Cooperation vs. Competition

[iago]

"We view each other as colleagues not as competitors," he said.

I've been saying for awhile that that's the move we need to make -- competing hurts everybody, cooperation is where it's at.

I wish I could support Sam Adams, too bad their beer sucks.

[Sidoh]

I agree that cooperation is beneficial, but I don't agree that the absence of competition is a good idea in general.

[iago]

Well, on that topic, this is a good book to look into:
http://www.amazon.ca/No-Contest-Case-Against-Competition/dp/0395631254/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207510729&sr=8-1

Basically makes a case about why competition/rewards/punishments/etc. are ultimately harmful (that also ties in with that magic marker thread where I mentioned problems with punishment -- that's also a point he makes. )

[Sidoh]

I'd read it if economics interested me enough. 

[iago]

It's not really about economics, it's about life -- things like jobs, sports, games, politics, and really everything. It's about how destructive competitive ideals are so ingrained in us when we're young that we can't see past it. We're willing to harm others, cheat, steal, etc. for the sake of being better than others. It's a really interesting read, and I plan to actually read the whole thing at some point. But I have soo much to read.

[zorm]

I've been saying for awhile that that's the move we need to make -- competing hurts everybody, cooperation is where it's at.

I wish I could support Sam Adams, too bad their beer sucks.

Competing doesn't hurt everybody, what a load of nonsense. Competition is the basis for about every improvement that has been made that I can think of. Your computer isn't as fast as it is today because everyone decided to sit down and have a powwow, its fast because corporations wanted it to be better than the competition. Likewise you can apply this just about everywhere.

[iago]

Competing doesn't hurt everybody, what a load of nonsense. Competition is the basis for about every improvement that has been made that I can think of. Your computer isn't as fast as it is today because everyone decided to sit down and have a powwow, its fast because corporations wanted it to be better than the competition. Likewise you can apply this just about everywhere.

Read the book, then discuss.

<edit> Sorry for the short response. But in any case, I think that if we weren't brought up to be competitive, then we would still have fast computers, not because of the competition, but because of the benefit to humanity in general. And, if the chip/OS manufacturers all worked together instead of competing and suing each other, everybody would be better off.

That obviously doesn't work in a capitalist world, though, which is based on competition. So it's not exactly a commonly accepted theory.

[Sidoh]

I'm guessing there's literature advocating the "other side" of this argument?  To be fair, we should read some books from there too.

[iago]

I'm guessing there's literature advocating the "other side" of this argument?  To be fair, we should read some books from there too.

I'm not sure if there are any, but feel free to recommend one.

Also, I edited my post.

[Chavo]

I haven't read the book, obviously, but there seems to be glaring hole in your argument and I'm pretty sure this has come up before

Communism and Socialism share the ideal of removal of competition in favor of social management by the government.  Empirical evidence demonstrates that they have not led to the same kind of technological advances.  The few I can think of off the top of my head are all militaristic (which could be argued stems from a competition in arms).

[Sidoh]

I'm not sure if there are any, but feel free to recommend one.

Also, I edited my post.

I'm sure there are many books arguing both sides.  A friend of mine who's much more adept in economics than I may or may not be keen on this particular issue, but I'd imagine he's seen or read some literature on the issue.

I know you said this isn't just an economical issue and that the book is trying to convince you that competition should be reduced in general.  However, I'm sure it's applying what it says to economics and I'm sure you agree it's an appropriate area to examine under the conditions it suggests.

also, lol at this going pretty far off topic in the third post.

[iago]

I haven't read the book, obviously, but there seems to be glaring hole in your argument and I'm pretty sure this has come up before

Communism and Socialism share the ideal of removal of competition in favor of social management by the government.  Empirical evidence demonstrates that they have not led to the same kind of technological advances.  The few I can think of off the top of my head are all militaristic (which could be argued stems from a competition in arms).

Communism and socialism are different beasts, and neither has been practiced in any meaningful way. I think of all the political ideologies I've thought about, George Orwell had it right when he argued for Democratic Socialism

The problem is that as long as there are competitive people, particularly in power, it's not going to work. It's the tragedy of the commons -- one person taking advantage of it can destroy it. So the sad reality is that it may never work in practice.

That being said, I think it's a goal that's worth striving for.

I'm sure there are many books arguing both sides.  A friend of mine who's much more adept in economics than I may or may not be keen on this particular issue, but I'd imagine he's seen or read some literature on the issue.

I know you said this isn't just an economical issue and that the book is trying to convince you that competition should be reduced in general.  However, I'm sure it's applying what it says to economics and I'm sure you agree it's an appropriate area to examine under the conditions it suggests.

also, lol at this going pretty far off topic in the third post.

I don't think that economics is the best place to look at the issue. The first place I'd look, which I guess is related to economics, is at the way food, pharmaceuticals, and other similar things are processed. It is in the best interest of a corporation to harm people up to a point (whether it's by using harmful chemicals in the production, dump waste into the environment, etc.) in order to make more money than other companies. From the technological side, it's in the best interest of companies to use the cheapest possible parts that they can sell. I may not be explaining it in the best way possible, but that's what sort of got me thinking of how competition in the business world actually works.

In general, I probably shouldn't be arguing this. I probably end up doing more harm than good to the argument, since I've only really started exploring this ideology. But it's something that appeals to me a lot, even if the end is nearly (if not completely) impossible.

@ being offtopic -- nobody marked it as "strict", so I figured I didn't have to be strict.

[Sidoh]

I don't think that economics is the best place to look at the issue. The first place I'd look, which I guess is related to economics, is at the way food, pharmaceuticals, and other similar things are processed. It is in the best interest of a corporation to harm people up to a point (whether it's by using harmful chemicals in the production, dump waste into the environment, etc.) in order to make more money than other companies. From the technological side, it's in the best interest of companies to use the cheapest possible parts that they can sell. I may not be explaining it in the best way possible, but that's what sort of got me thinking of how competition in the business world actually works.

In general, I probably shouldn't be arguing this. I probably end up doing more harm than good to the argument, since I've only really started exploring this ideology. But it's something that appeals to me a lot, even if the end is nearly (if not completely) impossible.

@ being offtopic -- nobody marked it as "strict", so I figured I didn't have to be strict.

It's all well and good to look at it from other angles, but when it boils down to it, if it doesn't work economically, it simply can't work with anything else.

Edit: split this off.  iago, I realize that your first post here is more related to the other topic than not, but it's kind of what started this whole fork.

[iago]

It's all well and good to look at it from other angles, but when it boils down to it, if it doesn't work economically, it simply can't work with anything else.

See, the problem is that economics shouldn't be the deciding factor, the betterment of humanity should. Sure, using slaves to do your labour would be economically beneficial, but it decidedly hurts humanity in general, so it's considered unacceptable. Looking at how much money something makes is an extrinsic motivator, which is something that (albeit arguably) doesn't work on the large scale (hey, look at that, another link to that magic marker thread )

Also, if you look at the number of people living in poverty, it could be argued that this isn't working economically, either.

I'm not sure that looking at this on a large scale is possible right now, however. I think it's more important to examine this in day to day life. It's a lot like being vegan -- I'm not going to change the world, or even try to impress my beliefs on others, but I want to set a good example and live my life in what I see as the most ethical way.

[CrAz3D]

I haven't read the book, obviously, but there seems to be glaring hole in your argument and I'm pretty sure this has come up before

Communism and Socialism share the ideal of removal of competition in favor of social management by the government.  Empirical evidence demonstrates that they have not led to the same kind of technological advances.  The few I can think of off the top of my head are all militaristic (which could be argued stems from a competition in arms).

Communism and socialism are different beasts, and neither has been practiced in any meaningful way. I think of all the political ideologies I've thought about, George Orwell had it right when he argued for Democratic Socialism

This indicates that the means of production are owned by the entire population

Uhm, yeah.  No.  Good in theory, but would NEVER work in real life.

[Sidoh]

See, the problem is that economics shouldn't be the deciding factor, the betterment of humanity should. Sure, using slaves to do your labour would be economically beneficial, but it decidedly hurts humanity in general, so it's considered unacceptable. Looking at how much money something makes is an extrinsic motivator, which is something that (albeit arguably) doesn't work on the large scale (hey, look at that, another link to that magic marker thread )

I think you're assuming what I said was meant to be bidirectional when in fact I'm fully aware it's not.

What I am saying is for an ideal to work, it has to have a strong economical structure.  I am not saying the reverse is true (i.e.: if an ideal has a strong economical structure, it will work).

Also, if you look at the number of people living in poverty, it could be argued that this isn't working economically, either.

That's fine, but it teeters on the fence of relevance.

I'm not sure that looking at this on a large scale is possible right now, however. I think it's more important to examine this in day to day life. It's a lot like being vegan -- I'm not going to change the world, or even try to impress my beliefs on others, but I want to set a good example and live my life in what I see as the most ethical way.

I understand, but I think that's kind of the topic of the debate: "Can the world function without competition?"  I don't think so.


On a side note, I like competition.  I like being better than most people at some things and I feel I deserve compensation for it.

[iago]

I think you're assuming what I said was meant to be bidirectional when in fact I'm fully aware it's not.

What I am saying is for an ideal to work, it has to have a strong economical structure.  I am not saying the reverse is true (i.e.: if an ideal has a strong economical structure, it will work).

I don't think I assumed that. But that's going well beyond what I really understand, so I'm going to have to stay out of that part.

That's fine, but it teeters on the fence of relevance.

I disagree. It's evidence that the current system isn't working. Again, largescale economics isn't something I really understand, so I don't think I could make a meaningful case. But I think that, at the superficial level, that's something to consider.

I understand, but I think that's kind of the topic of the debate: "Can the world function without competition?"  I don't think so.

On a side note, I like competition.  I like being better than most people at some things and I feel I deserve compensation for it.

Well, that isn't something I could effectively argue. I'd rather look the small scale, "could I function without/with reduced competition?"

On that sidenote, we're programmed to like competition from the time we're born all the way through school, with sports, our education, jobs, etc. Even within families, there's an ingrained competition, which often makes siblings resent each other. I frequently tell my sister (and we're in our mid-20s now) that it's not a competition (for example, when she says "Mom loves you more!" or something). But my point is, It's something that's extremely hard to look beyond, and I understand that. It's something that's buried deep within ourselves.

Even before I started thinking about it, I already lived my life with minimum competition. I guess the way I write source code is evidence of that -- I release every code I can into the public domain, for use by whomever wants it, without necessarily giving me credit. I did that because I wanted to help people the best I could without regard to making myself look good. So I guess I leaned that way anyways.


On my own sidenote, I've never actually read the book, or read any literature relating to this. It's just something that I've sort of worked out myself, based on things I've seen around me. I'd like to read more on the subject, if I have time..

[Sidoh]

I don't think I assumed that. But that's going well beyond what I really understand, so I'm going to have to stay out of that part.

If you take a look at the post of yours I responded to, I think it's pretty clear you did.  You replied to me as if I was saying "economics is the only metric that matters".  I am saying it's crucially important metric, but I am not saying it's the only crucially important metric.

I disagree. It's evidence that the current system isn't working. Again, largescale economics isn't something I really understand, so I don't think I could make a meaningful case. But I think that, at the superficial level, that's something to consider.

Right, it's evidence that the current system has noteworthy flaws.  However, I don't think that makes any sort of case for the original argument, which I think was: "The world would be a better place without competition."  Please clear that up if I interpreted this incorrectly.

Well, that isn't something I could effectively argue. I'd rather look the small scale, "could I function without/with reduced competition?"

I certainly could function, but I rather doubt I'd like it.

On that sidenote, we're programmed to like competition from the time we're born all the way through school, with sports, our education, jobs, etc. Even within families, there's an ingrained competition, which often makes siblings resent each other. I frequently tell my sister (and we're in our mid-20s now) that it's not a competition (for example, when she says "Mom loves you more!" or something). But my point is, It's something that's extremely hard to look beyond, and I understand that. It's something that's buried deep within ourselves.

Maybe it goes beyond "learning" it?  Maybe it's just a part of human nature.  To be honest, I think it is on a pretty deep level.  That's not to say we should support it, though.  There are other, more relevant reasons for that, I think.

Even before I started thinking about it, I already lived my life with minimum competition. I guess the way I write source code is evidence of that -- I release every code I can into the public domain, for use by whomever wants it, without necessarily giving me credit. I did that because I wanted to help people the best I could without regard to making myself look good. So I guess I leaned that way anyways.

Everything that I write for non-personal use (i.e., crap that people would want to use) is pretty much on public domain as well (the MIT license).  This obviously doesn't apply to work I do, though.  Companies probably wouldn't like me splooging their source on the internets.

On my own sidenote, I've never actually read the book, or read any literature relating to this. It's just something that I've sort of worked out myself, based on things I've seen around me. I'd like to read more on the subject, if I have time..

It's definitely worth looking into if it's something that interests you; I agree with you on that.  I'd read the book if I had more time and I had more interest.

[iago]

If you take a look at the post of yours I responded to, I think it's pretty clear you did.  You replied to me as if I was saying "economics is the only metric that matters".  I am saying it's crucially important metric, but I am not saying it's the only crucially important metric.

Well, what I assumed you meant was, for something to work, it has to be able to make money, and that's what I disagree with. If you weren't saying that, then nevermind.

Right, it's evidence that the current system has noteworthy flaws.  However, I don't think that makes any sort of case for the original argument, which I think was: "The world would be a better place without competition."  Please clear that up if I interpreted this incorrectly.

The current system has noteworthy flaws, so we should explore alternatives. It doesn't necessarily lead directly to "this place would be better without competition", but it does expose some problems caused by competition.

Maybe it goes beyond "learning" it?  Maybe it's just a part of human nature.  To be honest, I think it is on a pretty deep level.  That's not to say we should support it, though.  There are other, more relevant reasons for that, I think.

I believe the author of No Contest would disagree with that, but I don't. I think it is part of human nature, to an extent. It goes back to the prehistoric times when, if you found a bush of berries, you would eat the berries and not die, while the people that didn't get the berries would die. That's a bit extreme, but it's sort of the point. Either think of yourself, or die.

The world we live in now, on the other hand, isn't zero sum. There is more than enough food, resources, and even luxuries to go around. However, they are unevenly distributed, both within our countries and over the world. I think that's something that people often forget.

Everything that I write for non-personal use (i.e., crap that people would want to use) is pretty much on public domain as well (the MIT license).  This obviously doesn't apply to work I do, though.  Companies probably wouldn't like me splooging their source on the internets.

I agree with the personal use stuff, that's why I said "all the code I can" -- unfortunately, there are laws, not to mention respect for code paid for by somebody else.


To continue on the series of sidenotes -- are the things I'm saying here actually sounding, like, sensible, or am I just sounding like a crazy vegan hippie? Because the arguments sort of make sense in my mind, but it's hard to dump them into a textbox.

[Krazed]

Well, what I assumed you meant was, for something to work, it has to be able to make money, and that's what I disagree with. If you weren't saying that, then nevermind.

How not? Everything costs money, living expenses, bills, pleasure, children, taxes, etc. In the world of business, everyone strives to be the best, however if everyone was equal, who wins? There would be no need for different companies working for the same goal, therefore there would be a ridiculious amount of jobs lost.

Basically, people are paid for their creativity and ideas. Look at how you get a job these days, you hand in your resume, right? Your resume lists all the things you've done, and the reasons you can do the job you apply for better then the next person. Isn't that competition? Isn't that why you've gotten your jobs, iago? Because you went to college, you have the experience, and that makes you better then the next guy applying for that job. If you're against competition, get rid of your resume. Go apply for a job, say "I'd appreciate it if you didn't read our resume's, and hire every single one of us. It's just not fair to give me the job and not someone else."

The current system has noteworthy flaws, so we should explore alternatives. It doesn't necessarily lead directly to "this place would be better without competition", but it does expose some problems caused by competition.

The thing is, what's better than competition? Earlier in this thread it was stated that everything in use today has spawned from creativity and competition. I watched a History Channel film on the development and history of computers earlier in one of my classes, and every single breakthrough in computers was based on the need for that scientist, mathmatician, etc. to make their computer work better then the prior model. If we stopped at Apple 1, or the Univac, the world today wouldn't be half as efficent. And that's just computers, nevermind every other field.

Some of your arguments make sense to a point, but theres one thing you cannot argue. Everything is based off competition. Every industry, profession, company slogan, brand, anything. The public, or a potential employee, or even potential girlfriend/significant other wants to know, what can you give it/him/her/them that the guy standing next to you can not provide?

[iago]

Well, what I assumed you meant was, for something to work, it has to be able to make money, and that's what I disagree with. If you weren't saying that, then nevermind.

How not? Everything costs money, living expenses, bills, pleasure, children, taxes, etc. In the world of business, everyone strives to be the best, however if everyone was equal, who wins? There would be no need for different companies working for the same goal, therefore there would be a ridiculious amount of jobs lost.

Basically, people are paid for their creativity and ideas. Look at how you get a job these days, you hand in your resume, right? Your resume lists all the things you've done, and the reasons you can do the job you apply for better then the next person. Isn't that competition? Isn't that why you've gotten your jobs, iago? Because you went to college, you have the experience, and that makes you better then the next guy applying for that job. If you're against competition, get rid of your resume. Go apply for a job, say "I'd appreciate it if you didn't read our resume's, and hire every single one of us. It's just not fair to give me the job and not someone else."

The current system has noteworthy flaws, so we should explore alternatives. It doesn't necessarily lead directly to "this place would be better without competition", but it does expose some problems caused by competition.

The thing is, what's better than competition? Earlier in this thread it was stated that everything in use today has spawned from creativity and competition. I watched a History Channel film on the development and history of computers earlier in one of my classes, and every single breakthrough in computers was based on the need for that scientist, mathmatician, etc. to make their computer work better then the prior model. If we stopped at Apple 1, or the Univac, the world today wouldn't be half as efficent. And that's just computers, nevermind every other field.

Some of your arguments make sense to a point, but theres one thing you cannot argue. Everything is based off competition. Every industry, profession, company slogan, brand, anything. The public, or a potential employee, or even potential girlfriend/significant other wants to know, what can you give it/him/her/them that the guy standing next to you can not provide?

But see, everything you've said boils down to, competition is beneficial because we've always based our lives on competition. We've never experienced any alternatives, so we can't say that development wouldn't happen.

The problem is, in our world, everything is financially motivated, and that's why competition is required. If the financial requirements went away, people could live comfortably without worrying about living expenses, pleasure, kids, taxes, etc.

But still, this is going above and beyond what I'm really comfortable with debating. I just don't know enough about how the world works to make a good argument.

[CrAz3D]

That's an ideal situation, and unfortunately nothing is ever ideal.

Competition can be simplified to the fight to survive.  It is evident in every mammal.  Wolves compete to be alpha, food, pick of the pack, etc.  Regular house pets compete for food and attention from their owners.
Competition is a basic part of life, nothing we've created, it is the natural instinct to survive.

[iago]

That's an ideal situation, and unfortunately nothing is ever ideal.

Nothing can be perfect, but don't we strive for perfection every day?

Competition can be simplified to the fight to survive.  It is evident in every mammal.  Wolves compete to be alpha, food, pick of the pack, etc.  Regular house pets compete for food and attention from their owners.
Competition is a basic part of life, nothing we've created, it is the natural instinct to survive.

I've already answered that:

Maybe it goes beyond "learning" it?  Maybe it's just a part of human nature.  To be honest, I think it is on a pretty deep level.  That's not to say we should support it, though.  There are other, more relevant reasons for that, I think.

I believe the author of No Contest would disagree with that, but I don't. I think it is part of human nature, to an extent. It goes back to the prehistoric times when, if you found a bush of berries, you would eat the berries and not die, while the people that didn't get the berries would die. That's a bit extreme, but it's sort of the point. Either think of yourself, or die.

The world we live in now, on the other hand, isn't zero sum. There is more than enough food, resources, and even luxuries to go around. However, they are unevenly distributed, both within our countries and over the world. I think that's something that people often forget.

[CrAz3D]

And those people that believe in sharing do.  Those that don't wish to share their excess with others don't. 
That's about as good as it is going to get.

[iago]

Again, that's because people are brought up to be competitive.

[iago]

Incidentally, if you want to look at problems with my arguments, there are two (related) problems that I don't know how to overcome:
a) Addictions
b) Hormones

Both of those are something the person has little or no control over, but that can throw a non-competitive group into huge problems.

[MyndFyre]

That obviously doesn't work in a capitalist world, though, which is based on competition.

... which is based on natural competition over scarce resources.  Which is evolutionary.

It isn't that someone went out one day and said "Let's all be capitalist."  It's part of being fittest - that you have the capacity to plan for the future, and that you can take care of the survival of yourself and closest genetic matches (parents, siblings, and offspring).

Planning for the future is why people are driven to accumulate wealth.

I see this guy is charging CDN$17 for his book at market.  Why isn't it free?  He's competing in the marketplace for survival.

The curious thing about competition is that, nobody criticizes other animals for doing it.  Look at the wild; there's a clear hierarchy.  It just happens to be that we're all the same species; we're not set in order because of physical prowess (necessarily) or anything like that.  It's mostly a matter of luck, your ancestors' ability to survive, and other things of this nature.

You can't simply dismiss out-of-hand that people are "brought up to be competitive."  It's in our genetics.

[iago]

... which is based on natural competition over scarce resources.  Which is evolutionary.

It isn't that someone went out one day and said "Let's all be capitalist."  It's part of being fittest - that you have the capacity to plan for the future, and that you can take care of the survival of yourself and closest genetic matches (parents, siblings, and offspring).

Planning for the future is why people are driven to accumulate wealth.

I see this guy is charging CDN$17 for his book at market.  Why isn't it free?  He's competing in the marketplace for survival.

Well, it's the same thing as a local restaurant that promotes socialism charging for their meals -- they don't have a choice. We have to survive in this world. That doesn't mean we can't work towards a goal.

You're right, it's an evolutionary trait, I already mentioned that. But we are no longer competing over scarce resources. As I said, we have more than enough resources for everybody to live in relative comfort.

The curious thing about competition is that, nobody criticizes other animals for doing it.  Look at the wild; there's a clear hierarchy.  It just happens to be that we're all the same species; we're not set in order because of physical prowess (necessarily) or anything like that.  It's mostly a matter of luck, your ancestors' ability to survive, and other things of this nature.

Well, animals also rape, murder, and each other's children. Not to mention what I've seen giraffes do at the zoo. I don't exactly want to live up to their standards.

You can't simply dismiss out-of-hand that people are "brought up to be competitive."  It's in our genetics.

I didn't dismiss it. I agree that it's an evolutionary trait. I'll re-quote what I already quoted at CrAz3d

Maybe it goes beyond "learning" it?  Maybe it's just a part of human nature.  To be honest, I think it is on a pretty deep level.  That's not to say we should support it, though.  There are other, more relevant reasons for that, I think.

I believe the author of No Contest would disagree with that, but I don't. I think it is part of human nature, to an extent. It goes back to the prehistoric times when, if you found a bush of berries, you would eat the berries and not die, while the people that didn't get the berries would die. That's a bit extreme, but it's sort of the point. Either think of yourself, or die.

The world we live in now, on the other hand, isn't zero sum. There is more than enough food, resources, and even luxuries to go around. However, they are unevenly distributed, both within our countries and over the world. I think that's something that people often forget.

[CrAz3D]

... which is based on natural competition over scarce resources.  Which is evolutionary.

It isn't that someone went out one day and said "Let's all be capitalist."  It's part of being fittest - that you have the capacity to plan for the future, and that you can take care of the survival of yourself and closest genetic matches (parents, siblings, and offspring).

Planning for the future is why people are driven to accumulate wealth.

I see this guy is charging CDN$17 for his book at market.  Why isn't it free?  He's competing in the marketplace for survival.

Well, it's the same thing as a local restaurant that promotes socialism charging for their meals -- they don't have a choice. We have to survive in this world. That doesn't mean we can't work towards a goal.

That goal is by the very nature of existance, unobtainable.  Are you striving to live forever?  No, and even if you wanted to, you can't.  That isn't how nature works.

You're right, it's an evolutionary trait, I already mentioned that. But we are no longer competing over scarce resources. As I said, we have more than enough resources for everybody to live in relative comfort.

Without some sort of personal incentive, people don't and won't strive to go out of their way to benefit someone else's life.  People want to live better than just being "relatively comfortable."  People invest and work and save in order to live securely.  Relative comfort can never be guaranteed so the notion that people will help other people because "there is enough to go around" is irrelevant.

Recently a notable businessman in our community committed suicide because he was being foreclosed upon.  He had a decently sized business ... I never would've thought that stuff would go down like that.  Obviously, tides can turn and things can go to hell ... comfort is never guaranteed.

[iago]

That goal is by the very nature of existance, unobtainable.  Are you striving to live forever?  No, and even if you wanted to, you can't.  That isn't how nature works.

We can't live forever, but I'm not going to walk in front of a bus, either. I may know it's impossible, but I'll do my best to try.

Without some sort of personal incentive, people don't and won't strive to go out of their way to benefit someone else's life.  People want to live better than just being "relatively comfortable."  People invest and work and save in order to live securely.  Relative comfort can never be guaranteed so the notion that people will help other people because "there is enough to go around" is irrelevant.

Recently a notable businessman in our community committed suicide because he was being foreclosed upon.  He had a decently sized business ... I never would've thought that stuff would go down like that.  Obviously, tides can turn and things can go to hell ... comfort is never guaranteed.

"Live in relative comfort" != "be relatively comfortable", those are practically opposites. But seriously, there is wayyy more than enough resources to go around, if people wanted them to.

That first line in that quote is the most upsetting part. It pretty much comes down to the fact that people are selfish. It's an unfortunate fact of life. But I still try my best not to live my life that way, even though it's encouraged, and even if it means I won't end up with as much money/luxuries as I could otherwise have. But for me, money isn't an object, the happiness of myself and those around me is.

[CrAz3D]

Exactly, fact of life.  Competition, me before you, it's a fact of life.

[Explicit]

That first line in that quote is the most upsetting part. It pretty much comes down to the fact that people are selfish. It's an unfortunate fact of life. But I still try my best not to live my life that way, even though it's encouraged, and even if it means I won't end up with as much money/luxuries as I could otherwise have. But for me, money isn't an object, the happiness of myself and those around me is.

I share the sentiment.

Anyone can dedicate their lives to accumulating wealth, but in modern society it's always going to be at the expense of others. It takes a lot of character to wish as well as make a genuine effort for the happiness of others, which implies not giving with the intention of receiving.

It reminds me of the movie Into the Wild.

[iago]

Exactly, fact of life.  Competition, me before you, it's a fact of life.

I have no idea where you're getting that from. Go back, read my post, and try posting something, like, relevant.

[CrAz3D]

Selfishness is a fact of life.  That's what you said

[iago]

It may be a fact of life, but that doesn't mean we should just ignore/accept it.