For all things philosophical.
7 posts • Page 1 of 1
Is the competitive environment really the best for advancement of society? In less developed areas of the world, more fighting between individuals and/or groups occurs than in more developed areas of the world - this has occurred because people in these developed areas use teamwork (in the form of companies, government, etc.) to advance society. Taking this, isn't the next logical step for companies, governments etc. to work as one instead of compete (capitalism, wars) against each other? When people are on the same page and collaborate, things get done better and more efficiently. Complete transparency seems to be inevitable, why continue to compete when history has shown that collaboration is better?
I agree, but think that there is already collaboration, and that it is not in opposition to the capitalist principal. Where would you take your foot of the pedal in terms of collaboration replacing competition though? - For instance, do you believe in "old school" where it concerns recruitment, would your policy be to put an employers instincts before a budding employees qualifications? Here a social group that might otherwise be left out are included, and are made privy to that information which goes with station. My sister entered merchant banking without qualifications and rose to middle management level. It saved the bank tens of thousands of pounds at the same time - She did not arrive there spoilt by expectation, only prepared for long hours, and hard work. In the same nature of way between nations, societies with high expectations, and societies with less so, collaboration is bringing about enhanced prosperity to both sides.
Another world record attempt this saturday!
Another world record attempt this saturday!
No foot off the pedal at all - complete unity between everybody. We are all from stardust! Why would anyone not be 100% transparent with anyone else? If you think about, then think about it again, it's very simple! We will get so much further if instead of alienating ourselves from others, we give 100% trust in our fellow brothers and sisters as if they are just an extension of us and we are an extension of them. This sounds like utopia, but all that's preventing it is us - just think of yourself as part of a huge machine called humanity that's on a cosmic mission to discover ourselves. It requires a fundamental shift in the way each of us thinks about each other, but it is possible! If the human next to you or that's interacting with you is not a good person, then that means you're not a good person - that's all it takes. We are all great, beautiful combinations of atoms - no need to fight. If you think of yourself as the most important person on Earth, then you are and everyone else will think of themselves as the most important person on Earth. Everybody is accountable for everything, no individuals - again, we are on a cosmic mission.
If we simply see ourselves as parts and indeed important parts of a wholly interdependent universe, then we will end up seeing ourselves as a way to increase the usefulness and goodness of the universe as a whole if not simply those who are a few degrees of separation away. For instance, interdependence is a result of our use of money: those who have it require those who need it. Those who don't have it require those who do. Work is the middle-man between those who do and don't have money. If work doesn't occur, then society doesn't advance and keep advancing. Thus all of us who work know that we are interdependent with the rest of the whole world's economy and improvement if not simply a certain company or business.
Yes, I see that we can think of ourselves as all interdependent, but capitalism promotes the individual over society. For instance, one is able to get away with lying to make money, which is a win for just one person and a loss for one (or many). If it were 100% transparent and everyone was one unit, this would not be allowed and everyone would be satisfied knowing they did just their little bit to help push the unit forward. I believe guilt out of not helping would be a stronger motivation than money - if not, then again, that would seem to mean humans are doomed.
Capitalism promotes innovation, thus making us free to innovate. Apart from in this area of electrical gadgetry, which we suffer an addiction for, we tend to being very slow to accept change, in my opinion, and this due to the fact of being creatures of habit. For instance, (of thousands of examples), and from my own experience, nobody ever deploys a personal trainer that is already reasonably fit, and no matter should it be discovered that he or she may be involved in regular acquisition of new physical world records. The freedom to lie is not promoted by capitalism (?)
We are free to innovate without capitalism, and if you have trust in humans, we better have a higher reason than money to make advances. And actually, yes, lying and manipulation is promoted by capitalism because the end goal is money, not 100% transparency and innovation.Celebritydiscodave2 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:47 pmCapitalism promotes innovation, thus making us free to innovate. Apart from in this area of electrical gadgetry, which we suffer an addiction for, we tend to being very slow to accept change, in my opinion, and this due to the fact of being creatures of habit. For instance, (of thousands of examples), and from my own experience, nobody ever deploys a personal trainer that is already reasonably fit, and no matter should it be discovered that he or she may be involved in regular acquisition of new physical world records. The freedom to lie is not promoted by capitalism (?)
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests