Cole - you know my opinion, its a military target. Don't tell me that US Forces can target Iraq and Afghanistan (Predominantly Muslim countries), and occupy them. But Al Qaeda cannot fight back against a military target? I'm sure if thats all they did they would have had a hell of a lot more sympathy from The International Community, no matter how much you want to humanize American dead and dehumanize Muslim dead.

Are we or are we not competing with each other over who is and is not correct on this issue? Nuff fucking said.
None of us can ever hope to live in a fully cooperative society given the fact we've lived in a competitive society for so long though. But people can be raised in a cooperative society and so you wont see any competition from them.

I don't understand your correlation between naturally wanting to compete for a girl (which revolves around lust). And then wanting the best car e.t.c, as this is mainly more relative to consumer culture. After all you don't 'lust' after a job that you want do you? Because you don't have a natural reason to (i.e. you don't 'feel' turned on when you see a good job ad) - You simply want it because the political system and consumer culture intertwine to give you a feeling of competitiveness to want the best things.

Well, if he would have posted a structured argument then I would have replied equally so. However he didn't and his posts seemed more to revolve around poor attempts to annoy me rather than construct a validated opinion of his own. After all, you disagree with me and I am not accusing you of flaming, am I?

Someone once told me "everything a guy does is to get laid." Like buying a nice car...let that sink in.

I think competition fits in nicely with Maslow's hieracrchy of needs...I don't think communism gets past the first two

Again - you were being critical of the US republican system, and I asked if Germany was a direct democracy. You still have not answered. If you do, I will cease to pester you.

But. Why? Why does Germany have any relevance to this argument? I never used Germany as an example, nor did I bring up any of thier policies as useful ideas. I don't understand where you could derrive this obssession from.

Oh and as for the Cole - you know my opinion, its a military target. Don't tell me that US Forces can target Iraq and Afghanistan (Predominantly Muslim countries), and occupy them. But Al Qaeda cannot fight back against a military target? I'm sure if thats all they did they would have had a hell of a lot more sympathy from The International Community, no matter how much you want to humanize American dead and dehumanize Muslim dead.

sorry - you replied while i was writing

We're not talking about whether or not compitition for sexual partners is necessary. We're talking about whether or not it is existent.

EDIT: And if you were wondering...it is.If we ignore NWV's later posts and the arguments of many here and the misleading thread title and only refer to the original premise, we find that the original argument was not that competition does not exist in humans, but that it is not dominant over compassion. So we must go further than merely proving that humans compete for mates, but prove that the competition is more important the cooperative factors.

I feel it necessary to mention that we are talking about whether or not competition is natural
you've said at least 3 times now "yes it is" but have continued to argue, which I can't understand... :confused:
So I'm a little off topic and am not ruminating on the original post for hours on end. Boo hoo. No offense sincerely but this is called the natural evolution of a conversation and if you don't like it then go to a thread you like! General forum has had other threads go in crazier directions than this by far.

I don't understand your correlation between naturally wanting to compete for a girl (which revolves around lust). And then wanting the best car e.t.c, as this is mainly more relative to consumer culture. After all you don't 'lust' after a job that you want do you? Because you don't have a natural reason to (i.e. you don't 'feel' turned on when you see a good job ad) - You simply want it because the political system and consumer culture intertwine to give you a feeling of competitiveness to want the best things.
no, most people don't naturally lust over these things, I was just using these as examples of how to get the best girl. Like peacocks having the prettiest feathers to attract females

That was not my argument - that was a quote from Noam Chomsky, I usedit as an example in the extreme case.
I only said it was an example- and if the example fits at all then our related arguments should also fit

Well, if he would have posted a structured argument then I would have replied equally so. However he didn't and his posts seemed more to revolve around poor attempts to annoy me rather than construct a validated opinion of his own. After all, you disagree with me and I am not accusing you of flaming, am I?
Well if my arguments are at all coherent it's purely coincidence as I didn't sleep last night
But what he was doing was not flaming, he was not insulting you, and although it might have annoyed you, he was only trying to get you to clarify your points (I'm not exactly sure what all falls under flaming, but I'm pretty sure this doesn't)

So I'm a little off topic and am not ruminating on the original post for hours on end. Boo hoo. No offense sincerely but this is called the natural evolution of a conversation and if you don't like it then go to a thread you like! General forum has had other threads go in crazier directions than this by far.
all I'm saying is that there is already a thread that is discussing whether cooperation or competition is morally superior
as the author of the thread still hasn't really acknowledged that human competition IS natural, I don't see why you are trying to move on

None of us can ever hope to live in a fully cooperative society given the fact we've lived in a competitive society for so long though. But people can be raised in a cooperative society and so you wont see any competition from them.

But this is competition in a basic human sense. Breaking it down, its competition in the manifestation of a debate. I would argue this is one of the most healthy sides of the competition dice as it is an expression of Democratic Rights - Although we still cannot apply pressure to our Governments in order to change anything (not real democracy) - its still a good manefestation and one could argue its an expression of compassion on a very basic level that we are prepared to here and take constructive critiscm of one anothers arguments (apart from the down right stupid).
I also failed to phrase the statement well enough - Due to the wide rangine definitions of Competition - I would rather this argument was specified around competition on a basic monetary level.

Wait wait, you are all missing something very basic. Animals of all types are competitive. Some possess what we might call compassion and many of them cooperate together, but there is no instance where an entire species cooperates with another species, or even a species in which there is universal cooperation within that species. Even among animals that do cooperate, there is competition with other, different, animals, as well as competition with other groups of the same type of animal. Take ants, for example; ants have an immensely complex social structure involving the cooperation of millions if not billions of individuals. Yet one ant will not hesitate to attack and kill an ant from a different colony if it is perceived as a competitor. Did society teach ants to fight other ants? WHAT society would that be, anyway? The same situation exists amongst many other species, even among herd animals, who will attempt to deter any outsiders from merging with the herd, even through the use of lethal force.

Of course you can bring up the idea that humans are not like other animals, that we have the capacity to reason. But the core issue here is whether or not it is natural for humans to be competitive. And the only possible answer must be yes. Whether it is desirable, as has been pointed out, is an entirely different story. "Society", as you call it, does not spring out of nothingness. A society is formed by like-minded individuals, not the other way around. Sure a society is capable of molding future members of itself, but it cannot be created in the first place unless it stems from a group of individuals with common ideals and goals. You cannot rewrite history because you find it unsatisfactory. You cannot change human nature because it frightens or appalls you. I for one lack a great deal of compassion, and it certainly isn't because of the situation in which I was born. My parents tried their best to teach me to care about everyone, but most of the time I just don't. I may empathize with them, certainly, but this stirs no inclination within me to help.

The problem is that you are trying to characterize humanity in an either-or argument, when the answer is far more complex than that. Compassion has allowed human to grow and prosper beyond a certain technological and intellectual level, but competition has always been the driving force behind a society's leaders, and it is the leaders who shape a society the most. Compassion is natural to human beings; if it were not natural it would not occur on such a regular basis. But competition is natural too, and in certain ways more natural than compassion, and I am fairly certain that it came first and still remains the more influential.

I must say that I am fairly biased on the matter.... My own personal interests lie in foreign policy and diplomacy, and despite whatever you might think about the word diplomacy, in practice it is more about acheiving your own goals than helping your rival achieve theirs (although it is often in your *own* long-term best interest to make sure that the other side does not go away unsatisfied). Food for thought.

If we ignore NWV's later posts and the arguments of many here and the misleading thread title and only refer to the original premise, we find that the original argument was not that competition does not exist in humans, but that it is not dominant over compassion. So we must go further than merely proving that humans compete for mates, but prove that the competition is more important the cooperative factors.

That being said, plenty of people cooperate within a company while competing with those outside the company

I do think people cooperate quite well, but they also like to get into an "us vs them" mentality. Like the thread about which is better, the US or the EU...

We're not talking about whether or not compitition for sexual partners is necessary. We're talking about whether or not it is existent.

EDIT: And if you were wondering...it is.
It does exist in this society. I'm not arguing that. But cooperation can be learned over competition, so it would seem just as natural to give up a girl as to keep her. But then that would mean the person you are sharing something with is thinking the same way, and this unilateral disarmament of competition is a nearly impossible scenario. And thats why I believe communism is possible but not very.

None of us can ever hope to live in a fully cooperative society given the fact we've lived in a competitive society for so long though. But people can be raised in a cooperative society and so you wont see any competition from them.
I might be missing something, but does this mean that if there is a cooperative society, people would all have the exact same opinions?

That being said, plenty of people cooperate within a company while competing with those outside the company

I do think people cooperate quite well, but they also like to get into an "us vs them" mentality. Like the thread about which is better, the US or the EU...
Cooperation only works if you are cooperating with an individual/group/nation that is both cooperative itself and is worthwhile cooperating with (in the sense that cooperation with America over its foreign Policy would go against all that is morally right).

That being said, plenty of people cooperate within a company while competing with those outside the company
Why do you have to imagine all scenarios in today's world, today's reality? Why can't you picture a theory? In a cooperative society there wouldn't be any corporations.


I do think people cooperate quite well, but they also like to get into an "us vs them" mentality. Like the thread about which is better, the US or the EU...
True, in the modern world there are national loyalties. Unfortunately in today's world the only way to survive is to identify oneself within a body that can compete with other groups of people. I myself and everyone on earth participates in this process. The only way for a perfectly communistic, cooperative society to appear is if all the nations in the world agreed to unilaterally disarm, both literally and ideologically, which is near impossible. But near impossible doesn't make communism impossible.

I might be missing something, but does this mean that if there is a cooperative society, people would all have the exact same opinions?
Yes. And if there were any misunderstandings (minute ones over petty things at most) then people would be tripping over each other trying to agree.

Why do you have to imagine all scenarios in today's world, today's reality? Why can't you picture a theory? In a cooperative society there wouldn't be any corporations.


Why not? What is a corporation? It is a company financed and owned by a collection of shareholders, who work together.

Yes. And if there were any misunderstandings (minute ones over petty things at most) then people would be tripping over each other trying to agree.

That's not a good thing - do we have no opinions of our own?

Yes. And if there were any misunderstandings (minute ones over petty things at most) then people would be tripping over each other trying to agree.

The problem with this is that it's pretty much not enforceable without *heavy* penalties for cheating (competitive behavior). If everyone around you is compassionate, then if you lie and cheat (have a different opinion), you'll succeed quite well as long as you get away with it.

And in the current state of the world, where people can move from city to city easily and change their identities, being a cheat would be easy.

You could try to breed competitiveness out of humans, but the cheats would always invade.

Yes. And if there were any misunderstandings (minute ones over petty things at most) then people would be tripping over each other trying to agree.
hmmm
that sounds....fun
where everyone's favorite color is purple and everyone eats spaghetti with tomato sauce for every meal because it's everyone's favorite food, and music all sounds the same because everyone agrees with what the best type of music is... and if someone somehow gets a taste of spaghetti without the sauce, and likes it better, he's quick to apologize for such a tremendous outrage.
how is this ideal?

Of course you can bring up the idea that humans are not like other animals, that we have the capacity to reason. But the core issue here is whether or not it is natural for humans to be competitive. And the only possible answer must be yes. Whether it is desirable, as has been pointed out, is an entirely different story. "Society", as you call it, does not spring out of nothingness. A society is formed by like-minded individuals, not the other way around. Sure a society is capable of molding future members of itself, but it cannot be created in the first place unless it stems from a group of individuals with common ideals and goals. You cannot rewrite history because you find it unsatisfactory. You cannot change human nature because it frightens or appalls you.
You can easily change human nature. A worthless crying baby can be trained in such a way that all he cares for in his life is the building of rocket ships.

I for one lack a great deal of compassion, and it certainly isn't because of the situation in which I was born. My parents tried their best to teach me to care about everyone, but most of the time I just don't. I may empathize with them, certainly, but this stirs no inclination within me to help.
Your natural surroundings, your friends, etc. feel like second-nature to you so you don't realize that this vital environment also influences you just as much as your family. That environment taught competition, day in and day out. If you weren't exposed to that then a communistic society is possible.


The problem is that you are trying to characterize humanity in an either-or argument, when the answer is far more complex than that. Compassion has allowed human to grow and prosper beyond a certain technological and intellectual level, but competition has always been the driving force behind a society's leaders, and it is the leaders who shape a society the most. Compassion is natural to human beings; if it were not natural it would not occur on such a regular basis. But competition is natural too, and in certain ways more natural than compassion, and I am fairly certain that it came first and still remains the more influential.
In a cooperative society there wouldn't be any leaders to shape society. People just go about their own business. And the most significant scientists dont research to be rich. They research because they love what they are doing, and they are forced to make money in this capitalist society because thats the only way to fund their love of research.

I must say that I am fairly biased on the matter.... My own personal interests lie in foreign policy and diplomacy, and despite whatever you might think about the word diplomacy, in practice it is more about acheiving your own goals than helping your rival achieve theirs (although it is often in your *own* long-term best interest to make sure that the other side does not go away unsatisfied). Food for thought.
Thats why the only way to achieve communism is unilateral abolition of the state in every nation and by every person.

Why not? What is a corporation? It is a company financed and owned by a collection of shareholders, who work together.
A corporations duty to its shareholders is to deliver a profit. It will achieve this by any means. And it breaches 3 main rules to achieve this:

1) Breaking of Consumer Standards Legislation - Or having it repealed.

2) Breaking of Worker's Rights.

3) Breaking of Environmental Legislation - Or having it repealed (very true in the current administration - Bush has effectively rolled back 30 years work of Environmental Regulation.)

This is hardly 'cooperative' with other areas of society, The Consumers and Workers inparticular.

That's not a good thing - do we have no opinions of our own?
sure, just they're everyone else's own opinions too...
maybe it's just the evil capitalist government getting to me...

I thought "The Giver" was a DIStopia novel... :eek:

Humans, in our current level of psychological evolution, are nothing more than animals. Competitiveness to have the best life for as many offspring as you can support is our prime reason for life.

Why not? What is a corporation? It is a company financed and owned by a collection of shareholders, who work together.
A corporation exists to make money and compete for this money with other entities, corporations or individuals. In communism everyone would belong to the same "corporation" but it really isn't a corporation because theres no money.

A corporations duty to its shareholders is to deliver a profit. It will achieve this by any means. And it breaches 3 main rules to achieve this:

1) Breaking of Consumer Standards Legislation - Or having it repealed.

2) Breaking of Worker's Rights.

3) Breaking of Environmental Legislation - Or having it repealed (very true in the current administration - Bush has effectively rolled back 30 years work of Environmental Regulation.)

This is hardly 'cooperative' with other areas of society, The Consumers and Workers inparticular.

You're overgeneralizing here. Not all corporations are the pure evil you're making them out to be.

I do wonder how we would feed everyone and ensure some quality of life where there was no competition over things like schooling and jobs. Who will become the necessary specialists? What decides where you go?

***I wonder if anyone else has noticed that NWV is now arguing against his original position. If he merely took his last post and said "if competition were dominate companies would try to maximize profits by . . ." he would be arguing his original point, instead of against it.****

The problem with this is that it's pretty much not enforceable without *heavy* penalties for cheating (competitive behavior). If everyone around you is compassionate, then if you lie and cheat (have a different opinion), you'll succeed quite well as long as you get away with it.

And in the current state of the world, where people can move from city to city easily and change their identities, being a cheat would be easy.

You could try to breed competitiveness out of humans, but the cheats would always invade.
There won't be any cheats, because that habit of "getting ahead at all costs" would be suppressed. Youll say this is impossible, and I may be wrong and I am sure a large-scale pure communistic experiment will not occur so we probably will never know.

A corporations duty to its shareholders is to deliver a profit. It will achieve this by any means. And it breaches 3 main rules to achieve this:

1) Breaking of Consumer Standards Legislation - Or having it repealed.

2) Breaking of Worker's Rights.


3) Breaking of Environmental Legislation - Or having it repealed (very true in the current administration - Bush has effectively rolled back 30 years work of Environmental Regulation.)

This is hardly 'cooperative' with other areas of society, The Consumers and Workers inparticular.


I disagree - what is good for the company is often good for both the consumer and the worker. I am sure, however, that we can cite examples of both.

You're overgeneralizing here. Not all corporations are the pure evil you're making them out to be.

I do wonder how we would feed everyone and ensure some quality of life where there was no competition over things like schooling and jobs. Who will become the necessary specialists? What decides where you go?

Specialisation does not necessarily require Private Enterprise - for the most part - specialisation over the prievous 3 decades has been iniated by The Government. As for competition with Schooling - this is a fundamentally bad idea and yet another example that competition is not inherent (in a monetary value) in humans (as most people disagree with Private Schooling). Competition within schools creates two tier systems - one for the rich and one for the poor.

hmmm
that sounds....fun
where everyone's favorite color is purple and everyone eats spaghetti with tomato sauce for every meal because it's everyone's favorite food, and music all sounds the same because everyone agrees with what the best type of music is... and if someone somehow gets a taste of spaghetti without the sauce, and likes it better, he's quick to apologize for such a tremendous outrage.
how is this ideal?
Ok then Ifailed to elaborate so I apologize and I'll clarify. There won't be any opinions (political, etc.) that will be hurtful toward others. There will be few aesthetic judgments about other peoples stuff, since you're not using it anyways. Basically you just mind your own business. And no, there won't be the opinion that "I am hurt if anyone on the planet likes spaghetti with sauce."

I disagree - what is good for the company is often good for both the consumer and the worker. I am sure, however, that we can cite examples of both.

What examples? Because if a company maximizes its profits by cutting down 100km/sq of rainforest in the prievous year - this will mean that the workers with a small amount of shares will get a small dividend of say, $50 extra? I'm sure that if the worker's themselves knew the cost of achieving this extra money (remember this situation is hypothetical), they would disagree with it.

More regulation is required. Simple as that.

There won't be any cheats, because that habit of "getting ahead at all costs" would be suppressed. Youll say this is impossible, and I may be wrong and I am sure a large-scale pure communistic experiment will not occur so we probably will never know.

My problem with it is how you expect to "suppress" the instinct to compete. You agree that it is currently an innate characteristic of humans, so either you have to suppress it after birth or breed it out.

If you try to raise a child so that competitiveness is seen as "wrong and evil" and that compassion and cooperation is the best way to go, then there is still a chance for cheats, for children to compete after they reach adulthood.

If you breed competitiveness out, then you run the risk of it coming back. Someone who was competitive would be "king" in a society where everyone was compassionate.

I think one necessary thing is that everyone in the society would know each other and identify them as members of their "tribe". There's a limit as to how many people you can have and remember in your tribe.

Specialisation does not necessarily require Private Enterprise - for the most part - specialisation over the prievous 3 decades has been iniated by The Government. As for competition with Schooling - this is a fundamentally bad idea and yet another example that competition is not inherent (in a monetary value) in humans (as most people disagree with Private Schooling). Competition within schools creates two tier systems - one for the rich and one for the poor.

I would argue that the specialization is in fact a result of corporations and business. People invent things to make money, that drives industries, and those industries demand workers, who must be educated, so the universities create specialties devoted to the new fields.

Competition within elementary through high school may produce a rich/poor divide, but after entering college, much of the divide is based on ability. And there is still lots of competition, regardless of background.

There won't be any cheats, because that habit of "getting ahead at all costs" would be suppressed. Youll say this is impossible, and I may be wrong and I am sure a large-scale pure communistic experiment will not occur so we probably will never know.
It wouldn't have to be large-scale. What you mentioned would never happen even between two identical twins (although they'd come closest)
anyway, why would it be best for society to force the same opinions on everyone?

"Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And then we are much better than the Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are stupid. They all wear green, and Delta children wear khaki. Oh no, I don't want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. They're too stupid to be able to read or write. Besides they wear black, which is such a beastly colour. I'm so glad I'm a Beta."

My problem with it is how you expect to "suppress" the instinct to compete. You agree that it is currently an innate characteristic of humans, so either you have to suppress it after birth or breed it out.

If you try to raise a child so that competitiveness is seen as "wrong and evil" and that compassion and cooperation is the best way to go, then there is still a chance for cheats, for children to compete after they reach adulthood.

If you breed competitiveness out, then you run the risk of it coming back. Someone who was competitive would be "king" in a society where everyone was compassionate.

The whole point of communism is that there is no competitiveness, ever. Perhaps it is possible that in a communist society there is just no natural competitiveness from anyone. Or perhaps such a scenario is truly impossible, and that there will be competitive people in which case the trained instinctive reaction of his peers is to marginalize this competitive person. Remember that there cant be a king if he doesnt have followers. But you can never say any of these scenarios is completely impossible before making every effort to try them.

I think one necessary thing is that everyone in the society would know each other and identify them as members of their "tribe". There's a limit as to how many people you can have and remember in your tribe.
This is a most trivial concern. But anyways there's no need for a tribe. You just live your life, interact with those people who live around you whether the population is big or small. If you forget someone's name then ask them, obviously.

It wouldn't have to be large-scale. What you mentioned would never happen even between two identical twins (although they'd come closest)
anyway, why would it be best for society to force the same opinions on everyone?

For harmony's sake. In a cooperative society there is no violence or jealousy. Though people today have different values - including harmony, money, power, etc. a communistic population wuold all value harmony above all else.

The whole point of communism is that there is no competitiveness, ever. Perhaps it is possible that in a communist society there is just no natural competitiveness from anyone. Or perhaps such a scenario is truly impossible, and that there will be competitive people in which case the trained instinctive reaction of his peers is to marginalize this competitive person. Remember that there cant be a king if he doesnt have followers. But you can never say any of these scenarios is completely impossible before making every effort to try them.

This is a most trivial concern. But anyways there's no need for a tribe. You just live your life, interact with those people who live around you whether the population is big or small. If you forget someone's name then ask them, obviously.

Okay, I assume the existence of a world-wide society where everyone advocates compassion and cooperation. The world is at peace.

Now I introduce one individual, who through some accident of his genes believes that cooperation/compassion is pointless, basically he doesn't follow that doctrine. He may even try to exploit the system (which is really wide open to it) If he does exploit, then he may pass on his genes to large segments of the population.

Okay, I assume the existence of a world-wide society where everyone advocates compassion and cooperation. The world is at peace.

Now I introduce one individual, who through some accident of his genes believes that cooperation/compassion is pointless, basically he doesn't follow that doctrine. He may even try to exploit the system (which is really wide open to it) If he does exploit, then he may pass on his genes to large segments of the population.
I never said there would be some breeding experiments to "breed out" greed. It is all non-genetic conditioning of the individual in preparation for communism. But, if there is some troublemaker who comes along then as I've said he will be marginalized. But then again social conditioning might be so strong that there are never any troublemakers ever.

For harmony's sake. In a cooperative society there is no violence or jealousy. Though people today have different values - including harmony, money, power, etc. a communistic population would all value harmony above all else.

I like the idea of valuing harmony above all else. It's beautiful and a great goal to work towards.

Sorry, I have to insert a BUT here.

If everyone has the same goals in life, agrees on everything, what is the goal? What do you aspire to? How do you measure your life? What gives it meaning?

For harmony's sake. In a cooperative society there is no violence or jealousy. Though people today have different values - including harmony, money, power, etc. a communistic population wuold all value harmony above all else.
like I said, perhaps it's just the evil capitalist in me, but it actually scares me to think that there are people that believe uniformity is best for humans- that you should never stand up for a nagging feeling you have that something isn't being done correctly
You know, like women are inferior to men, and should thus be enslaved by men...something that can be carried down long enough that everyone basically believes it's true. And one child who doesn't share this opinion is subdued by early childhood brainwashing into thinking, 'well I'm just one, I'm a sinner for having these thoughts-society knows best'
obviously this is an extreme example, but why is false harmony worth so much?
besides, if everyone feels this way about something (not all the same thing, just one thing each) they will grow resentful of their fellow humans. Think about when you disagree with someone, but just ignore it to avoid confrontation. Compare to when you actually express your opinions. I, at least, grow more and more resentful of the person that I don't argue with- it just builds and builds, and you even make excuses to not like them that dont even really bother you. The other person though, although I disagree with them, I can come to some kind of understanding with them usually, and the bad feelings don't spiral out of control.

Well, it's bedtime for me. Goodnight all!

like I said, perhaps it's just the evil capitalist in me, but it actually scares me to think that there are people that believe uniformity is best for humans- that you should never stand up for a nagging feeling you have that something isn't being done correctly
You know, like women are inferior to men, and should thus be enslaved by men...something that can be carried down long enough that everyone basically believes it's true. And one child who doesn't share this opinion is subdued by early childhood brainwashing into thinking, 'well I'm just one, I'm a sinner for having these thoughts-society knows best'
obviously this is an extreme example, but why is false harmony worth so much?
besides, if everyone feels this way about something (not all the same thing, just one thing each) they will grow resentful of their fellow humans. Think about when you disagree with someone, but just ignore it to avoid confrontation. Compare to when you actually express your opinions. I, at least, grow more and more resentful of the person that I don't argue with- it just builds and builds, and you even make excuses to not like them that dont even really bother you. The other person though, although I disagree with them, I can come to some kind of understanding with them usually, and the bad feelings don't spiral out of control.

Well, it's bedtime for me. Goodnight all!
You and I and other people in our society are too used to arguing. If you've never argued loudly in your life, and all your problems are solved in a constructive manner then you don't have to let out steam by shouting. You probably wouldn't have any steam to let out. It wouldn't be "false harmony." It's hard to picture such a scenario but I think that people could be conditioned to behave that way just as they are conditioned to behave in a competitive, raucous manner today.

G'night

You can easily change human nature. A worthless crying baby can be trained in such a way that all he cares for in his life is the building of rocket ships.

I am not saying it is impossible to change human nature. I am saying that you are trying to alter what human nature is to suit your own objectives. You don't want humans to be naturally competitive (and perhaps with good reason), so in your arguments you refuse to acknowledge it as a fact, in effect changing human nature in your own intellectual universe, but not in reality. If you can agree that human nature is to be competitive, and furthermore more that this competitive nature interferes in attempts at programming to such an extent that such programming becomes virtually impossible, then you must also agree that such competitiveness has become a permanent and unalterable characteristic of humanity. You may hold out some slim hope that, in the future, someone will manage to overcome competition and impose a new social order, but that it has not happened yet and is extremely unlikely to happen in the near or far future, Ockham's Razor would seem to indicate that the simplest explanation, that it can not happen, is the most correct.

Your natural surroundings, your friends, etc. feel like second-nature to you so you don't realize that this vital environment also influences you just as much as your family. That environment taught competition, day in and day out. If you weren't exposed to that then a communistic society is possible.

Do they? You assume too much. You assume that I am at home in my own environment, that it fits me because it shaped me. A person is capable of developing their own opinions, even if those opinions disagree with their surroundings. It isn't very common, or at least as common as I think it ought to be, but it can and does happen. My parents never tried to get me to compete in anything. Sometimes I wish they had, it might have aided my development of certain skills.

In a cooperative society there wouldn't be any leaders to shape society. People just go about their own business. And the most significant scientists dont research to be rich. They research because they love what they are doing, and they are forced to make money in this capitalist society because thats the only way to fund their love of research.

That doesn't make sense. A leaderless society would be a society which is incapable of doing anything. Are you admitting yourself to be an anarcho-communist? I thought I was dealing with a credible intellectual theory here, not a concept so abstract that not a single part of it approaches reality. Marx was wrong about anarcho-communism. Don't let your agreement with some of his other ideas blind you to that.

As for scientists, once again you make the fallacy of an either-or argument. Scientists are forced to make money? You think competition for grant money is a bad thing too? You are right, maybe we should just give money to any scientist who asks for it. Even in an anarcho-communist world some medium of exchange must be used, even if only through barter. A scientist does not have time to grow his own food, therefore in return for his scientific work he must be provided with material needs. If he does not deliver scientific progress, he does not contribute to his society and therefore CANNOT fit in a Communist one. As a matter of fact, I'm going to draw up a prospectus detailing my plan to solve world hunger and then ask for the government to provide me with 200 billion dollars to make it a reality. The problem? Even if you assume that I am an expert on agriculture (and I am not, but this is a hypothetical situation),the core of my plan rests on my theory that there is corn growing underground on the Moon. But hey, in a communist society my science must be as good as any other scientist's, as long as I am qualified through devotion to my studies. But in order to investigate my theory I need to take samples on the Moon itself. I would never get the money to do that in a capitalist society because there is a very high risk with a very low probability of reward compared to other pursuits, but perhaps a world in which I do not have to compete to earn that money would view my research differently.

It is true, in reality scientists work out of compassion or simply out of personal interest. But nobody forces them to make money. The only burden that capitalism places on them is that if they want to truly devote themselves to their work they have to be very good scientists, and be able to attract the attention of patrons who are willing to aid them. In a communist society there should be no wealthy patrons who can afford to fund science, because everyone is of equal means, right?

Alright I can tell that I am starting to ramble, but it is getting late and I have a flight to catch in a few hours (hopefully after I get some sleep), so I hope the general gist of my point has been made.

You and I and other people in our society are too used to arguing. If you've never argued loudly in your life, and all your problems are solved in a constructive manner then you don't have to let out steam by shouting. You probably wouldn't have any steam to let out. It wouldn't be "false harmony." It's hard to picture such a scenario but I think that people could be conditioned to behave that way just as they are conditioned to behave in a competitive, raucous manner today.

G'night
I said "argued" not "argued loudly." I'm not talking about letting off steam by yelling at someone. I'm talking about a constructive debate that allows you to decide what is actually the best solution. If you skip this debate, you will rarely find the best solution. Anytime a new subject might arise, the first person to say something gets to dictate what everyone else must think. Anyone else will be GUILTY and they must apologize forever. You're not suggesting we actually solve problems- you're suggesting ignoring them. If your brain is malfunctioning and you for some reason think women shouldn't be slaves, you won't want to ask anyone why they are slaves, because of the stigma it will give you. So instead you just let it fester- and the logical inconsistency just grows and grows in your mind. If you think of humans as being different from other animals because of our ability to reason, and I assume you do since you claimed that humans aren't "just any species," then you can't possibly think something that causes logical inconsistencies that can't be repaired in the mind of every member of the community is a GOOD thing.

Besides, the only way to change "human nature" is to breed out whatever you don't want. Brainwashing, or childhood conditioning, or whatever it is, doesn't change human nature, it just suppresses it- and it very often won't work. Of course, then you execute the person, but....I'm not for capital punishment either.

I'll make a couple of points on this matter. Humanity's equal oldest profession is that of mercenary. It's longest standing activity, with the exception of procreation, and pre-dating agriculture, is warfare.

We are a predatory species, one of very few primates with carnivorous facets to their diet. Omnivorous only by virtue of the transitional phase of evolution we were caught in, between our tree-dwelling ape-like (NOT APE... ape-like. So shoo all those who wish to poo-poo my assertions on evolution) and plains-dwelling pure-carnivore.

We hunted (and, in some parts of the world, disregarding urban centres for the moment, continue to hunt) in packs, bringing down larger prey using equipment specifically designed for the purpose. Even at this stage, groups of humans fought each other, more often for direct survival than anything else, but fought nonetheless. Those who were unable or unwilling to fight to defend what was theirs very quickly fell by the way side. Homo Sapiens drove Neanderthals out of the better territories at spear-point, and spread across the world's surface like wildfire.

As time went on, warfare, in its capacity as both competition, and armed robbery writ large, has remained the ONLY constant throughout every inhabited continent (including Australia, where the aborigines implemented some fairly strict protocols for its conduct). To argue that humanity is NOT competitive is futile.

However, competition and compassion are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and there exist many examples of supreme altruism alongside supreme cruelty and brutality.

Havnt been keeping up with the latest science news have we? There more and more evidence for the theory that the latter stages of humans interbred with the former. A mongrel race comprising the whole of humanity is the result. We are all hybrids.

I wont way in on this because the server is crap (DAMN YOU BARRY! you LIED!) but I will say that it is a feature of most all intelligent speicies that conditioning dictates a lot of behaviour.

Wait wait, you are all missing something very basic. Animals of all types are competitive. Some possess what we might call compassion and many of them cooperate together, but there is no instance where an entire species cooperates with another species

Actually there are examples of entire species cooperating with another species. The barbar fish for one. I believe the clown fish is another example. A larger fish will come to one of the barbar fish 'shops' and allow the barbar fish to groom it, removing debris and parasites by eating them.

The clown fish (I think that's the species) lives among the tenticles of sea anenomes in a mutually benifitial relationship.

There are many more examples of symbiotic relationships in the animal kingdom.

And Antebellum South, about species sharing females... it depends on what's best for the species as a whole. Take birds for example. In many bird species, the males make the nest and the female makes it's rounds to many of the nests. This is because one female can lay more eggs in a season than she can take care of. So it is more advantagous of the species for one female to lay 100 eggs and have 100 males take care of them, than to have 100 females lay 100 eggs. The males still compete over the females tho, as in which one can make the best nest.

Elephant seals are the opposite example. Each female elephant seal will have 1 calf during a season. Therefore it is more advantagous for the species to have 1 dominate male inpregnate 100 females than to have 100 males try to impregnate 1 female.

Wow, I actually started a good discussion. Apart from the few flamers making cameos.

Wow, I actually started a good discussion. Apart from the few flamers making cameos and me calling every other poster a flamer.
Yea. Good job.

Yea. Good blowjob.

See?!

I can be funny too!

http://www.ramdhanyk.com/movabletype/archives/thoughtprocess/images/2004/india/microsoft.jpg

Thats what happens when you google 'Opal Isle'!

Actually there are examples of entire species cooperating with another species. The barbar fish for one. I believe the clown fish is another example. A larger fish will come to one of the barbar fish 'shops' and allow the barbar fish to groom it, removing debris and parasites by eating them.

The clown fish (I think that's the species) lives among the tenticles of sea anenomes in a mutually benifitial relationship.

There are many more examples of symbiotic relationships in the animal kingdom.


You are right, of course, I should have been more exact in my sentence composition. What I meant was that species which are in *competition* with each other for resources will not act cooperatively. However, when species develop mutually beneficial interactions, they can coexist quite equally. The key here is that their needs only overlap in complementary ways, in that one species benefits from aiding the needs of the other species. But in situations where different species share the same need, and in which this need represents a part of a finite supply, competition is inevitable.

Competivetiveness is natural in large groups. It is called unatural by communists, and to some extent, they are right. Small villages are very close to true communism (and not the USSR type). However, the larger the group, the less cooperation there is. Case in point: read the book Lord of the Flies. That raises an interesting question. Suppose there wasn't law. What would humans do? It's easy for a very large society to cooperate, but only when there are so many laws that a police state exists.

Competivetiveness is natural in large groups. It is called unatural by communists, and to some extent, they are right. Small villages are very close to true communism (and not the USSR type). However, the larger the group, the less cooperation there is. Case in point: read the book Lord of the Flies. That raises an interesting question. Suppose there wasn't law. What would humans do? It's easy for a very large society to cooperate, but only when there are so many laws that a police state exists.
The community in the Lord of the Flies was pretty small. Lord of the Flies is hardly a definitive study of behavior. It is a totally fictional work with all the events and diction carefully crafted to justify the author's opinion.

The community in the Lord of the Flies was pretty small. Besides Lord of the Flies is hardly a definitive study of behavior. It is a totally fictional work with all the events and diction carefully crafted to justify the author's opinion.
Of course not. However, several people on here use Charles Dickens's works to describe 19th century living conditions. Why can't I use literature to back my point up? Does this make Candide a work of pure fiction?

The community in the Lord of the Flies was pretty small. Lord of the Flies is hardly a definitive study of behavior. It is a totally fictional work with all the events and diction carefully crafted to justify the author's opinion.

And Das Kapital is any different?

Sorry, I just couldn't resist the gibe.

And Das Kapital is any different?

Sorry, I just couldn't resist the gibe.
Das Kapital is also purely theoretical like Lord of the Flies however Marx makes an attempt to at least refer to historical events and facts and interpreting them to back up his claims, given many say Marx did not interpret these historical facts correctly... Lord of the Flies is a frolic with no sound premise established, just a bunch of kids running around.

Of course not. However, several people on here use Charles Dickens's works to describe 19th century living conditions. Why can't I use literature to back my point up? Does this make Candide a work of pure fiction?
Dickens and Voltaire both use extensive references to real life situations in their works and their fiction thus rooting their characters behavior in a reality we can know about and relate to... Lord of the Flies has a very tangential connection to some war and the British, and the setting is completely rhetorical and was chosen solely to make a theoretical point about the breakdown of society.

Dickens and Voltaire both use extensive references to real life situations in their works and their fiction thus rooting their characters behavior in a reality we can know about and relate to... Lord of the Flies has a very tangential connection to some war and the British, and the setting is completely rhetorical and was chosen solely to make a theoretical point about the breakdown of society.
However, both Dickens and Voltaire wrote fiction, but even they used it as fact. I'll have to admit, however, that I've never read Lord of the Flies. I just know what it's about.

However, both Dickens and Voltaire wrote fiction, but even they used it as fact. I'll have to admit, however, that I've never read Lord of the Flies. I just know what it's about.
Dickens and Voltaire never passed any of their novels off as fact... they used fiction to make witty observations about the societies in which they lived. Their characters reflect their societies and their actions are very believable. William Golding however has in his book, by crashing a planeful of English boarding school kids in a tropical island, attributing completely baseless hypothetical behavior to the kids, made up a completely fictional society with no premises in reality and then going about fashioning a lesson out of it.