5 ms·

There are a couple problems with your line of reasoning. 1) Even if it's true that humans are primarily motivated by competing with each other, this doesn't pu

by smhost 5y ago

There are a couple problems with your line of reasoning. 1) Even if it's true that humans are primarily motivated by competing with each other, this doesn't put any constraints on what the nature of the competition could be. There are constructive forms of competition, and there are destructive forms. There are useless forms and productive forms. So if it really is purely about competition, there's no reason why societies can't put constraints on what kinds of competition are acceptable. 2) There are unified institutions that internally have high competition. In fact, that's more of a rule than an exception. E.g., every professional sports organization, every company with competitive incentive structure, etc.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
admissionsguy 5y ago
> Even if it's true that humans are primarily motivated by competing with each other, this doesn't put any constraints on what the nature of the competition could be. I would say the competition is necessarily unconstrained. Even full-scale nuclear war is on the table in the service of one-upping one another. You could say I'm conflating competing with survival and other values, but that would be incorrect since the whole international tension has competition for various things at its source. To structure the world differently would require lots and lots of tyranny. Empires to that, and may achieve great things, at a cost. > 2) There are unified institutions that internally have high competition. In fact, that's more of a rule than an exception. E.g., every professional sports organization, every company with competitive incentive structure, etc. Or the Communist Party of China. To have United Earth government fashioned in the like of FIFA, Amazon, or USA Gymnastics is as dystopian as it gets.
- simion314 5y ago
  I will disagree, my village is not competing with the neighboring village, we are not making plans how to fuck them over, there is no zero sum game. Then I personally I do not see a competition with our neighboring countries (I am from Romania), there might be some bad history but only idiots will bring this up, so I can say that from my point of view we are not trying to screw with our neighbors or the reverse. Now if I try to go up a level we get the EU and this is where politics shoves it's ugly head, there are people that are not happy and some politicians that just want to blame the incompetence of their 8+ years reign to others .... but do a major number of regular citizens want to screw over the other group ? do they wish bad things for the other EU members ? I don't think so, people are selfish and want the best for their own but I don't think they actually want bad things to the others, for sure nobody sane wants a conflict. Sorry but my opinion is if you want a war you are not sane(I know at least one dude here wants for a war to start with Russia, we need to find a way to keep this insane people in check)
  - jcbrand 5y ago
    Probably your village is competing with neighbouring villages to some extent, but to the extent that it is not, that is because there is a much larger, centralized entity (the Romanian state) that has a monopoly on violence and which is responsible for keeping the peace in the land. History shows that without a strong central power, towns and cities do compete with one another and will even go to war against one another.
    - simion314 5y ago
      I know this, but I think that most of the time the cause of the war is an psychopathic individual/group that will sacrifice others lives for some bullshit reason. We are all easy to manipulate or do stupid things when we react hot-headed. My point is that the average person is not thinking and calculating on how to risk his children lives in some war because some piece of land somewhere is strategic , or some guys somewhere are persecuted so let's sacrifice ourselves for some vague reason, what I think always happens this ideas are implanted in people or most of the time you have no choice, you are forced into a conflict with no option to not participate.
  - admissionsguy 5y ago
    > my village is not competing with the neighboring village Aren't they? My village in Poland competes with neighbouring villages in at least the following zero-sum games: - each village has a football club competing in the local league - compete in competitions for the region's best decorated - compete for local government funds for some projects - during elections, villages compete to put their local candidates in local gov Within the village, there is noticeable tribalism within groups centered around the Church, the German minority, and the volunteer fire brigade. These are mostly positive things. I'm not saying competition is always bad. I'm saying that it's at the core of being a monkey-person. > I don't think so, people are selfish and want the best for their own but I don't think they actually want bad things to the others, for sure nobody sane wants a conflict. Willingness to go to war is a property of the collective, even if no single person would choose to do so in isolation. > but do a major number of regular citizens want to screw over the other group ? do they wish bad things for the other EU members ? Actually, I think so, I'm afraid. A certain single-digit % would like to actively do harm given an opportunity, an even larger % would not oppose it.
- smhost 5y ago
  Now you're just not making any sense. If you define competition as being necessarily unconstrained, then any competition with rules is not competition. A foot race where you have to stay within your lane isn't competitive. A football match where you're not allowed to maim your opponents is not competitive. Weight classes aren't competitive. I don't understand your reasoning. Your response to 2) is a non sequitur. If what you really care about is competition, then who cares if the outcome is dystopian? Are you denying that Amazon is interally competitive?
  - admissionsguy 5y ago
    I don't get you either. My main points were: 1) introducing global governance in space research or in general will go against the primary driver of human motivation, competition. 2) doing it anyway ("United Earth") requires force and results in subpar outcomes You argued that there can exist large-scale organisations that are internally competitive, like the sports orgs or companies, and that competition can be constrained to its constructive forms. To which my reply has two parts. First, competition is necessarily unconstrained in the sense than an entity will do whatever it can to win (a football player won't maim an opponent because he is constrained by the larger entity, while a FIFA official won't bat an eye on thousands of stadium builders dying in order to advance his agenda, and Joe Biden will trigger nuclear war if he needs to). You cannot impose constraints on the largest-scale structures. Second, if you put groups of people into these large orgs, the results are bad. The sports governing bodies are notoriously corrupt. The UN is notoriously corrupt. All large companies eventually ossify and die.
    - smhost 5y ago
      Can you answer whether you believe that a football player being constrained by rules against maiming his or her opponent is a constraint that "[goes] against the primary driver of human motivation, competition"?
      - admissionsguy 5y ago
        [I rewrote the post at the same time smhost replied to the previous version, apologies] I get an impression you are trying reduction ad absurdum in a way that might work to sway the audience, but just skims on the surface of actual argument. Obviously, you can still have lots of competition under constraints (though you cannot have constraints at the highest scale), but that I believe has no bearing on my argument.

by smhost 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

admissionsguy 5y ago

> Even if it's true that humans are primarily motivated by competing with each other, this doesn't put any constraints on what the nature of the competition could be. I would say the competition is necessarily unconstrained. Even full-scale nuclear war is on the table in the service of one-upping one another. You could say I'm conflating competing with survival and other values, but that would be incorrect since the whole international tension has competition for various things at its source. To structure the world differently would require lots and lots of tyranny. Empires to that, and may achieve great things, at a cost. > 2) There are unified institutions that internally have high competition. In fact, that's more of a rule than an exception. E.g., every professional sports organization, every company with competitive incentive structure, etc. Or the Communist Party of China. To have United Earth government fashioned in the like of FIFA, Amazon, or USA Gymnastics is as dystopian as it gets.

simion314 5y ago
I will disagree, my village is not competing with the neighboring village, we are not making plans how to fuck them over, there is no zero sum game. Then I personally I do not see a competition with our neighboring countries (I am from Romania), there might be some bad history but only idiots will bring this up, so I can say that from my point of view we are not trying to screw with our neighbors or the reverse. Now if I try to go up a level we get the EU and this is where politics shoves it's ugly head, there are people that are not happy and some politicians that just want to blame the incompetence of their 8+ years reign to others .... but do a major number of regular citizens want to screw over the other group ? do they wish bad things for the other EU members ? I don't think so, people are selfish and want the best for their own but I don't think they actually want bad things to the others, for sure nobody sane wants a conflict. Sorry but my opinion is if you want a war you are not sane(I know at least one dude here wants for a war to start with Russia, we need to find a way to keep this insane people in check)
- jcbrand 5y ago
  Probably your village is competing with neighbouring villages to some extent, but to the extent that it is not, that is because there is a much larger, centralized entity (the Romanian state) that has a monopoly on violence and which is responsible for keeping the peace in the land. History shows that without a strong central power, towns and cities do compete with one another and will even go to war against one another.
  - simion314 5y ago
    I know this, but I think that most of the time the cause of the war is an psychopathic individual/group that will sacrifice others lives for some bullshit reason. We are all easy to manipulate or do stupid things when we react hot-headed. My point is that the average person is not thinking and calculating on how to risk his children lives in some war because some piece of land somewhere is strategic , or some guys somewhere are persecuted so let's sacrifice ourselves for some vague reason, what I think always happens this ideas are implanted in people or most of the time you have no choice, you are forced into a conflict with no option to not participate.
- admissionsguy 5y ago
  > my village is not competing with the neighboring village Aren't they? My village in Poland competes with neighbouring villages in at least the following zero-sum games: - each village has a football club competing in the local league - compete in competitions for the region's best decorated - compete for local government funds for some projects - during elections, villages compete to put their local candidates in local gov Within the village, there is noticeable tribalism within groups centered around the Church, the German minority, and the volunteer fire brigade. These are mostly positive things. I'm not saying competition is always bad. I'm saying that it's at the core of being a monkey-person. > I don't think so, people are selfish and want the best for their own but I don't think they actually want bad things to the others, for sure nobody sane wants a conflict. Willingness to go to war is a property of the collective, even if no single person would choose to do so in isolation. > but do a major number of regular citizens want to screw over the other group ? do they wish bad things for the other EU members ? Actually, I think so, I'm afraid. A certain single-digit % would like to actively do harm given an opportunity, an even larger % would not oppose it.
smhost 5y ago
Now you're just not making any sense. If you define competition as being necessarily unconstrained, then any competition with rules is not competition. A foot race where you have to stay within your lane isn't competitive. A football match where you're not allowed to maim your opponents is not competitive. Weight classes aren't competitive. I don't understand your reasoning. Your response to 2) is a non sequitur. If what you really care about is competition, then who cares if the outcome is dystopian? Are you denying that Amazon is interally competitive?
- admissionsguy 5y ago
  I don't get you either. My main points were: 1) introducing global governance in space research or in general will go against the primary driver of human motivation, competition. 2) doing it anyway ("United Earth") requires force and results in subpar outcomes You argued that there can exist large-scale organisations that are internally competitive, like the sports orgs or companies, and that competition can be constrained to its constructive forms. To which my reply has two parts. First, competition is necessarily unconstrained in the sense than an entity will do whatever it can to win (a football player won't maim an opponent because he is constrained by the larger entity, while a FIFA official won't bat an eye on thousands of stadium builders dying in order to advance his agenda, and Joe Biden will trigger nuclear war if he needs to). You cannot impose constraints on the largest-scale structures. Second, if you put groups of people into these large orgs, the results are bad. The sports governing bodies are notoriously corrupt. The UN is notoriously corrupt. All large companies eventually ossify and die.
  - smhost 5y ago
    Can you answer whether you believe that a football player being constrained by rules against maiming his or her opponent is a constraint that "[goes] against the primary driver of human motivation, competition"?
    - admissionsguy 5y ago
      [I rewrote the post at the same time smhost replied to the previous version, apologies] I get an impression you are trying reduction ad absurdum in a way that might work to sway the audience, but just skims on the surface of actual argument. Obviously, you can still have lots of competition under constraints (though you cannot have constraints at the highest scale), but that I believe has no bearing on my argument.