Competition as Lack of Insight

HUMAN NATURE is a complicated area of study because people have such strongly held beliefs about it.  Their beliefs about human nature are wrapped up tightly in their emotions, which inform their “meaning of Life.”  The uniquely human existential crises that have produced world religions offer their own misguided views of human nature.  That’s why most people feel they are experts on the topic, even though they might be just as “experienced” with human nature as they are with regard to the molecular structure of the antibiotic they are taking.  Even if they can detach themselves from their emotional investment in “human nature,” it is still a very difficult area of study.  Is there a way to study a human in a cultural vacuum? If there were, have not the generations of human culture already shaped to some degree our genetic expression?  And what about individual differences?  It is true that we all need relatively “clean” food, but some people can handle “dirtier” food than others.  Pain may be bad, but what level of pain a person can endure can vary widely from person to person.  And pain tolerance can impact what kinds of activities someone pursues. 

This kind of awareness about knowing our nature is relevant when talking about competition and cooperation, and which is "natural" to humans.  There is a lot of research about the advantages of cooperation; indeed, it seems to have been critical to our survival as a species because we are not that physically robust.  In thinking about this continuum of cooperation-competition, it is helpful to conceive of it not as a fixed trait, but as a constantly available repertoire of possible action.  Capitalist culture, for example, is continually demanding a competitive response, so the members of that culture behave accordingly.  But, if an individual behaved in that way within the context of their nuclear family, it would cause immediate and terrible disruption.  (Parent to child: I know you are only 5 years old, but you need to earn your keep because I don’t want to spend my hard-earned money on you.  Only by investing in myself will I be able to achieve greater success (excess) and you might get some trickle-down beverages and scraps of food.)  A more cooperative response is needed within the family to keep the family intact.  We feed, clothe, house, and nurture each other, which supports everyone’s well being.  I have never met a homemaker who charges the rest of the family for dinner or washing the dishes, and there’s probably a good reason for that.

This flexible approach to human nature is advantageous because it frees up the time spent on trying to decide which side is “right,” and it means that the fork-in-the-road is not something long past, but constantly re-appearing.  We didn’t, individually, or as a species, decide to be competitive and now we’re stuck in that mode of behaving.  One may have been ruthlessly competitive yesterday, but today is a new opportunity to respond more cooperatively. 

Recently, I read an article about the 100 richest people being wealthy enough to end world poverty.  And just after that, I read about Robert Axelrod’s simulations of social behavior and how cooperative strategies outperformed competitive ones within groups.  If cooperative behavior were so rewarding, and hence, self-reinforcing, then why would these richest 100 people come to have such power?  Wouldn’t we just have known better so that such disparities never happened in the first place?  It would not be sensible to have a socio-economic system that demands competitive strategies.

I think this problem relates to another problem of human perception.  Humans tend to focus on immediate rewards and punishments.  It is probably why the Native American Iroquois valued thinking ahead for seven generations, as an applied mental exercise.  Such a cultural compass helped mitigate the effects of an immediate reward/punishment paradigm.  They understood that their actions now would create ripple effects for many generations to come, and it was their responsibility to ensure wise decisions were made.

While the impoverished do not have the luxury of thinking ahead that far (they might not survive this generation!), the richest 100 certainly have that opportunity.  Of course, they are rich because they have worked the game in such a way to get those immediate benefits. Their behavior was reinforced. Further, they may not be aware of the many ways that shortsightedness undermines their well being.  They are blind to the long-term consequences, and aware of only the benefits, so by their calculation, their behavior is entirely rational and beneficial. By not addressing the momentum of increasing ecosystem collapse, there will be less clean air, water, and land.  Catastrophic natural disasters such as fracking-induced earthquakes or “super storms” may claim their lives, or those of their families.  Social instability increases their insecurity since ownership rights only have meaning in a society that recognizes and permits those rights.  They, or their families, may be victims of random or intentional violence.  Social and technical infrastructures on which they rely may be destroyed (striking food workers, highways crumbling due to insufficient funding, airplane bombings from “terrorists, contaminated drugs from counterfeit manufacturers trying to increase their earnings, arts and entertainment venues closing because everyone needs a “practical” business degree). People sickened by the excesses of competition causes a pandemic of neurotic disorders.

Lastly, it takes a special kind of desensitization programming to grow thick enough skin to not be affected by children being dismembered by wars and violence, desperate homeless faces looking for a meal, and miserable workers employed at these richest 100-owned companies who would rather leap to their deaths than spend another day enslaved by corporate fascism.  Sure, humans can adapt to callousness, but like a painkiller that numbs the pain, does not callousness dull the mind?  In other words, they have to anesthetize themselves to live in a world of pervasive degradation.  Their own well being is ultimately compromised by their lack of foresight. 

Enlightened by this broader understanding of causality, the view of “self-interest” goes from Standard to HD widescreen.  With a clearer picture of how society is interconnected, and how ecosystems are housed within a giant galactic Russian doll, the richest 100 can make better decisions about how to wield their socially granted power.  If they don’t, society will turn against them wresting power from them by force. The shift to a global cooperative strategy is not a missed opportunity, but a current opportunity, one that should be seized immediately.  Human nature, with its extraordinary flexibility, allows us to respond differently--and wiser!--for generations to come.

The Competitive Edge's Impact on Our Social Nature

This is an excerpt from a book I wrote a few years back.  I find it relevant to the Zeitgeist argument that our monetary system is making us less well (balanced and healthy) collectively and individually.

I read about a research poll done not long ago that indicated that the general level of happiness in America is quite low despite it having great wealth and power. Most people will probably attribute this to materialism in America and how materialism never serves as the buttress to happiness and peace. I think the issue is much deeper than that though.

I reason that many people in America are rather unhappy because of its resolute individualism and its concordant competitiveness. From the time we are young, we are taught that success is being self-reliant, which means, “I don’t need anyone!” Even popular culture serves up an endless collage of people  efuting belonging, or more colloquially, “not taking shit” from any person, organization, or social group. In some ways, this attitude can be healthy, but it is currently out of balance. Being needy is just as unhealthy as being withdrawn into a self-enclosed self-reliance.

We are all interconnected in so many ways that we cannot possibly imagine them all, especially all at once. I drank a bottle of water and threw the container out of the window, which ended up in the Pacific Ocean where it drifted to the great Garbage Patch. It cracked and broke into pieces, which were ingested by fish. The fisherman scooped these fish from the sea and took them to a market. The buyer cut open  he fish to inspect the goods and found the fish full of plastic bits. The buyer did not buy any of the lot; a  purchase was made from a different fisherman. That fish was sold at a gourmet market where Mr.  Moneybags can afford it, and he prepared and ate all of it with the sexy lady he invited to dinner. Tragically, the fish that he bought was tainted with a fatal toxin and it killed Mr. Moneybags and his one-night stand a few hours after eating it. The fisherman knew his catch came from a suspicious source, but he needed the money quickly because gas prices had gone up, and that was causing him to get behind in his mortgage payments. He had left his wife and child for another man (his religious upbringing made it unbearable to be honest with himself), but he still needed to make child-support payments. When the autopsy was performed, the toxin was linked to the fish and the fisherman was put in jail because he could not buy his way out of jail. The payments to his child stopped, and as a result, the young prodigy had to stop her violin lessons. Ultimately, she got a job at the DMV where she treated you like crap because she was in a job she hated and her heart was filled with bitterness.

      

Americans try so hard to escape the bonds of relationship because they are barriers to their success so they end up alone in their rooms wondering why they have become so lonely. We devote our lives to building up a financial security that can take us anywhere we want, but then we have no motivation to go anywhere because we have no one to go with. And if we do go somewhere, we just go there, get a picture and then run to the next monument or tourist attraction. The idea being that we can show our friends all the wonderful places we visited, or simply congratulate ourselves about seeing a famous place. Some even make traveling into a kind of competition. “How many countries have you been to? Only 8…oh, I’ve been to at least 25!” And this is exactly my point. The goal is not to see, to experience, to absorb, or to really learn deeply. Traveling, like true education, has the power to transform a person.

        

The “competitive edge,” as it is piously referred to in American culture, is impairing our ability to feel welcome, accepted, and embraced by others. We are riddled with suspicion, “what does he want from me?” We feel unloved, even if we can name off a list of hundreds of friends. We may have several lovers and still feel “empty.” We often give in to presenting a facade of concrete imperviousness. Surely that is not the reality of human nature so we are left to console ourselves or seek confidential psychotherapy to relieve the stress of being lonely.