what competition brings out to us

Are you nn in disguise?

nn, you mean a guy named nn, i know there is one in this forum, but i am not.

You sure?

yea, i am sure. i am wondering what made you think i am nn.

let me think...

1 - competition has resulted in the creation of all known organisms on the planet.

2 - without competition, there would be much less satisfaction from achieving goals

3 - without competition, we would have no technology, no fashions, no imrpoved products ever being made

4 - without compeition, we would not even be able to take satisfaction from our lovers

yeah id say its a good thing...

You write like nn. Or you did in your first post anyway.

IMO competition can be destructive or constructive. Competition for one's place in the family heirarchy or social group is almost always destructive. Competition in sporting events or to or to compare one's scientific or artistic expertise can be quite satisfying. Competition to earn one's place in the world is essential in order for there to be both progress and excellence.

in essence, i agree with you, fox. but as to progress, what represtents "progress". well, you promote to think about another serious problem, about which i 'd like to open a new thread to discuss.

Interesting. After reading your post I am interested in defining it as neutral. To me there was good competition and bad competition, based on our attitude toward it. So it makes more sense to say it is in fact our attitudes which are good or bad, and competition is merely a tool or medium.

Like guns. Are guns bad? No, the people who abuse them are. Guns are neutral.

Well........in a sense SCoates. I see your point. But I see competition as more than attitude. The kind I think that promotes progress is that which compels us to do better than has yet been done and we do that only by comparing our achievements against those of others. Would the U.S. have pushed ourselves to go to the moon when we did if we were not competing against Russia's superior space program? And in so doing we achieved superiority ourselves.

I am old enough to remember when the 4 minute mile was assumed to be impossible. But as runners competed against each other, each striving for a track record, an olympic record, a world record, somebody finally did run a 4 minute mile. (Was that in 1954?) Now any runner who can't run a four minute mile doesn't bother to enter international competition.

Competition prompts us to do better, more, the impossible. Without it, we would progress much more slowly if we progressed at all.

I'm only interested in the concept. I think the aspect it is often overlooked, and should be weighed into more situations.

For example, I can say that comepition is neither good nor bad, only the results are.

Then someone else points out that it is in fact the competition that inspires the results.

There's some truth in both concepts, but the latter is seldom ignored, while the former is most frequently.

Again, just sparked some interest to me...

Since Charles Robert Darwin presented the concepts of selective pressure and intra-species competition in his famous theory of evolution, there are many tries to transplant this theory into human society. According to them, competition between human individuals and between different nations or races is a necessary way for human evolution, which would promote the advancement of human civilization. Thus, it seems that we nowadays highly civilized society is the direct result of competitions. However, when we trace back to visit the price of these competitions, what would we see? We would see tricks/machinations assassination ，usurpations and wars--- the most mournful aspects in human history, which are all definite results of over-competitions, like it or not.
here i say over competition, or undue competion, but not competition per se. in fact we can really give out much instence to show the great goodness ot adequate competition.

I don't know Neo. I don't equate aggression toward the end of destroying an enemy or subjecting another or others to one's will as competition. That's something else.

In Darwin's theory, two seeds would sprout and compete for limited space. The stronger of the two would prevail and became better than it was in the process of the struggle while the weaker withered and died in the shade of the stronger. And then improved plant produced improved seed and the process repeated itself.

But in this case the strong plant wished no ill to the weaker. It was strictly a case of the survival of the fittest. In the animal kingdom, it is usually the smallest, the weakest, the more infirm that is lunch for the predator leaving the superior specimens to propagate. The predator wished no ill to its victim. It simply needed lunch.

Only in the human species do we find one plotting the demise of another. That is not competition. That is something quite different I think even when it is not evil.

yes, so the distress is not of the matter of competition, nor the goodness is. therefore, competition is neutral.

Neo writes


Well ideally it should be neutral, but I think you have to allow something for human nature too I think. Sometimes we just want to beat somebody because we just want to beat them, not because we necessarily want to improve. Sometimes that's okay I think and sometimes it might be less than noble. Probably humans are the only species that has to deal with that paradox too.

There is a matter of pride also... but there is always some motivation. Yes, humans often have different motivations than animals, but all actions have some motivation.

No real point, just thinking out loud.

Well, it seems that competition (for survival) has, in the evolutionary process, resulted in our species as it is now, whether or not that is objectively "good" is impossible to say. But it IS as we like it, more or less. But this is not quite the same thing as economic and military competition. And we must not overlook the importance for survival of COOPERATION.

yes jln, you open an important direction to discuss this question that i;ve almost forgotten to approach. cooperation is another important aspect in evolution in fact. when for example, there is a population of some species, and the resources vital for their survival are not sufficient to provision all of them, there are too strategy for them to chose, cooperation an competition. each of which provides a possibility for this population to succeed and continue the story of evolution, but not necessarily. to compete with each other, some of them would fail and die, while others would survive and give birth to new generation; to compete with other populations or other species, they and their descendents, as a whole, maybe could obtain new trait conferring them additional adaptive functions that enable them procure more resources to make a living; on the other hand, to chose to cooperate with each other or with other populations no matter inter- or intra- species, may also elicit new adaptive characters that help them overcome the shortage on this vital resources.
each of aforementioned strategy is okay, and this scenario can also occur to we human beings, as to some challenge in society.