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.