Atlas City Project

Summery from Zeitgeist forum

********

To answer the topic of this post, I think is YES we will have competition but not in the scale of learning. Once you have gotten to the top of the knowledge tree and you are now adding to the top of the tree you ARE qualified to build the bridge. If someone else who is also at the top of the tree wants to build the bridge then the competition begins!

Case Study:
A bridge needs to be built over a large river. Myself and one other person are both qualified to design and build the bridge. We know this because we understand that we are at the top of the learning tree and we have both contributed to the top of the tree. This is healthy competition because we are both going to use what we know to build the very best bridge possible. After we have both completed our scale models of the bridge they will both be scientifically tested and the one best suited "scientifically speaking" is the one that will be used.

This is my example of the use of competition in the future.

********

The Biological Explanation of Competition

The biological explanation of competition could be explained with evolutionary or even endocrinal perspectives as certain hormones in our body could make us more active and competitive. Competition could be explained with the theory of evolution and a phrase largely used to explain Darwin - the survival of the fittest. Darwin's theory means that the species that are able to adapt to their own natural environment are successful because they have the inherent ability to survive. Thus competition is about adapting, mastering and as a result surviving in the environment around us. Whether it is work, play or study, competition is about mastery and the desire to even impose this mastery on the environment. In a competition, whether formal or informal, the focus is on learning the ways of the environment and controlling them in a way that could be most beneficial for an individual. The final motive is to gain something by adapting to the environment and this gain could be explained later with a social theory of competition. The Darwinian theory however could be used to highlight less of the effects of competition and focus more on the process of competition and how goals are attained. This could be very well related to an evolutionary theory of psychology in which the Darwinian ideas are used to explain psychological concepts. However struggles in Darwinism could have wider connotations and in Darwin's philosophy competition and cooperation could also merge. This would be specifically true if competition is considered as an attempt to adapt to society and to its rules and challenges and then competing is participating and participation is also cooperation.

I agree entirely. I believe our competitive nature and the persistence of aberrancies in the modern age are caused by the fact that we have not evolved to prosper in our current complex environments, either that or we have evolved to utilize more efficient more aggressive means to acquire our needs. Regardless, we have evolved to survive in the rampant scarcities present in the woodlands of africa and the middle east, not the monetary scarcities present in the modern world. Our actions today are simply the reflections of the actions of our ancestors from 50k years ago.

*********

I don't think it's beneficial to eliminate ALL competition. Friendly competition can be helpful and even fun. Imagine if there was NO competition at all. We would not have sports, board game, billiards, darts, video games and so so much more. The only difference should be enforced on what reaction it takes. A similar thread is on the link to crime and the reason we shouldn't need the police. Behavioral modifications would be made so that people realize the futility in getting upset about loosing. There will always be a congratulatory ending between the "winners" and "losers" because they understand that it's just for fun and that getting upset about it is a flaw in paradigm and philosophy. I think, with the help of our different educational system, this won't be nearly the problem that some people are anticipating.

********

While our living conditions will be the same, I think we would be wise to recognize personal growth, personal successes, personal achievements, and personal contributions. We are not talking about money here, we are talking about recognizing someone who invents a solution to a problem the city has. That is a form of competition for the greater good of the society. It means that we may regard some people in an endearing way, for their contributions, but this is a motivation that should work well for the city.

From an idealistic viewpoint, that is great. In real world practice, greed based thinking people have no incentive to excel at anything. So we are looking for special kind of intelligence, where people understand that they can be all they can be for themselves and the good of society, or they must remain in the selfish greed based system.

In Atlas City, individuals will see no raises, no nicer house, no promotions.... what they can expect to see is social improvement, social advances, improved conditions for all so we need selfless people who understand the common good. People who are good at this should be rewarded with recognition during transition especially. This is a new way of thinking, but not unlike profit sharing in a company, everyone gets the reward for the groups success. Ants and bees do not let individuals starve, or sleep outside the hive (go homeless), and as the most intelligent creature on Earth, we are looking for compassionate, motivated and personally progressive thinkers. You may enter the city a housewife, and end up a doctor, because you want to help humanity, not for greed and personal profit, but for personal pleasure in mastering your self for the benefit of all. So, we must be concerned with incentives, we need to encourage personal growth, to become better in your field or change fields if you choose. We are quite aware that humanity has historically just done the minimum to get the job done. We must rise above that with intelligence and self motivated social concern, and we will do this while still embracing the individual, accepting we are all different in so many ways, showing tolerance for those personal differences.

*******

Competition is a very important self-motivating factor for people. If you do away with competition you do away with innovation and growth, i.e. survival. Many innovations in our current society have been reckless and without regard to people and nature, but under the right guiding hand steering the entire purpose of the city, I think the city should be seeing the same amount and types of competitions between people as you would observe in the outside world. Otherwise if you try to subdue the competitive spirit to much, you risk dehumanizing people into stale robots. But instead of competition for more money it would be competition for the favor of people, and the privilege of leading the city according to your own vision, essentially - because when you remove money, and you level the playing field for everyone in every other possible way, then the only thing left that you can't regulate away is the emotions and intellect of people themselves. With proper character training people should over the years become strong enough to compete civilly, in the personal pursuit of becoming pillars of the city in their areas of interest.... At least more civilly than the competition we see today.

Competition from my perspective would be the thing to outsurpass upon anything else. A society based on oneness and unity would not have a drop of competition within it. It's not a question of ego-based philosophy to believe one is smarter or more superior than the other. It is those who have a strong gift at something will become great masters at it and to teach others at knowledge that they may be missing. That's the understanding of oneness. Competition is unnatural throughout the universe yet justified within a society based upon governance lead through egomanical belief systems.

Your example of friendly competition is interesting but I would have to say that if you take those two bridge engineers and made it cooperative by bringing them togather after they brought forth their best designs and took a look at it from each other perspective then I would bet the cooperative bridge design would be heads above the competative ones because the best in each will be found togather in the cooperative bridge. Competition build barriers to achievement due to the isolation of ideas and perspectives that should be shared! Sharing is where the magic happens.

I have done a lot of thinking about this subject. I can see both arguments.

On the one hand you have people who say:
Competition is barbaric and it is the old way of our kind. It is no longer needed because our technology and cooperation has surpassed the need for such silly games.

On the other hand you have:
Competition was invented by Mother Nature herself and it is intended for progression of evolution in a species.



I believe this form of learning cannot be ignored as it will play out with or without our meddling. However, like all things in life, if we do not pay attention to it and let it go unchecked we will likely see unencumbered and unintended consequences.

We as a species can decide not to grow it out like we have today as seen in an enormous arena for a game of football. We don't have to build giant stadiums for baseball or soccer either. But if we learn that competition can be healthy for your mind and like everything else it must be taken in moderation, then we can gain so much more joy in life than any game can ever bring us.

In respect to species and competition, you are correct but in reference to interspecies competition for survival. Nature seeks a balance between all species, including us because we all share this environment. We certainly have not surpassed anything except our ability to compete within our species for as much of the available resources as possible with a negative regard to the natural balance and order, much less sharing enough to take care of our own species. We are more barbaric today then we ever have been. Within species that are successful as groups (ants, bees, insects, apes, dolphins, various species of whales, aboriginal humans) competition from within the group is a waste of time, energy and dilutes resources within the group. Learning is taught by the group. And when I say group I mean gatherings with a purpose beyond survival and procreation. (Social groups) Although the way we treat our own species, I would not put human anywhere near the top of that list LOL. IMO, humans have evolved beyond environment evolution a long time ago. We should be embracing our intellectual evolution because our thoughts are the defining acts of creation in our lives. In fact, at the plank level of matter (unified field theory) the simple act of observing defines the possibilities of what is being observed both when and where because you cannot seperate the observer from what is being observed. (we are all connected).
In respect to competion as a performance to improve skills or abilities, I have experience at various levels of sports and other competition and I have to say it is complicated and difficult but I agree. I find perfecting my sports techniques very fullfilling (productive) and sometimes fustrating (destructive) however it is not a means to elevate me above others when I am successful or vise verse. Our culture however thrives on that intended drama just as they did in the days of the Colusium in Rome. My point is that the intention of competition can be destuctive or productive and being cooperative doesn't make that distinction. I think we can evolve intellectually a bit and minimize the risk of backsliding with competition. However, look where we are now with competition. Corporations and mass media spoon feeding (sponsoring) the goverment and the rest of us that competition is healthy, just like a male lion handles food issues with his pride. Nothing friendly about that. Here is a thought, maybe we can do both. Call it cooperative competition or something like that. The intent is what is important. Sorry this was so long.

Yes I agree Kelley.

Our approach to competition could be something like the bridge builder model where the two learn from each other through a bit of competition. It was intended to test their skills not to put the other persons ego in the dirt. If we learn that after we have a competition to learn from the other person then we have both won no matter the outcome.