NationStates Jolt Archive

Which do you think is MORE important, and why? (And don't take the easy way out by saying they're both equally important. Take a stand, ye lilly-livered centrist! :p)

cooperation, but then i am a commie pinko :D

Well, naturally competition. Competition brings progress and evolution. It cleans away those who are not able to survive in the society and makes more room for the strong ones.

Cooperation.

Cooperation, as much as I'd like it to work when we all do it, just doesn't - hence collapse of USSR. Competition, although a major driving force, often leads to whole societies being torn apart (hence Sub-saharan africa and competition for power). So a nice blend, like a double malt :)

Cooperation, as much as I'd like it to work when we all do it, just doesn't - hence collapse of USSR. Competition, although a major driving force, often leads to whole societies being torn apart (hence Sub-saharan africa and competition for power). So a nice blend, like a double malt :)

Heh, the USSR wasn't based on co-operation. There was the competition for power present there as a result of a corrupt political system, too.

cooperation on a personal level and competition on a market level

cooperation on a personal level and competition on a market level

What he said ^^^. :)

Cooperation

Cooperation.

And for all those who think competition is better than cooperation, I have a piece of advice: Look at the natural world. See what animals are the most successful. That's right - the ones that are best at cooperating. What insect can stand up to an army of ants?

Cooperation.

And for all those who think competition is better than cooperation, I have a piece of advice: Look at the natural world. See what animals are the most successful. That's right - the ones that are best at cooperating. What insect can stand up to an army of ants?
What animal can stand up to an army of siafu? (also ants)

Overall, I prefer cooperation.

Competition can be useful as a form of mental or physical exercise, so long as the competitors remain good-natured towards one another. Sports and martial arts competitions, for example, can be venues for fraternization as well as practicing physical and mental discipline, that is, practicing mastery over one's own mind and body. However, this is only possible if all those involved compete with proper humility; when competitors put their pride on the line, competitions can take a malicious turn. Losing is a serious blow to the prou, and hurt pride can easily breed anger and hatred. Losing, however, is inconsequential to those who are humble of heart and love the sport that they compete in. "Oneupmanship" is, in my opinion, a very poor reason to master a sport or an art.

Those who have been on NationStates for a considerable length of time will have noticed that I don't like gloating; I have deliberately carried this dislike over into my judgments as a NationStates Moderator. Gloating and taunting constitutes trying to invoke someone elses pride in order to hurt thier pride, and in so doing, hurt them.

In my opinion, if pride and arrogance are not properly restrained, then competition is characterized by a desire to hurt or impair others, by disdain towards those seen as "inferior" (by whatever standard is being applied), by jealousy of those seen as "superior". These are the anti-thesis of love (and note that I am not using the word "love" in a romantic or sexual sense, here).

I'm also leery of competition in the business world, as people's lives and livelihoods do tend to be on the line. If your service or product isn't as good as your competitions, then that should mean that you shouldn't profit from it, but it should not mean that you can't pay critical medical expenses, that you can't put food on the table, or that you start contemplating suicide.

Cooperation, on the other hand, encourages helping others to improve themselves because improving others helps them to help you in return, either by improving you, or by contributing more to the cooperative effort (which indirectly helps you). It is far better, though, to be concerned for others for their own sake rather than to be concerned for others for what you can gain from it.

Real life calls, so I have to cut this short. I will end by saying that I am a follower of the Christ, and the second most important of his teachings was "Love your neighbor as yourself". I take "love" in this context to mean having a level of concern for another person that is practical and appropriate to the nature of your relationship with that person (though I would like to imagine that I would be far from criticizing anyone who, after careful consideration, chooses to go above-and-beyond the call of duty in this regard; note I said "Careful consideration"). Thus, I consider cooperation better than competition, though I will acknowledge that competition, if properly utilized, can be a good thing.

"Think about it for a moment."

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

We all need to cooperate in order to crush the competition.

Uncorrupted competition is the only way we can be sure that progress is being made, both on the personal level and on the economic level. Cooperation can and will lead to complacency and stagnation of both mental facilities and labor output at the micro and macro levels.

Cooperation is only good for providing blind force that is governed by competitive leadership

Cooperation.

And for all those who think competition is better than cooperation, I have a piece of advice: Look at the natural world. See what animals are the most successful. That's right - the ones that are best at cooperating. What insect can stand up to an army of ants?

Ahhh, a communist admiring ants, how precious. >.>

Which do you think is MORE important, and why? (And don't take the easy way out by saying they're both equally important. Take a stand, ye lilly-livered centrist! :p)
Where are we talking about? In some places co-operation is needed, in others competition is needed.

Cooperation.

And for all those who think competition is better than cooperation, I have a piece of advice: Look at the natural world. See what animals are the most successful. That's right - the ones that are best at cooperating. What insect can stand up to an army of ants?

First off, there is no species in nature that doesn't compete. Evolution is the product of competition. Ants only cooperate as drones working for a queen, they are deadly competitive between colonies.

Also, humans are the most successful animals, and we are very competitive. What creature can stand up to an society of competitive humans?

Well I will do a bad thing and atack the other side and not defend my beliefs in cooperation.

By saying that in todays capitilstic society money play the same roll titles played in feudilistic. So if you came from a rich famillies you will have a lot better change of competing in todays then a poor person. So the parents money not that the person that have the best skill neede in society will probably win. So if you are true belivier in competion you should before things like free schools and university and medicare that are atleast free until the person finish school. Else your desire for competion without this things will only lead to a modern feudalistic society.

Definitely cooperation. And for you conquerors, the method of many entities ganging up on one is many more times more efficient than every man for himself. Anyway, I suck at FFA games.

Well I will do a bad thing and atack the other side and not defend my beliefs in cooperation.

By saying that in todays capitilstic society money play the same roll titles played in feudilistic. So if you came from a rich famillies you will have a lot better change of competing in todays then a poor person. So the parents money not that the person that have the best skill neede in society will probably win. So if you are true belivier in competion you should before things like free schools and university and medicare that are atleast free until the person finish school. Else your desire for competion without this things will only lead to a modern feudalistic society.

While it is a little off-topic, you have managed to pinpoint why I am not a libertarian. I personally believe in a completely free and competition driven economy and society, but in order to do that there must be wealth distribution to ensure that no one person or group maintains power over the market or society. Libertarians just don't account for that.

But still competition is the way.

We all need to cooperate in order to crush the competition.
*nods*

Cooperation, just like they talk about on Sesame Street. :)

Cooperation.

And for all those who think competition is better than cooperation, I have a piece of advice: Look at the natural world. See what animals are the most successful. That's right - the ones that are best at cooperating. What insect can stand up to an army of ants?

Another way to look at that though, what insect can stand up to an army of ants? In other words, what the ants are doing is competing, so overall could you say their cooperation is a sign of quality or that they compete well is?

Personally, I'm divided on the issue. It's hard to delineate when personally, I am being cooperative and when I'm actually just appealing to the selfishness of my competitive genes. A lot of seemingly altruistic behavior is motivated by forces of competition, and all resources are limited - everyone wants resources, so it makes sense that everyone competes. Not everyone cooperates, though. Competition then wins memetically by being more prevalent, but as to worth it's hard for me to say, that's why I made this thread.

competition if Pablo ees likely to win

co-operation eef Pablo ees likely to lose

I want "Cooperative Competition" as a choice!

:p :D

EDIT: Or even "Competitive Cooperation", either way... :D

cooperation is more important,
but competition is much more entertaining

I want "Cooperative Competition" as a choice!

:p :D

EDIT: Or even "Competitive Cooperation", either way... :D
i second that motion

I want "Cooperative Competition" as a choice!

:p :D

EDIT: Or even "Competitive Cooperation", either way... :D
I third that motion.

Cooperation.

And for all those who think competition is better than cooperation, I have a piece of advice: Look at the natural world. See what animals are the most successful. That's right - the ones that are best at cooperating. What insect can stand up to an army of ants?
No insects can stand up to an army of ants, but, an anteater, the result of competetion, eats the buggers alive.

Competition. Competition creates cooperation. That's how a capitalist society survives.

Competition. Competition creates cooperation. That's how a capitalist society survives.
*nods, but in which direction?*

*nods, but in which direction?*Heh, well, I have my own problems with this view, but I can't deny the state of things.

The idea that competition - that is, capitalism - breeds cooperation was first put forth to me by Professor Herr, an economist who guest-spoke at my 19th Century European History class; he was lecturing on Marx's Communist Manifesto, how it was right, and how it was wrong.

Ultimately, he concluded that Marx's premise that capitalism inherently exploits the working class so that the bourgeoisie might benefit was flawed in that in our modern capitalist society, the workers really are working together with everyone else - they aren't being forced to make my clothes, to make my food, to teach me about history, to import my gasoline, to provide my electricity. But they do it anyway. And why? Because I have something they want.

I have something they want, and they have something I want; and we work together and exchange those things we want for mutual benefit. They get money, I get electricity. Sounds like a good deal to me! And that money trickles down to the laboring classes that are working to provide me with that electricity.

To my socialist sensibilities, this seemed a bit repugnant to me. But I can see how it's true. Professor Herr told me that after I left college, I would spend eight hours every day for the rest of my life providing services for other people in order to get something from them. It's this "competition" that has created my cooperation with society - because I have an interest in the preservation and perpetuation of society. It's a wonderful universal pattern that spirals on forever.

My thoughts, anyway.

Heh, well, I have my own problems with this view, but I can't deny the state of things.

The idea that competition - that is, capitalism - breeds cooperation was first put forth to me by Professor Herr, an economist who guest-spoke at my 19th Century European History class; he was lecturing on Marx's Communist Manifesto, how it was right, and how it was wrong.

Ultimately, he concluded that Marx's premise that capitalism inherently exploits the working class so that the bourgeoisie might benefit was flawed in that in our modern capitalist society, the workers really are working together with everyone else - they aren't being forced to make my clothes, to make my food, to teach me about history, to import my gasoline, to provide my electricity. But they do it anyway. And why? Because I have something they want.

I have something they want, and they have something I want; and we work together and exchange those things we want for mutual benefit. They get money, I get electricity. Sounds like a good deal to me! And that money trickles down to the laboring classes that are working to provide me with that electricity.

To my socialist sensibilities, this seemed a bit repugnant to me. But I can see how it's true. Professor Herr told me that after I left college, I would spend eight hours every day for the rest of my life providing services for other people in order to get something from them. It's this "competition" that has created my cooperation with society - because I have an interest in the preservation and perpetuation of society. It's a wonderful universal pattern that spirals on forever.

My thoughts, anyway.
That makes alot of sense.

That makes alot of sense.Well, the point at which it breaks down for me is when you have an unskilled worker being paid poverty wages. Obviously, you have to work to survive [unless you're disabled or some other extenuating circumstance, but we'll ignore that for now], and you can't leave your job, because you need all the money you can get - you're living from day to day.

To me, poverty wages are a form of exploitation. There's really no cooperation there. Just desperation. :(

Well, the point at which it breaks down for me is when you have an unskilled worker being paid poverty wages. Obviously, you have to work to survive [unless you're disabled or some other extenuating circumstance, but we'll ignore that for now], and you can't leave your job, because you need all the money you can get - you're living from day to day.

To me, poverty wages are a form of exploitation. There's really no cooperation there. Just desperation. :(
I can see that.

Well, naturally competition. Competition brings progress and evolution. It cleans away those who are not able to survive in the society and makes more room for the strong ones.


Hear Hear

I can see that.You're being too agreeable! Stoppit!

You're being too agreeable! Stoppit!
Sorry, I'm a right-libertarian, you make sense to me, but I am also a skeptical person so your other comment is valid. I could try and argue if you wish.

Both.