On 25-9-2011 18:30, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 11:54:13 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>>> You are assuming all competition is harmful, but it isn't.
>>
>> I know, but there is a general idea that all competition is beneficial.
>> That is the implicit assumption under (neo)liberalism. Sometimes you
>> have to exaggerate to get a message across.
>
> Depends on the audience.  Some audiences look at such exaggeration and
> say "this person has gone off the rails" and stop listening completely.

Sure, but not in this newsgroup.

>> Look at the disasters in the financial world, look at the industry and
>> organizations for places that you might like to work in and those that
>> you don't.
>
> I've been observing the problems in the financial world, and to
> reiterate, I never said *all* competition was *good* competition.
>
>> Is all competition always beneficial?
>
> No, and I never made that claim.  I've explicitly said that there is
> beneficial competition and harmful competition.

Granted, but in general 'X is part of human nature' means either it is 
as it should be (or the double inverse as in 'homosexuality is against 
nature') or it means 'resistance is futile'.
So if you make a sweeping statement like 'competitiveness is part of 
human nature' I feel free to react as if you are not aware of the 
counter arguments. Simply because people hear the one-liners and not the 
subtleties later. ;)
Note also that I did not think that you got of the rails and I did not 
stop listening completely.

>> Look also at a cross section of a town or your family. How many are
>> competing for resources or jobs just because they like it?
>
> It isn't a question of liking it.  "Nature" doesn't mean "we do this only
> because we like it".

Nature in general has a way to ensure that what is needed for the 
survival of an individual animal will be enjoyed by that animal. E.g. 
hunting, running, swimming, ruminating and sex.

>> Then ask yourself the question, are all humans competitive by nature?
>
> I come to the same conclusion - they are.  That some choose to suppress
> the natural instinct doesn't mean they aren't competitive by nature.
> Again, humans have the ability to suppress instincts.  Some forgo
> reproduction as well - does that mean humans aren't driven by the
> instinct to reproduce?

Ok, we have established that with the exception of (mainly) adolescent 
males nobody likes to compete, and even those only in specific areas. In 
fact we are avoiding it as best as we can*. And most of us are not even 
good at it.
Can you explain why you still think it is part of human nature?

I think the alternative explanation that we are not competitive by 
nature but that sometimes we are forced to suppress that instinct is a 
much better one.

Anyway, let's agree to disagree on this point.

*) one of the insights that repeatedly comes back in Pratchett is that 
in the end what a human wants is that tomorrow will be almost the same 
as today.

-- 
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per 
citizen per day.

Post a reply to this message