The entire history of society is competition - Will competition destroy humans?

Author: Best.Korea

Posts

Total: 33
Topic's author
#1
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 270
Posts: 7,771
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Throughout the entire history, different societies competed against each other in wars, trying to prevail one over the other.

Different people tried gaining power in society, competing against other people in society.

Such competition always resulted in a victor.

However, every time victory was achieved, the competition didnt end.

New enemies rose, and competition continued.

It was all fine and well, until competition started giving birth to great and powerful technology.

It was a logical path of competition, of competitors, to use technology to win and to produce more technology to win more.

However, technology, by being produced, gave birth to new problems:

1. It is no longer possible to compete without technology
2. Technology made competition more destructive by enabling destruction on a mass scale
3. Technology enabled mass wars, and mass populations. Mass populations led to pollution and overpopulation, and depleting of resources.

By making possible of mass farming, through the invention of tractors, technology made it so that country no longer had to place majority of population to work in agriculture.

This made it possible to have more population available for militaries. Therefore, all countries who wanted to compete had to apply tractors.

In order to compete, country must have great population or be part of an alliance that has great population.

Tractors made it possible to increase population greatly.

Societies that have large populations will prevail over those who have small populations.

This brings us to problem of increasing and not increasing population, both options being bad for society.

Today's societies are faced with struggle of two opposite options:
1. Take meassures to decrease your population, and be conquered by societies who choose to keep increasing theirs.
2. Keep increasing population, causing mass pollution, overpopulation, drain on resources.

The competition between humans before always resulted in winners and losers. That was before technology.

However, today's technology made it possible for there to be a conflict without winners, by the invention of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons made it for the first time to be possible for there to be a conflict in which everyone loses and gets destroyed.

Therefore, competition between humans is bringing humans closer and closer to destruction, irrelevant of if destruction is from nuclear weapons or from overpopulation or from pollution or from lack of resources.

Humanity must put an end to competition. If not, it is likely that this competition will put an end to humanity.

So the historical lesson tells us that humanity must unite into one society. If it stays divided on groups, competition between groups will destroy all.

#2
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
If we are to remain human,
I view competition as inevitable.

Even were we to unite into a single country,
Factions remain.

Still, 'populations, might be forced down,
If it becomes a law of the land/s.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

There 'is a danger,
In the single country, 'beyond factions.

For the country will 'change,
"The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide." - ROTK

The people will change,
Rulers go mad, or corrupt,
People rebel.
. .
Even in Democracies, they eventually fall, not 'always from without,
The 'people change, values, visions,
The ship is not a replica.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

@Self
Yet I wonder at times,
'If a mechanism 'could be made,
Eternally self repeating,
'Existence perhaps, but still I can't account for it's existence,
. . Of the one's mortal made, , though chance may be decreased, I'm not sure it ever could fall to 0.
#3
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,304
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Lemming
Humans,

Are their own worst enemy.

Well,

They are their only enemy.


If material evolution is necessary.

Then an alternative intelligence,

Is probably necessary.


Because,

As the stakes get higher,

We are only going to fight more.


Competition is overthink inspired stupidity.
#4
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
'Yeah! Humans number one!

Well, in many cases,
Though there are groups of humans that don't damage their own environment,
Also humans that don't take intentional actions hostile against one another as enemies.

But I think those humans are more often living in societies we would consider more primitive,
Not that nonaggression or environmentalism is primitive,
Just that when humans bigger enemies were wild animals like wolves and bears, famine,
Was a time before lots of modern tech,

Humans who live more environmental friendly, more people friendly in the modern era, still exist,
But the environment and animals aren't a danger to them anymore.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I find changes to humanity disturbing,
Though arguably humanity has long changed itself,

Changes to culture, values, results in different natural selection,
Different genes passed on.
. . .

Still, I find the future disturbing to look at,
Too big a change, implications, the 'way it's done too different to what I'm used to.

Designer babies,
Ideas of uploading our minds,
Disturbing.

Either allows us to edit 'greatly 'what a human 'is,
Or places us in a world where we are powerless.

Not that we 'lack for powerlessness in the real world,
'Lot of ways to destroy and change people against their will,
Much stays the same. . .

It's the 'atmosphere, I find creepy perhaps,
Or power concentrated so much in some individuals,
Not that power 'doesn't concentrate on Earth,
But a virtual world, an immortal world, blegh,
At least people die in this world,
Though their actions-

Ah, I'm rambling,
Short to say, I expect to find the future creepy,
I'd have more hope for humans were we to 'not change.
#5
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,237
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
I don't think it's competition but disagreements that lead populations to kill each other. It's a matter of survival, meaning fear to lose resources and hence chances to survive.

That comes about at all levels. Brothers can kill each other for an inheritance or even for a woman which is more stupid. This is the human nature, unfortunatly, and I agree with you that it's necessary a sort of intervention, maybe that an allien civilization steps in to sort it all out.

7 days later

#6
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,295
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
Competition is overthink inspired stupidity.

I dont think so Zed. Competition in of itself is a challenge to think ergo, to be creative, consider options etc.

R. P Feynman ---Feynman diagrams---  was known for his taking on various challenges and physics and looking for simplicity to understand.  This worked for him various differrent things over the years where others were having difficulty understanding the physics/chemistry underlying mechanism, and Feynman came along  becaused asked or cause he got interested.

Leonard Susskind was friends with Feynman in later years, had a few examples of Feynman finding the simplicity in a utube. Watch if you have time.

The one I most recall,  was after the Challenger space-craft exploded in the air, and Feynman was asked to be on the team to figure out why.  They had the video of some vapor spraying out from the side high in the air before it blew.

So on public newscast, Feynman was asked to explain what he thought was the problem. So he pointed out, that, they knew there was this frezzing rain, the night before.  So Feynman, has glass of ice water in front of him, and in the glass is one of the O rings that seal a connection joint to prevent leaking of fuel etc.

He reaches into glass to pull out the O ring, then snaps it half, because it is brittle from being in freezing water. He states, that, an O ring is not supposed to that i.e. it is supposed to remain flexible in broader range of conditions. 

Competition is good when applied for good reasons and not for money or greed etc.  Competition is good to find out what is best we can be. Sort of like the USA Army recruit commericial,....be the best you can be, ARMY......

#7
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,304
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ebuc
True.

Their are usually two sides to an argument.

So depending upon the necessity or unnecessity of the human mission.

Then for sure, competition is either necessary or unnecessary.

I suppose that I do tend to run with the necessary necessity point of view.


Nonetheless, competition that requires necessary killing....Does seem a tad unnecessary at times.

But that's just me being a softie.
#8
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,295
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
But that's just me being a softie
Softie is ok. Just so you dont go soft in the head on us. Ha :--), same goes for me

7 days later

#9
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,144
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Best.Korea

Do we really need 8 billion people in the World. Wouldn't 500 billionaires be enough?

Putin is a billionaire as is Xi Jinping and Trump. See my point?
#10
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@Best.Korea
The entire history of society is competition - Will competition destroy humans?
Great question but looking at human history...we are still here, so far. 

I do not believe it is so much competition that will destroy humanity, but rather greed and the unquenching desire to control it all that will destroy humanity. 

7 days later

#11
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,144
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Best.Korea


Will competition destroy humans? Yes, now that we have nuclear weapons.

11 days later

#12
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,144
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@ebuc

Ebuc, what do you think will destroy Humanity?
#13
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,295
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@FLRW
Ebuc, what do you think will destroy Humanity?

Ignorance encouraged by false narrative i.e. education is key to humanities survival in a democratic system.

Greed over personal satisfaction of creating pathways to longest term survival for humanity.

7 days later

#14
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,304
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@FLRW
I'm guessing that humanity is meant to survive for as long as it takes to get it's predetermined job done.

How many survive is perhaps irrelevant, as long as the necessary ones survive, or the necessary ones are created.

If the necessary ones can be created then the dross will become dispensable.


Of course, otherers elsewhere may have been beset the same objectives.

And cooperation might or might not be necessary.

I suppose to a greater extent this depends upon whether the development of intellect follows a similar pattern across the Universe.


Therefore, was it also necessary for all life to occur simultaneously.

Which would similarly depend upon the simultaneous development of  Solar systems with life supporting Planets.

A lot to expect perhaps.

Give or take a few hundred thousand years of development, and the disparity between rival intelligences would be considerable.

Would be like us sharing our current level of technical and astrophysical knowledge with Neanderthals, and expecting positive feedback.
#15
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,144
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@zedvictor4

I believe that the Earth is the only planet in the Universe that has intelligent life.
#16
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,304
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@FLRW
The only planet in the Universe with intelligent life.

Yep.

I would say that the above is a reasonable proposition.

But I would also say that the opposite is also a reasonable proposition.

Therefore I would further suggest that amidst such uncertainty, belief is superfluous.


One hypothesis suggests that a singular seed of life was successfully transferred from a previous Universe and came to rest upon a suitable planet.

But of course there could have been multiple seeds.

Because if distribution was a random process that relied upon the chance fertilization of a viable planet with the seed of life, then multiple seeds would be the more efficacious strategy.


No hypothesis ever comes close to explaining the beginning though.

The beginning of matter and consequently the beginning of life.

#17
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,144
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@zedvictor4

You know that I went to MIT, don't you?
#18
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,304
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@FLRW
Being a Brit.

I had to look up MIT.

So what does a MIT brain think.

I would expect a MIT brain to disregard belief in the way that I do.

And to not disregard anything reasonably hypothetical.


#19
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,295
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
...' Cosmic Ancestry is a new theory of evolution. It holds that life on Earth was seeded from space, and that life's evolution to higher forms depends on genetic programs that ultimately come from space. It is a wholly scientific, testable theory for which evidence is accumulating.

Panspermia — the theory or process whereby microbes in space transmit life to habitable bodies.


#20
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,304
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ebuc
Hmmmm.

Cosmic ancestry.

Seeds of life floating around somewhere sounds like a basic evolutionary beginning to me.

Doesn't explain the seeds of life though...Other than as pre-universal remnants, maybe.


And the trouble with testable theories is:

They are either, actually testable.

Or we can create a computer programme to test and verify a theory that isn't physically testable. Wherein the computer only actually tests and verifies its programme.

Whereby we are left with a theory.

#21
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,295
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
Cosmic ancestry.
You will not find a more indepth web site on this topic.  Ive been going there since 90's{?}.
Seeds of life floating around somewhere sounds like a basic evolutionary beginning to me. Doesn't explain the seeds of life though...Other than as pre-universal remnants, maybe.
If  you read more of the introduction, Brigs believes biologic life is eternally existent in Universe. I.e. there is not origin of biologic life in and eternally existent Universe.

Whereby we are left with a theory.
Most beliefs begin with some basic assumptions. We all do that, and that in of itself is based on logical, common sense critical thinking,as ascertained from our experiences.

At least two cosmic thinkers who Ive heard say they believe all cosmic questions can or will be eventually solved by humans ---assuming they consuming to exist on Earth---  and one of them is Michio Kaku { string theory believer } and he states this in the vid link below, and Bucky Fuller believe same also.




#22
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,144
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@zedvictor4

I went to Harvard too, like  Michio Kaku  did.
#23
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,037
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ebuc
Humans will always have to compete with nature. The world is naturally a dangerous place for life, which is why humans struggle daily. Survival of the fittest.
#24
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,144
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@zedvictor4

Did you know that Tim McGraw is my brother?  Well, my fraternity brother.
#25
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,295
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Humans will always have to compete with nature.
Humans are nature.

The world is naturally a dangerous place for life, which is why humans struggle daily.
If not for our atmosphere  biologic life would not exist, or wouldnt exist long with out it.

Survival of the fittest.
All humans die, ergo, none are fittest.

Trumpet is the exception, since he is a God amongest us mortal humans
#26
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,304
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@FLRW
Who is Tim McGraw?

Obviously not the Country Singer.
#27
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,144
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@zedvictor4

Yes, the country singer.
#28
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,144
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@zedvictor4

We are both Pikes

#29
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,144
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@zedvictor4

Ted Koppel is my brother too.
#30
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,304
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@FLRW
Says in his profile that McGraw dropped out of school, and is only 56.

Your fraternal association is a bit loose.

Could potentially be anyone in the U.S.

Or potentially anyone.

King Charles is my Bro.


Now I've got to look up Ted Koppel.