Is life all about competition?

Benj96

Natural selection is, fundamentally, a competitive mechanism based on only two outcomes; success and failure.

We may argue that there are myriad examples of “cooperation”, “mutual symbiosis” and “teamwork” in the natural world so surely competition is not the only means of living?

However natural selection is not usurped by these observations. In fact the same selective forces can demonstrate how seemingly cooperative behaviour can develop from selfish individualistic desire to survive. I have more chance of success if I am seen to be in a large group where someone else may be eaten instead.

So a system of “every man for himself” can seem to establish a balanced ecosystem that we perceive to be Harmonious and cooperative when really it just demonstrates the natural limits of success in a competitive world.

But we as humans are different no? We desire virtues including compassion and generosity and kindness and putting others before ourselves. Perhaps these are derivations of competitive mechanisms that favour groups rather than some inherent selflessness, afterall you may be more popular (a success quality) if you are kind to someone else. It still benefits the doer.
A phenomenon of cultural evolution that stems from the idea of a group of humans performing better than an individual.

Why is it that psychopaths disproportionately hold high level CEO positions. Why is it that the dominant economic regime of the globe is based on competition. Even conception itself is a race.
We are born into a world where we are expected to strive for success : which to most is to have the best of everything; the best wealth, the best recognition, the best popularity and influence.

Is there anything more then competition in disguise in the world? For the record I’m not elucidating that this is a negative thing. Just a real one. And what does it mean to “choose” in this case. What does it mean to refuse to compete with everyone else? Is it even truly possible while still living or is it only the act of death in which one stops the race?

Daemon

We are born into a world where we are expected to strive for success : which to most is to have the best of everything; the best wealth, the best recognition, the best popularity and influence. — Benj96

Hi Benj,

I agree with the first part but not the second. Of course those in a position to express their expectations for you expect (or hope) that you will succeed rather than fail, but speaking for myself I don't regard wealth, recognition, popularity or influence as particularly important indicators of success, for myself or for my children. I very much doubt I'm alone in this: I think if you asked, most parents would say they want their children to be happy, rather than wealthy, recognised, popular or influential.

Unfortunately we are largely governed by people who regard wealth, recognition, popularity and influence as the primary goal in life.

baker

"I think if you asked, most parents would say they want their children to be happy, rather than wealthy, recognised, popular or influential."

↪Daemon

But what do those parents mean by "happy"?
It seems to me they mean exactly 'wealthy, recognised, popular or influential', they just don't spell it out like this.
How can a person be happy, without also being wealthy, recognised, popular or influential? It's not clear how such is possible.

Daemon

How can a person be happy, without also being wealthy, recognised, popular or influential? It's not clear how such is possible. — baker

This really made me laugh out loud. Have you never met anyone who was happy without being wealthy, recognised, popular or influential?

baker

Nope.

Daemon

Well you have now.

Outlander

Well you have now. — Daemon

Well let's be fair now. I'm going to assume, considering your contentedness and use of the internet, you're from a first world country. So, you are wealthy, recognized, popular, and influential simply by matter of affiliation. You could have little to nothing in savings, be virtually unknown in your community and anything you ever say could constantly fall on deaf ears or otherwise be ignored. As an individual. Yet, you are not only subject to but endowed by the same rights and freedoms and resulting use/effect of wealth, influence, etc as the richest most popular persons in your nation. And so. The difference is a matter of personal ability to satisfy excess wants and desires on a whim and little more.

Gnomon

Natural selection is, fundamentally, a competitive mechanism based on only two outcomes; success and failure. — Benj96

Another way to look at the dualistic competition of Nature is in Hegel's notion of historical Dialectic, which has three prongs : Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis. I think of the resolution of oppositions as the directional vector of progressive evolution. There are winners & losers in evolution, but the process always succeeds in moving forward. :smile:

Dialectic%2007-14-07.jpg

TheMadFool

Competition and Cooperation are two sides of the same coin.

I'll frame these two notions in terms of resource consumption:

1. Cooperation: individuals sharing a resource
2. Competition: individuals fighting over a resource

These two facts of life can be understood in terms of a consumer-resource relationship.

Imagine the earth's resources as a layered cake of chocolate and vanilla. Life emerges on earth, call these X, these first lifeforms consuming the vanilla resource. There's plenty of vanilla for everybody, the vanilla resource will be shared and there'll be cooperation. It so happens that 2% vanilla is the minimum needed for the survival of an individual X. As soon as the population of X exceeds 50 [50 * 2% = 100%] competition is inevitable as there are more individuals than the vanilla portion can support.

What happens next is diversification; some of these early lifeforms begin consuming chocolate, call these Y.

Again, there's plenty of chocolate for every Y and there's cooperation. If the minimum requirement of chocolate for one Y is 5% then as soon as the population of Y exceeds 20 [ 20 * 5% = 100%] competition will begin.

This cycle of cooperation-competition will repeat for every available resource on earth until all ecological niches are filled with life of one kind or another. :chin:

There's more that can be said but this much is more than enough to chew on.

Valentinus

↪Benj96

Competition happens within certain constraints. It is either a part of some plan that is made or not. Your model suggests it changes as a function of some underlying condition outside of the context of the choices that are made.

What if those choices are an adequate measure of the choices made?

Outlander

Life is about the person you are today competing with the person you were yesterday. Other people just help out by reminding you, he's catching up.

schopenhauer1

Life is about "dealing with". From a far away, neutral perspective, like in scientific circles, they may call it "survival". As it is carried out in the first person, by us, the human animal, it is "dealing with" all manner of situations in life regarding survival, comfort, and finding entertainment. It is all just one thing to deal with then another, then another. When a person is born, it is just another burden-bearer that lives each day to reveal more burdens to deal with. Boredom is dealing directly with existence. Cleaning the house is one of many dealing with stuff of survival, comfort, entertainment. Dealing with tragedy, worry, anxiety, diseases, disasters, tedium, unpleasant tasks. A lot of the day is just dealing with, dealing with, dealing with.

Possibility

↪Benj96

Life is not all about competition, although it can seem that way. People see what they want to see.

Human achievement is not an individual effort - everything we do is contingent upon the collaborative efforts of others, from the moment we are born. The more awareness, connection and collaboration, the greater our success.

But if that’s the case, then where did this focus on maximising individual wealth, influence and recognition come from? It’s a reductionist consolidation of natural selection from a limited self-conscious perspective, giving primacy to the individual. It’s an impossible goal, by the way, a house of cards: those who appear to be getting there are actively maintaining a facade in at least one area by exploiting the other two. The rest of us are making daily sacrifices to maintain a tolerable balance in relation to those around us. It all seems so pointless from this perspective: an ongoing experience of individual pain, humiliation and loss, inflicted either on ourselves or on others.

Kant says that we can view existence as one, as one of or as the only one - this alters how we experience pain, humiliation and loss. It also alters how we view wealth (resources), influence (capacity) and recognition (value). Competition is just a matter of quantitative perspective - it’s an arbitrary choice that we continually make and re-make in terms of awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation and collaboration/exclusion: to compete, to communicate, or to collaborate.

Brett

↪schopenhauer1

Yes, life is about survival. Competition is a strategy.

If, hypothetically, all our needs were catered for: food, shelter, etc, would we still be competitive?

Brett

↪Possibility

The more awareness, connection and collaboration, the greater our success. — Possibility

So this “success” is what life is about. And what is that?

Possibility

↪Brett

‘Success’ is a realisation of perceived potential.

Brett

↪Possibility

I’ve replied to and read a number of your posts in the past and have an idea where you’re coming from.

But each of those words “ perceived potential” even on their own sound very insubstantial. Perceived by who and potential of what? I’m guessing it would have to be something inherent in all people and apparent in all cultures. And is a means or an end, is it like permanent revolution?

Brett

↪Possibility

Competition is just a matter of quantitative perspective - it’s an arbitrary choice that we continually make and re-make in terms of awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation and collaboration/exclusion: to compete, to communicate, or to collaborate. — Possibility

That is an interesting point.

But if that’s the case, then where did this focus on maximising individual wealth, influence and recognition come from? It’s a reductionist consolidation of natural selection from a limited self-conscious perspective, giving primacy to the individual. — Possibility

“Evolutionary biologists define exaptations as features of organisms that evolved because they served some function but are later co-opted to serve an additional or different function, which was not originally the target of natural selection. The new function may replace the older function or coexist together with it.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK210003/

I think this is interesting in regard to your post about evolution. That an exaptation can serve an additional or different function does not mean it is necessarily beneficial in the long term.

schopenhauer1

Yes, life is about survival. Competition is a strategy.

If, hypothetically, all our needs were catered for: food, shelter, etc, would we still be competitive? — Brett

I'll ask you a roundabout question. What happens if you don't like the things that you are supposed to like that are supposed to make life something like "zestful" and "lively" and one of the engines for "improvement" and "growth"?

Brett

↪schopenhauer1

Do you mean what if life is meaningless?

Mijin

First of all, it's worth saying that life does not need to be "about" anything.

Sure, this is a philosophy forum and we can talk about what we think life is for, but we should keep in mind that that may simply be a value judgement that we are making.

More specifically in the case of humans, we can decide what our own life is for.
If I choose to dedicate my life to bouncing around on a space hopper, that's what my life is for.
I don't care if someone thinks life is about reproducing, or if that is the process that brought me into the world. I don't owe evolution anything, and I think my life is for bouncing.

However natural selection is not usurped by these observations. In fact the same selective forces can demonstrate how seemingly cooperative behaviour can develop from selfish individualistic desire to survive. I have more chance of success if I am seen to be in a large group where someone else may be eaten instead. — Benj96

But this is a poor example.
In other species the individual regularly sacrifices themselves for the group. Now, we could argue that it is kind of a group selfishness that results in such behaviours.
And that's true. But it still breaks the rest of the OP. Because, no, it doesn't follow that individuals must necessarily be really thinking selfishly.

Brett

↪schopenhauer1

I just went back to one of your posts.

A lot of the day is just dealing with, dealing with, dealing with. — schopenhauer1

True. But why tolerable?

Brett

↪Mijin

First of all, it's worth saying that life does not need to be "about" anything. — Mijin

Sure, but what if you leave out “about”? “Life is competition”.

Edit: just out of interest, would you say life is about survival or not. Or do you mean it’s an accident of circumstances without meaning?

Mijin

Sure, but what if you leave out “about”? “Life is competition”. — Brett

I would still consider that a subjective judgement.

Let's go back to the guy who wants to spend his life bouncing on a space hopper. If we look at this guy and say "life is competition", what is that telling us, what understanding does that help us to achieve? What empirical data backs that claim up?

Brett

↪Mijin

You do have a point which I’m thinking about.

Brett

↪Mijin

If we observe life in its many forms is there anything consistent in them? The guy on the space hopper, his actions tell us very little about him. But what if someone came and took the hopper off him by force?

schopenhauer1

Do you mean what if life is meaningless? — Brett

So these are things people will say to spin competition as good.

True. But why tolerable? — Brett

What do you mean by the question?

Brett

↪schopenhauer1

So these are things people will say to spin competition as good. — schopenhauer1

To convince you to play the game? The carrot on the stick. But my question then is how long has this been going on? And competition obviously exists before it’s used as a tool to manipulate the population, as in a consumer world,

True. But why tolerable?
— Brett

What do you mean by the question? — schopenhauer1

This was related to the meaningless of life.

Possibility

But each of those words “ perceived potential” even on their own sound very insubstantial. Perceived by who and potential of what? I’m guessing it would have to be something inherent in all people and apparent in all cultures. And is a means or an end, is it like permanent revolution? — Brett

Perceived by the observer, and potential of their relation to the observed. Given that it will always be relative in this sense, does it need to be substantial? What kind of substance are you looking for?

Perceived potential is a process: strictly neither means nor end, or perhaps both-and. I think ‘permanent revolution’ is a contradiction - ‘perpetual’ seems more fitting.

If we observe life in its many forms is there anything consistent in them? — Brett

This perpetual revolution of realising potential as perceived in relation to the dissipative state of the organism. That’s not to say the organism necessarily perceives this potential (let alone apperceives it), only that we do as a self-conscious observer.

Brett

↪schopenhauer1

Competition creates meaning in a meaningless world.

Brett

↪Possibility

“ Competition is just a matter of quantitative perspective - it’s an arbitrary choice that we continually make ... to compete... “
— Possibility[/quote]

So what is compete?

Is life all about competition?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions