Competition vs. Collaboration

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

thata23
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:06 am

Competition vs. Collaboration

Post by thata23 » Thu Dec 07, 2017 5:44 am

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?

Celebritydiscodave2
Posts: 200
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:52 pm

Re: Competition vs. Collaboration

Post by Celebritydiscodave2 » Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:11 am

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!

thata23
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:06 am

Re: Competition vs. Collaboration

Post by thata23 » Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:35 pm

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.

Viveka
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Competition vs. Collaboration

Post by Viveka » Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:10 am

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.

thata23
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:06 am

Re: Competition vs. Collaboration

Post by thata23 » Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:31 am

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.

Celebritydiscodave2
Posts: 200
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:52 pm

Re: Competition vs. Collaboration

Post by Celebritydiscodave2 » Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:47 pm

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 (?)

thata23
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:06 am

Re: Competition vs. Collaboration

Post by thata23 » Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:33 am

Celebritydiscodave2 wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:47 pm
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
Posts: 200
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:52 pm

Re: Competition vs. Collaboration

Post by Celebritydiscodave2 » Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:15 pm

thata23 wrote:
Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:33 am
Celebritydiscodave2 wrote:
Mon Dec 11, 2017 12:47 pm
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.
Not necessarily nearly so free, nor necessarily have access to required finance. Yes, I trust humanity, I trust it to continue to be what I have already seen it to be. Every last individual in the world, well, virtually every, would claim to want more money. There is actually a greater tendency for this need under a communist system. Customer satisfaction seems to being put first and foremost nowadays. Thatcher`s era, yes I`d agree, we were nestling alongside your suggestion back then. We require money due to circumstances, the fact that we are not all working the land with our bare hands.

thata23
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:06 am

Re: Competition vs. Collaboration

Post by thata23 » Thu Dec 14, 2017 5:43 am

Celebritydiscodave2 wrote:
Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:15 pm
Not necessarily nearly so free, nor necessarily have access to required finance. Yes, I trust humanity, I trust it to continue to be what I have already seen it to be. Every last individual in the world, well, virtually every, would claim to want more money. There is actually a greater tendency for this need under a communist system. Customer satisfaction seems to being put first and foremost nowadays. Thatcher`s era, yes I`d agree, we were nestling alongside your suggestion back then. We require money due to circumstances, the fact that we are not all working the land with our bare hands.
I'm talking about a system where money doesn't even exist - the only "money" would be trust and transparency that everyone plays a role and is free to pursue whatever interests them. Surely, some people would take an interest in invention and discovery and others would help them on that quest. Others may take an interest in more practical things like making food or building homes. Having money tied to all these pursuits actually lessens trust rather than enforces it, as it is advantageous to try to cheat in such a system where money is the end goal. If only one's pride is on the line and everything is transparent and they trust all other human beings, they will attempt to make the highest quality product and may actually take more risks knowing that if they fail, it is no the end of the world and they can still survive, which would again advance humanity faster.

Celebritydiscodave2
Posts: 200
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:52 pm

Re: Competition vs. Collaboration

Post by Celebritydiscodave2 » Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:39 am

That`s fine, but it could only work if both specific value and its enforcement were to follow it. Even if not with money people would still expect to be fairly treated over payments. I`d argue that such a system would make it far easier to get away with exchanging too little. One could perhaps claim social areas as payment, in which case get away with paying nothing at all. It would make perfect sense with just a few thousand left of us on the planet, and no banks.

thata23
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:06 am

Re: Competition vs. Collaboration

Post by thata23 » Fri Dec 15, 2017 7:32 am

Celebritydiscodave2 wrote:
Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:39 am
That`s fine, but it could only work if both specific value and its enforcement were to follow it. Even if not with money people would still expect to be fairly treated over payments. I`d argue that such a system would make it far easier to get away with exchanging too little. One could perhaps claim social areas as payment, in which case get away with paying nothing at all. It would make perfect sense with just a few thousand left of us on the planet, and no banks.
Those people who tried to get away with whatever it is still have to sleep with themselves at night. I'd say that guilt over cheating would eventually persuade them to just "get with the program" and do the right thing. Money does give a somewhat valid excuse to criminals in our current system for their actions as many people with money in businesses get their money in unethical ways (even if it's just little lies or cheating or violations here and there - no company is perfect and who is to determine what mistake/violation by an individual that gets caught is worse than a mistake/violation of a company that goes unnoticed). If money did not exist, it would be much harder for those criminals to sleep knowing that they violated the trust of their fellow brothers and sisters who are all doing the right thing just for the advancement of humanity.

Celebritydiscodave2
Posts: 200
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:52 pm

Re: Competition vs. Collaboration

Post by Celebritydiscodave2 » Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:21 pm

thata23 wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 7:32 am
Celebritydiscodave2 wrote:
Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:39 am
That`s fine, but it could only work if both specific value and its enforcement were to follow it. Even if not with money people would still expect to be fairly treated over payments. I`d argue that such a system would make it far easier to get away with exchanging too little. One could perhaps claim social areas as payment, in which case get away with paying nothing at all. It would make perfect sense with just a few thousand left of us on the planet, and no banks.
Those people who tried to get away with whatever it is still have to sleep with themselves at night. I'd say that guilt over cheating would eventually persuade them to just "get with the program" and do the right thing. Money does give a somewhat valid excuse to criminals in our current system for their actions as many people with money in businesses get their money in unethical ways (even if it's just little lies or cheating or violations here and there - no company is perfect and who is to determine what mistake/violation by an individual that gets caught is worse than a mistake/violation of a company that goes unnoticed). If money did not exist, it would be much harder for those criminals to sleep knowing that they violated the trust of their fellow brothers and sisters who are all doing the right thing just for the advancement of humanity.
Say, as an example, the exchange for my pruning your trees were to be your taking me to the pictures, the entrance fee being paid by you with crops grown in your garden, and fuel for your vehicle with logs which you`d cut and split, fine so far, but say you had proposed taking me to the pictures anyway, what of this circumstance then? It is a circumstance tailor made for putting one in denial, and before you know where you are you`d have half the population paying in kind for their relationships, and the other half only ever expecting the continued payments. Human nature is far more likely to harden in the absence of money than ever it would be to soften, and we`d more likely become fully pledged animals than saints. For any chance of it working there would have to be actual equality, so it would be a communist structure, brain surgeons being rewarded the same as road sweepers.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 829
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Competition vs. Collaboration

Post by -1- » Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:31 pm

thata23 wrote:
Thu Dec 07, 2017 5:44 am
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.
My opinion is entirely different. There is more fighting in underdeveloped areas, because they run out of food and other resources sooner, and more frequently. In advanced society the birth rate is low, some areas it is negative. So the institutions, supplies, infrastructure and superstructure never gets strained. People enjoy stability.

In underdeveloped areas the birth rate is high. They soon and quickly and frequently reach the limit of suppies, food, and resources that their area can provide. Therefore they war over these limited supplies.

The reason advanced societies don't have much fighting within and without is due to a very high relative standard of living, which is stable and readily available. The reason they fight in underdeveloped societies is they must if they want to survive, never mind live in luxury.

thata23
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:06 am

Re: Competition vs. Collaboration

Post by thata23 » Sat Dec 16, 2017 7:38 pm

Celebritydiscodave2 wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:21 pm

Say, as an example, the exchange for my pruning your trees were to be your taking me to the pictures, the entrance fee being paid by you with crops grown in your garden, and fuel for your vehicle with logs which you`d cut and split, fine so far, but say you had proposed taking me to the pictures anyway, what of this circumstance then? It is a circumstance tailor made for putting one in denial, and before you know where you are you`d have half the population paying in kind for their relationships, and the other half only ever expecting the continued payments. Human nature is far more likely to harden in the absence of money than ever it would be to soften, and we`d more likely become fully pledged animals than saints. For any chance of it working there would have to be actual equality, so it would be a communist structure, brain surgeons being rewarded the same as road sweepers.
I just have to disagree with the fact that "we'd more likely become fully pledged animals than saints" - that is a negative view of the human condition, and as they say, "you are what you see in others." I think people know other people's strengths and weaknesses and they'd have the utmost respect for what other human beings do (whether considered easy or hard), which would allow people to become the best versions of themselves. If those people want to get through life simply through relationships and they think that it is meaningful, let them do so - there would be no blaming for the faults that anyone else commits as we would all be in this together and people would acknowledge that everyone is doing their best to help society. One person's mistake would be everyone's mistake and we would all try to fix things as quickly as possible. I think we would advance faster since people would be willing to take risks (such as going to Mars) knowing money is not a limiter and would also not hold grudges as they knew their fellow humans are doing things simply for the betterment of society rather than personal gains.

Celebritydiscodave2
Posts: 200
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:52 pm

Re: Competition vs. Collaboration

Post by Celebritydiscodave2 » Sat Dec 16, 2017 8:00 pm

thata23 wrote:
Sat Dec 16, 2017 7:38 pm
Celebritydiscodave2 wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:21 pm

Say, as an example, the exchange for my pruning your trees were to be your taking me to the pictures, the entrance fee being paid by you with crops grown in your garden, and fuel for your vehicle with logs which you`d cut and split, fine so far, but say you had proposed taking me to the pictures anyway, what of this circumstance then? It is a circumstance tailor made for putting one in denial, and before you know where you are you`d have half the population paying in kind for their relationships, and the other half only ever expecting the continued payments. Human nature is far more likely to harden in the absence of money than ever it would be to soften, and we`d more likely become fully pledged animals than saints. For any chance of it working there would have to be actual equality, so it would be a communist structure, brain surgeons being rewarded the same as road sweepers.
I just have to disagree with the fact that "we'd more likely become fully pledged animals than saints" - that is a negative view of the human condition, and as they say, "you are what you see in others." I think people know other people's strengths and weaknesses and they'd have the utmost respect for what other human beings do (whether considered easy or hard), which would allow people to become the best versions of themselves. If those people want to get through life simply through relationships and they think that it is meaningful, let them do so - there would be no blaming for the faults that anyone else commits as we would all be in this together and people would acknowledge that everyone is doing their best to help society. One person's mistake would be everyone's mistake and we would all try to fix things as quickly as possible. I think we would advance faster since people would be willing to take risks (such as going to Mars) knowing money is not a limiter and would also not hold grudges as they knew their fellow humans are doing things simply for the betterment of society rather than personal gains.
You did say "I just have to disagree with the FACT" though!!? So there is perhaps at least a little doubt in your mind? If not, then why so certain, do you consider that it`s prudent over such a radical proposal as this? All the murders, rapes, hatred, prejudice, is this all down to money then in your view? It surely needs to be, because for what you are proposing to work the world would have to undergo one hell of a lot of perfecting up. That`s a given. Where do you get this notion from that if everybody were to be told that they`d no longer be paid any money for their toils they`d all perfect up, this is still the human race we are talking about. Surely, we`d have to have minds programmable in their thinking and function first.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests