The meek or the ruthless: who prevails in the end?

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

As I said, since we're all in this together, no one wins.

As I said, winning is defined here as surviving. Are you saying no one survives?

@Tuna,

No. I'm saying that we all survive. You seem to be suggesting that to win is to survive, and to lose is to die. Is that correct?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

No. I'm saying that we all survive. You seem to be suggesting that to win is to survive, and to lose is to die. Is that correct?

Um. No. I'm not saying that "winning" is always defined as surviving.

The OP is asking a question about survival, though. Perhaps you can't give an answer. If you can't, that's cool. If you have an opinion, please share it: who ultimately displays the best strategy for survival: the meek or the ruthless?

1 Reply

@Tuna,

The OP asks: who will prevail. Define prevail.

0 Replies

@Tuna,

No, he didn't say he didn't have any idea who would win in the end. You are proposing that there can only be a choice between the meek and the ruthless. Look around, who has succeeded so far? Was it the weak or the ruthless? The balance shifts, and then shifts again.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

I understand you to be saying that neither stance has an advantage over the other.

1 Reply

Short thread, perhaps. It is what it is.

My opinion: the meek have a survival advantage. Strength alienates. Meekness invites friends. There is strength in numbers.

0 Replies

@Tuna,

Tuna wrote:

I understand you to be saying that neither stance has an advantage over the other.

No, that is not what I'm saying. It's been a long day here, we had family and friends for Christmas Eve and Christmas Day (today). I need to unwind, so I can go to sleep because there is a whole new day coming in about 18 minutes. Good night

0 Replies

It the only goal is survival, the ruthless will always win.

If the goal is to be the most liked while trying to survive, then the meek have a chance.

2 Replies

Reptils are in the place they are because they are not clever enough to make social tradeoffs...that says it all.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

that says it all.

I am not sure what that says at all.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Reptils are in the place they are because they are not clever enough to make social tradeoffs...that says it all.

Trade off? Is there such a thing as human nature?

Karl Marx

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

It the only goal is survival, the ruthless will always win.

If the goal is to be the most liked while trying to survive, then the meek have a chance.

Do you think most people are ruthless?

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Quote:

It the only goal is survival, the ruthless will always win.

The ruthless bastards require the labor of the meek. In such a relationship, both must survive. It is a symbiotic relationship.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

That's what Adam Smith said. Turns out, he was wrong.

1 Reply

@Tuna,

When I see the ruthless rulers leading the charge in war, I'll believe you have a point.

1 Reply

@Tuna,

Tuna wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

It the only goal is survival, the ruthless will always win.

If the goal is to be the most liked while trying to survive, then the meek have a chance.

Do you think most people are ruthless?

Not at all. That is why most people are not in the top 1% of anything.

I think some people are ruthless and some succeed and fail in life based around how they use that to their advantage.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

It's all about money, Glenn.

1 Reply

@Tuna,

Quote:

It's all about money, Glenn.

You're preaching to the choir.

However, it goes way beyond money. In the great Monopoly game called the world, those who own the properties, the railroads, and the utilities eventually came to the place where they couldn’t stand the static nature of the game. They have everything they could ever want in a hundred lifetimes, but it’s not enough because they have psychological problems. So then fulfillment became a matter of making wars and taking what the other owners have. They’re like extremely developed infants; think “terrible twos.” And they need the meek to use as laborers and cannon fodder. Symbiotic relationship!

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Not at all. That is why most people are not in the top 1% of anything.

I think some people are ruthless and some succeed and fail in life based around how they use that to their advantage.

Ah. The 1%. They own more than 90% of the wealth.

Each of us will ponder that in private, I imagine. I'm a newcomer to this forum, but I understand that it has pretty strict limits.

Thanks!

1 Reply

The meek or the ruthless: who prevails in the end?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know