Competitive Behavior

Namaste, LatinMcGyver(B)(F),  long time , no see..and happy that things are working out for you..

Really, i believe that if One Realizes that 'we' each are just Facets of G-d, that the 'Love thy Neighbor', and Golden Rule stuff is just naturally intrinsic to our very Being..

cheers, berto

and as you post:  "Because they do not know the TRUE meaning and application of the words that are used in everyday life. Todays dictionaries are not much help because they also use the slang terms not the Original or root meaning of words."

berto responds:  well, words are fascinating creatures, with a 'life' or their own..  While one can look back to see the 'origins' of certain words, and their roots,  but most languages are 'living', and words take on new nuances, and even completely new meanings from thier origins.  Nothing 'wrong' with that, in my opinion, and, in fact, i rather enjoy the multi-dimensionality of language/words (though some seem to be a bit less able to 'see' more than their stutified/ossified limited 'meaning' of any word/phrases ('desemantization' is it called, and most of us know what that is a 'sign' of... just saying).  Well, i also am a great embracer of neologisms, as current 'words' are so 'limited'...  Who is to be 'master'...??

cheers, berto

PS as to 'competition'...  often the 'game' is 'framed' by 'limited resources' (incorrectly), so the only real 'solution' is Kirk's Kobayashi maru strategy..

Latin McGuyver #1 "Q; Is it Moral or Immoral to be Competitive."
.
I don't see much sense in the question itself.  To me, it's like asking, "Is it moral or immoral to obey the Law of Gravity?"  Just like gravity, competition 'is'.  However, if you "look through the other end of the telescope" so to speak, I think you'll find that a person can learn much about how they view morality in terms of how they view competition.  If one enjoys competition they will likely find that they see competition as moral; if one is distressed by competition they may then see competition as immoral.
.
Maybe a better question might be, "Is it "Moral or Immoral" for society to artificially limit competition?"
.
Good to see you again!
.
Betty

Welcome aboard Latin.
If we didn't compete we would struggle to survive; Darwin called it 'the struggle for existence'. Basically all species compete for ecological niches, and there is always another species waiting, or going, to adapt to that niche. The most fit for that niche is the the species that will proliferate.

The fossil record is littered with species that could not compete.

not all societies are or were based on competition, by western european standards they were seen as primative and backwards and wiped out...  some societies taught sharing as a way of life and only engaged in competition with those from other groups, never with their own..... well unless it was for fun or skill training then they were very competive....

it is immoral to be competivive....

sharing was the rule of love .... 

Raven, I am talking about life in general.
Two species adapted for the same niche will compete for the respources in that niche. If the resources are limited and can only support a certain number; the other species will have to move, adapt, or become extinct.

Of course both species could also co-operate and just reproduce in limited numbers.

Competition seems to be widespread throughout the the biosphere though there are many examples of systems that have evolved to be cooperative, mutualistic, and in some cases, altruistic.  In any case, what "is" in nature can only fallaciously be used to derive what "ought" in human communities.  My view is that competition can be a useful tool to drive innovation and to create wealth, but there is much of life that works just as well if not better under a collaborative or cooperative model.  I think we need to teach and practice a variety of strategies for success and mutual well-being.

Raven, I am talking about life in general.Two species adapted for the same niche will compete for the respources in that niche. If the resources are limited and can only support a certain number; the other species will have to move, adapt, or become extinct.
Of course both species could also co-operate and just reproduce in limited numbers.

-anthropal

well in nature that is the course of things but since mans removed himself from nature and claims that it no longer rules him then it stands to reason that the species that claims dominace over the 'lesser'  more 'savage' "animal" kingdom(as if we aren't animals ourselves) would demonstraigh its superiority through co-operation and sharring....

just saying...

but ya the 'animal' kindom is often crule and unforgiving....

well in nature that is the course of things but since mans removed himself from nature and claims that it no longer rules him ...

-ravenwynter1

In my opinion this is when man changes his environment. It is simply a progression of his greatest natural advantage - intelligence. So in essence he is really only using his own natural resources to his advantage.

Competition seems to be widespread throughout the the biosphere though there are many examples of systems that have evolved to be cooperative, mutualistic, and in some cases, altruistic.  In any case, what "is" in nature can only fallaciously be used to derive what "ought" in human communities.  My view is that competition can be a useful tool to drive innovation and to create wealth, but there is much of life that works just as well if not better under a collaborative or cooperative model.  I think we need to teach and practice a variety of strategies for success and mutual well-being.

-shaggymaniac

Good points Shaggy.
Resources are finite which indeed means that co-operation is essential in many instances, but till now there has always been one species that will take an advantage over another species.

In my opinion this is when man changes his environment. It is simply a progression of his greatest natural advantage - intelligence. So in essence he is really only using his own natural resources to his advantage.

-anthropal

yes but man is short sighted and greedy as an animal it is the only one that  accumulates more resorces than it needs and fails to share.....  as an animal we are the species that is the most psychotic in its approach to dominance...  other animals posture we kill our own over little or nothing....

yes but man is short sighted and greedy as an animal it is the only one that  accumulates more resorces than it needs and fails to share.....  as an animal we are the species that is the most psychotic in its approach to dominance...  other animals posture we kill our own over little or nothing....

-ravenwynter1

I must agree that such a view as presented is 'immoral', but I would also suggest that many other species endowed with our intelligence and capabilitiies would do exactly the same.

I must agree that such a view as presented is 'immoral', but I would also suggest that many other species endowed with our intelligence and capabilitiies would do exactly the same.

-anthropal

but there are plenty of examples in the animal kingdom that are endowed with our level of intellegence that haven't done the same thing Anthro, thats just it we are destructive.....

do you see dolphins loarding it over others in the sea??  no and they are just as intellegent if not more so than we are....

yes but man is short sighted and greedy as an animal it is the only one that  accumulates more resorces than it needs and fails to share.....  as an animal we are the species that is the most psychotic in its approach to dominance...  other animals posture we kill our own over little or nothing....

-ravenwynter1

While I appreciate the spirit of what you are saying, I don't think your first sentence is really true.  Many animals, many living things for that matter will colonize and expand their populations to the greatest extent available resources allow, often at the expense of other species that might otherwise coexist.  Populations of one species often do displace populations of other species.  Competition is often rampant in biological communities.  Again, however, none of this is a logically valid determinant of how humans "ought" to behave in communities.  Cheers.

well more so cause they don't display the psychotic behavior that we do they are more emotionally well balanced unless of course we pluck them from their natural envioroment  to 'study' them in captivity .....  them they go insane..............................

Poor Flipper

While I appreciate the spirit of what you are saying, I don't think your first sentence is really true.  Many animals, many living things for that matter will colonize and expand their populations to the greatest extent available resources allow, often at the expense of other species that might otherwise coexist.  Populations of one species often do displace populations of other species.  Competition is often rampant in biological communities.  Again, however, none of this is a logically valid determinant of how humans "ought" to behave in communities.  Cheers.

-shaggymaniac

I don't deny competition within nature populations ebb and flow...  all I'm saying is that the populations in nature are checked by nature and are limited by nature...  man rules nature and those 'natural restrictions' don't apply

do you see dolphins loarding it over others in the sea??  no and they are just as intellegent if not more so than we are....

-ravenwynter1

Yes, dolphins are seen quite often attacking sharks and eating fish. The first in defence of the pod or indivudual, and the second for sustenance of the pod or individual.

No, they are not as intelligent as us either. Of course that measurement is a human measurement.

ya it is we still can't understand them but they have no problem understanding us so who is more intellegent??? 

Anthro Dolphins do ot over accumulate assests they do not destroy their envoirment they do not over populate they live in harmony with nature we don't...  we consistantly take more than we need and have done so to the point where we have run out of certain things we need to survive, or are running short on them, so whos more intellegent???  the animal or man.....

humm

I don't deny competition within nature populations ebb and flow...  all I'm saying is that the populations in nature are checked by nature and are limited by nature...  man rules nature and those 'natural restrictions' don't apply

-ravenwynter1

Well, not to be argumentative, but I again disagree.  Humanity is ultimately subject to the limits of nature.  The question is whether we'll have the wisdom and foresight to realize it before those limits come crashing down on us.