Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Rat's Nest - Chronicles of Collapse -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: No Mo Mo who wrote (3275)	12/1/2005 1:34:30 PM
From: el_gaviero	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24213

I'm not sure you have understood my point. People have learned (at immense cost in blood) to compete AGAINST EACH OTHER by possession of stuff rather than direct killing. This is the new system, in which the man with the most stuff becomes confident and gets the most desirable girl (or in some parts of the world -- girls). All very primate-like, and wasteful, but males killing themselves off at the rate of 1 out of 4(about par for the course in rooted tribal cultures) could also be considered wasteful. The severity of the old system surely made better men, but we are not geared up for that sort of competition nowadays.

To: No Mo Mo who wrote (3275)	12/1/2005 1:53:01 PM
From: James Calladine	Respond to of 24213

Has anybody learned over the vast time of human experience that COOPERATION is vastly more productive for everybody than competition??????????????????????????????????? And that war NEVER settled a damned thing but just: -- enriched the war materiel makers -- murdered the young and the innocent -- destroyed assets and treasures of all kinds -- set up the seeds of the next war One does NOT have to be a great philosopher or historian to see and understand this. ANYBODY who considers it carefully for maybe 10 minutes straight can understand it. Certainly competition is better than war. But stripped down to its basics, it's just another justification of why a few should be rich, and the rest of the population should be serfs. The essence of competition in a given market is that you get to dominate it, then destroy your competition, then stick it to your customers. Survival of the "fittest"? Certainly, if you define fittest as most aggressive, hostile and vicious. Merit might be in there somewhere, but it is by no means dominant.