Leopard shipped bugged

[iago]

Is it the little guys that get blamed and have to quit when a company does poorly?  No, that's the high up people.  :P

No, but they're the ones that get laid off. Trust me, it happened enough at Symantec, and it's always the people at the bottom.

[AntiVirus]

I don't agree with you there iago.  There might be some innovation in the world, but it would not be able to compare to the fast pace innovation going on today.  There would be no incentive to innovate as long as what they have allows them to get by.

The innovation going on today? Do you mean the research being done by universities, or the race to make the cheapest products? Because research done by universities isn't financially motivated (in the sense that, if financial motivation were to disappear, they would still be doing it), and the race to make cheapest products isn't something I like.

Or by "innovation" you might mean marketing. Every company wants their product to seem like the best, so they make small changes, advertise it as something groundbreaking, and people are left with the impression that the new product is better than the old one.

I am talking about how companies like Apple and Microsoft keep improving their computers and media devices in order to stay in the market and to out do the other.  Because of that we have things like the iPod where you can hold 60+ gb in something tiny.  That is the innovation I am talking about.

University research may not be driven by greed, but competition helps a lot with the development done by Universities.  Without competition there wouldn't be prestigious Universities, they would all be the same.  The Universities want the best professors they can get so they can get more students which means more money for the Universities themselves, which in turn leads to more funding for research.  In the end I still believe that competition is responsible for University developments.

In fact, I don't believe that a degree from a University would be as required as it is today without competition.  The whole reason people go to Universities, or at least the reason the majority go to Universities is to study so you can eventually get a job you want and make enough money to live.  I don't see how anyone in a non-competitive world would have a problem getting a job that would let them have enough money to support themselves and a family.  People are lazy, why would they want to do unnecessary work?

[Hitmen]

Is it the little guys that get blamed and have to quit when a company does poorly?  No, that's the high up people.  :P

If by quit you mean "be relieved of duty with tens of millions of dollars in severence pay", then yeah, totally.

[iago]

I am talking about how companies like Apple and Microsoft keep improving their computers and media devices in order to stay in the market and to out do the other.  Because of that we have things like the iPod where you can hold 60+ gb in something tiny.  That is the innovation I am talking about.

I'm sure that money isn't the only reason that could happen. What about somebody who realized "I have 50gb of music that I want to take with me"? Big evil corporations aren't necessary for innovation, necessity is. Remember the saying, "necessity is the mother of invention"? It's true.

University research may not be driven by greed, but competition helps a lot with the development done by Universities.  Without competition there wouldn't be prestigious Universities, they would all be the same.  The Universities want the best professors they can get so they can get more students which means more money for the Universities themselves, which in turn leads to more funding for research.  In the end I still believe that competition is responsible for University developments.

So you're suggesting that only giving rich people a good education is somehow beneficial? In Canada, all our universities are relatively equal. None are really well known as being better, and there are good professors at all of them, and good research being done at all the ones with graduate programs. They don't compete with each other, they assist each other, and people are, on average, better off that way.

In fact, I don't believe that a degree from a University would be as required as it is today without competition.  The whole reason people go to Universities, or at least the reason the majority go to Universities is to study so you can eventually get a job you want and make enough money to live.  I don't see how anyone in a non-competitive world would have a problem getting a job that would let them have enough money to support themselves and a family.  People are lazy, why would they want to do unnecessary work?

As I said earlier, I'm talking about an ideal world where people have matured past the greed and competitiveness that's been ingrained into us. Ideally, people would do what they enjoy doing and what they're good at to the best of their abilities to help advance themselves and the world as much as possible. It sounds like communism, but I'm thinking more like a form of democratic socialism (which is the structure that George Orwell supported).

Unfortunately, people are currently selfish and greedy. It's the necessary outcome of capitalism. People will hurt others to make more money and become more comfortable (I could provide examples, but I don't think I have to [harmful preservatives, destructive farming, unnecessary pollution, clear cutting forests, ....]). Some people are living in comfort, doing no work, and controlling the government, while many, many others are living in poverty that they can't escape (not counting the ones with addictions or mental problems that are left on the street, either, that's a whole other can of worms). If you really think about it, the vast majority if crime stems directly from this disparity.

What it comes down to is that I don't think the world is working the way it is, and I'm amazed that others are so blind to the problems. And I'm fairly confident when I say that the problems stem from greed and selfishness, both of which really go back to the inherent competition built into our world. I'm not saying that I have a solution, I haven't thought of one that I'm comfortable with yet, but I don't think the world in its current state is sustainable.

[MyndFyre]

I want [...] necessity is [the mother of invention].

Nobody needed to carry 50 gb.  In fact, nobody needed the wheel.  They are things we wanted because they improve the quality of life.  QoL improvements are not necessities - they're luxuries.

So you're suggesting that only giving rich people a good education is somehow beneficial? In Canada, all our universities are relatively equal. None are really well known as being better, and there are good professors at all of them, and good research being done at all the ones with graduate programs. They don't compete with each other, they assist each other, and people are, on average, better off that way.

Universities don't simply compete with one another for money.  Money is a means to an end.

Do you think that, by having everything be average, that it inhibits the people who could do better from doing so?  Probably not; those people go to American universities....  ;)

Seriously though, without things like competition across universities and jobs, I don't believe that the exceptional people could have the opportunity to truly live up to their potential.  And, if they don't, does it really benefit society?  Would it benefit society to not have people as exceptionally bright as Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking?

There are certainly cases where competition is bad.  There was a great example in House - during a story arc, the hospital was taken over by a wealthy businessman who owned a pharmaceutical company.  It would have been bad business for the hospital to be in bed with the pharmaceutical company, specificall doing clinical trials - it might be worthwhile, or it might not, to try a new drug.  But, the patient would not have been receiving the right standard of care.

Have you ever read Harrison Bergeron?  It's a short story by Kurt Vonnegut - you can find it here.  About 5 or 6 printed pages total.  I highly recommend it.

The only way we can truly equalize everyone is to bring everyone down to the level of the least common denominator.  Is that really what would benefit society?

Your life is a great example.  The next time you apply for a job, will you list that you worked for Symantec?  Honestly, the primary motivation for me to work for a company like Microsoft or Symantec for a couple of years is that, once I've done so, I can pretty much write my own ticket.  I'll never be at a loss for a job unless I suddenly really start to suck at what I do.  The fact that you worked at Symantec differentiates you from a crowd, and makes you a more valuable commodity than the guy who just graduated from the university, even if his emphasis in school was security analysis.  Competition is an intrinsic part of who we are, because there's always something that somebody wants, and always somebody who wants to provide it.

[iago]

Nobody needed to carry 50 gb.  In fact, nobody needed the wheel.  They are things we wanted because they improve the quality of life.  QoL improvements are not necessities - they're luxuries.

It's a figure of speech. Yes, everything's a luxury. But the point was that even in a world without competition, things would get developed as people want them, and as they would benefit themselves and others. A lot like the opensource idea, but more widespread.

Universities don't simply compete with one another for money.  Money is a means to an end.

Do you think that, by having everything be average, that it inhibits the people who could do better from doing so?  Probably not; those people go to American universities....  ;)

Seriously though, without things like competition across universities and jobs, I don't believe that the exceptional people could have the opportunity to truly live up to their potential.  And, if they don't, does it really benefit society?  Would it benefit society to not have people as exceptionally bright as Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking?

There are certainly cases where competition is bad.  There was a great example in House - during a story arc, the hospital was taken over by a wealthy businessman who owned a pharmaceutical company.  It would have been bad business for the hospital to be in bed with the pharmaceutical company, specificall doing clinical trials - it might be worthwhile, or it might not, to try a new drug.  But, the patient would not have been receiving the right standard of care.

Have you ever read Harrison Bergeron?  It's a short story by Kurt Vonnegut - you can find it here.  About 5 or 6 printed pages total.  I highly recommend it.

The only way we can truly equalize everyone is to bring everyone down to the level of the least common denominator.  Is that really what would benefit society?

I don't see how encouraging people to work together instead of fighting, and having accomplishment be its own reward would suddenly force everybody to be equal. I don't think that a lack of competition means that everybody's equal; to me, it means that people don't spend extra effort trying to do better than what others are doing, that creates feelings of hatred, resentment, depression, and so on. In any case, I most definitely do not believe in equality. I strongly believe that everybody is different and everybody has strengths and weaknesses. I don't subscribe at all to the Sesame Street belief that you can do anything if you try. Unfortunately, some people may have great skills in some field that they can't get paid well for, so the world is deprived of that skill. For example, my cousin is an amazing painter, absolutely incredible, but she isn't going to pursue it because she can't make a living off of it.

Other examples are theoretical physics and philosophy. They are both great fields to pursue, but can anybody (outside) the field name more than a couple people currently working in each of those fields? In this world, it takes somebody who doesn't care about making a mediocre salary their entire lives to work in those fields. So how many people with great potential there are we losing? I would guess a lot.

An ideal world (that I don't think is realistic right now, but I think it's a goal to work toward) is that everybody can pursue what they enjoy and what they're good at without having to worry about whether or not they'll get paid a lot to do it. A great artist should be able to do their art, and a philosopher should be able to do their philosophy. I was fortunate that my particular interest is something that pays decently.

Your life is a great example.  The next time you apply for a job, will you list that you worked for Symantec?  Honestly, the primary motivation for me to work for a company like Microsoft or Symantec for a couple of years is that, once I've done so, I can pretty much write my own ticket.  I'll never be at a loss for a job unless I suddenly really start to suck at what I do.  The fact that you worked at Symantec differentiates you from a crowd, and makes you a more valuable commodity than the guy who just graduated from the university, even if his emphasis in school was security analysis.  Competition is an intrinsic part of who we are, because there's always something that somebody wants, and always somebody who wants to provide it.

Yes, I'll list that I worked for Symantec. However, I didn't work there so I could do it. I worked there so I could learn new skills, gain experience, improve my self confidence (which is something I always lack), meet new people, and enjoy myself.

Competition is definitely an intrinsic part of our current society, but I think it's a bad part. I really don't think that competition is a good thing, I can't think of any benefits of it. When people or companies are competing, they are more likely to cheat, they are more likely to make poor or hasty decisions, and they're more likely to ruin the life of somebody who doesn't deserve it. When you remove competition, they're more likely to work together. For example, Linux, Microsoft, and Apple all have OSes with both advantages and drawbacks. If they could work together to build an OS with all the benefits, life would be better for everybody.

Another example is that there are many brilliant scientists in the world who are competing for things like prizes, rewards, money, etc., so it's in their best interest to share their findings with each other. This leads to different people doing the same research and learning the same things, which is a waste of resources. If they could work together, they could gain new insights into what they're doing and likely benefit everybody.

In school, tests and scholarships are a form of competition. So some of the students do well and are rewarded, whereas most do poorly and are told that, because they don't do as well in the same subjects as others, they aren't as good, they won't amount to anything, and so on. That's a huge hit to people's self esteem. Just because they may not be as strong at the same subjects as classmates, should they be treated poorly? I don't think so.



I realize I'm going on, but this competition thing is something I've been putting a lot of thought into lately. No, I don't know how to get rid of it, and I don't think the world would work in the way I suggest if it were suddenly removed. I think it requires the growth and maturity of people before it could work. I do, however, think it's something valuable to think about. We are totally socialized/brainwashed to believe that competition is normal and healthy, but I don't think it is.

[MyndFyre]

I really don't think that competition is a good thing, I can't think of any benefits of it.

I think that doesn't make competition defective; it makes you defective. :P

[iago]

I really don't think that competition is a good thing, I can't think of any benefits of it.

I think that doesn't make competition defective; it makes you defective. :P

Then name some that haven't been named yet, because I disagree (and have explained why in what I hope is a clear way) with every one that's already been posed.

[MyndFyre]

Just because you countered the perfectly reasonable arguments with the ones that you came up with, doesn't mean that the reasonable ones are erroneous.  It just means that your counters are defective. :P

[iago]

Then go ahead and point out the defects. This is something that I've put a reasonable amount of time into thinking about, and I'm reasonably comfortable with the conclusions I've come up with.