Slashdot Mirror

To start with the bottom line: the very computers that make the new NSA facilities possible mean that the NSA's formal purpose is essentially soon to be at an end. Nothing you or I say here will reverse that trend. The only issue is how soon the NSA as a whole recognizes that fact, and then how people there choose to deal with that reality.

Overall, you make some great points about social dynamics and changing the system vs. changing your place in the system. That is all very insightful. It is also true that young men tend to focus more on competition (making it in the system) and older men on cooperation (making the system keep working) - and our youth-oriented US culture tends to celebrate the competition side publicly more. I'd have to agree that, in general, someone overall much above average in abilities that are currently in demand is individually usually better off investing their personal efforts in changing their place in the system in the short term (rather than trying to change the system) as far as access to resources that they can then use for personal ends (like to have a prosperous family) -- especially when they are young (part of this is also female preference and standing out). In the short term, narrow selfishness often pays off (and even sometimes in the long term, too).

That is pretty undeniable -- although there are a few caveats even then. Not all women want the same thing in a man (contrast with the Haudenosaunee culture and the women's choice of Tadodaho, like someone more compassionate and philosophical like Leon Shenandoah). There is also the issue of what values are you teaching you kids who will care for you in your old age. There is the issue of what friends you keep and how likely they may be to stab you in the back if they are also extreme social climbers. Too many "pleasure trap" rich foods (or drugs) are bad for the health. There also seems to be a law of diminishing returns to more stuff, beyond which doing good deeds and giving gifts and so on is probably going to bring you more overall happiness; see:
http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/09/07/1519221/Researchers-Say-Happiness-Costs-75k

Probably there is even a law of diminishing or even negative returns to more "social power", although we could debate that.

There is also a sense in which many people who engage in a certain kind of economic race are statistically being "chumps" according to this:
http://conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/47/
"And maybe - just maybe - the people who have "made it" wrote those rules to keep the wannabes chasing a dream that's a mirage."

Trying to change the system (at least as an individual) can for most people be a guarantee of heartbreak, loneliness, poverty, having few kids, and so on. Not that nature probably really cares about the suffering if one person succeeds though. A salmon may lay a thousand eggs to see just one survive to adulthood.

Ultimately, we may well see a newer type of economy simply because the old one is just looking so ugly these days and dysfunctional these days, although some say that has been true for a century:
http://www.amazon.com/Economics-Rest-Us-Debunking-Science/dp/1595581014

And in general, some people are seeing the value of increased cooperation, even in the USA:
"No contest: the case against competition"
http://www.share-international.org/archives/cooperation/co_nocontest.htm
"Alfie Kohn, author of No contest: the case against competition, disagrees completely. He argues that competition is essentially detrimental to every important aspect of human experience; our relationships, self-esteem, enjoyment of leisure, and even productivity would all be improved if we were to break out of

Your post is very selective about the "facts". If enough people keep thinking your way, we are probably doomed for sure in an age where any disgruntled person can download a plague off the internet and feel justified using it out of either retribution or to achieve some objective that they think will make them "secure" by wiping out most everyone else who might in theory be a threat. Maybe we could try being nice to each other for a change and see how that works out for a while?
http://www.share-international.org/archives/cooperation/co_nocontest.htm

Or:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Prologue
" Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made a big mistake in coming down from the trees in the first place. And some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no one should ever have left the oceans.
        And then, one Thursday, nearly two thousand years after one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change, a girl sitting on her own in a small cafe in Rickmansworth suddenly realized what it was that had been going wrong all this time, and she finally knew how the world could be made a good and happy place. This time it was right, it would work, and no one would have to get nailed to anything.
        Sadly, however, before she could get to a phone to tell anyone about it, the Earth was unexpectedly demolished to make way for a new hyperspace bypass, and so the idea was lost, seemingly for ever.
        This is her story."

Were you one of the protesters against the supposedly justified war against Iraq over non-existent weapons of mass destruction. If not, then what moral authority do you speak from? Who was the aggressor there? Hard to accept the implications. Based on your philosophy, how should the USA be labelled for that endeavor, and what should other countries do about that? Can you explain why most other countries consider the USA a far greater threat to world peace than most of the countries it invades?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jun/15/usa.iran

Terrorist attacks have happened many times on US soil, including the US Capitol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States

They have also happened in other countries without those countries losing their democracies.

But sadly, the article suggests the worst terrorism these days seems to be coming *out* of the US Capitol and destroying the fabric of US society both economically and socially. See also:
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
"OK, what's this book about? It's about what's happened to the American government lately. It's about the disastrous decisions that government has made. It's about the corruption that rotted the Congress. It's about how traditional conservatism has nearly been destroyed by authoritarianism. It's about how the "Religious Right" teamed up with amoral authoritarian leaders to push its un-democratic agenda onto the country. It's about the United States standing at the crossroads as the next federal election approaches."

Just think about whether you are helping the terrorists win?

"There are no games which are not violent."

http://familypastimes.com/
"Family Pastimes games are the inventions of Jim Deacove. Jim started making co-operative games for his own family, and was encouraged by friends to make more. The Deacove family was and is no different from others. Sharing toys, helping mom and dad and being kind to others are values taught in all homes. To find games which help reinforce such sharing attitudes, however, is very difficult. Thus, Jim and Ruth felt the need to create some."

Also:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1713701812/co-opoly-the-game-of-cooperatives/posts/105473

And:
http://www.share-international.org/archives/cooperation/i_cooperation.htm
http://www.share-international.org/archives/cooperation/co_nocontest.htm
"Kohn argues that the 'sacred cow' of competition stands on four mythological legs."

But yes, alternatives to competitive games in the USA can be much harder to find.

My wife and I invested over six-person years trying to create non-violent video game alternatives in the 1990s when everyone was saying how important that was, and mostly all we got for that ourselves was having to spend many years working for others to pay off debt.
http://www.gardenwithinsight.com/
http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/nsfprop.htm

Still, Minecraft is a new popular mostly cooperative game that I can recommend if you want one (although get your vitamin D from supplements if you spend a lot of time indoors playing it):
http://www.minecraft.net/

I would have been very proud to have made something that good and also that popular which created a huge cooperating user community. I have immense respect for Mojang AB in that sense.

"There are no games which are not violent."

http://familypastimes.com/
"Family Pastimes games are the inventions of Jim Deacove. Jim started making co-operative games for his own family, and was encouraged by friends to make more. The Deacove family was and is no different from others. Sharing toys, helping mom and dad and being kind to others are values taught in all homes. To find games which help reinforce such sharing attitudes, however, is very difficult. Thus, Jim and Ruth felt the need to create some."

Also:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1713701812/co-opoly-the-game-of-cooperatives/posts/105473

And:
http://www.share-international.org/archives/cooperation/i_cooperation.htm
http://www.share-international.org/archives/cooperation/co_nocontest.htm
"Kohn argues that the 'sacred cow' of competition stands on four mythological legs."

But yes, alternatives to competitive games in the USA can be much harder to find.

My wife and I invested over six-person years trying to create non-violent video game alternatives in the 1990s when everyone was saying how important that was, and mostly all we got for that ourselves was having to spend many years working for others to pay off debt.
http://www.gardenwithinsight.com/
http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/nsfprop.htm

Still, Minecraft is a new popular mostly cooperative game that I can recommend if you want one (although get your vitamin D from supplements if you spend a lot of time indoors playing it):
http://www.minecraft.net/

I would have been very proud to have made something that good and also that popular which created a huge cooperating user community. I have immense respect for Mojang AB in that sense.

Good points, and thanks for the kid words about the article.

I feel lack of universal health coverage, for example, is one thing holding back more entrepreneurship in the USA. I've known several people who said they can not change jobs or try something different over health insurance worries.

But, that is in some sense by design; from "Conceptual Guerilla":
http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/16
"When you cut right through it, right-wing ideology is just âoedime-store economicsâ â" intended to dress their ideology up and make it look respectable. You don't really need to know much about economics to understand it. They certainly donâ(TM)t. It all gets down to two simple words.
"Cheap labor" Thatâ(TM)s their whole philosophy in a nutshell -- which gives you a short and pithy "catch phrase" that describes them perfectly. You've heard of "big-government liberals". Well they're "cheap-labor conservatives"
Once you understand the general concept, you will frequently find yourself in debate over specific issues, like healthcare, social security privatization, public school vouchers, the "war on drugs" and of course the war in Iraq. What better way to put your conservative opponent on the defensive than by exposing the true motivation for his position -- "cheap labor". Can you really find the "cheap labo"â angle in every conservative policy initiative, and every conservative position on any particular issue?
Yes, you can. Here is a catalogue of some of the major issues on the national agenda. In every single one of them, the conservative position advances the cause of "cheap labor". I defy any conservative reading this to show me one single conservative position, belief, principle or policy that has any tendency to boost the earning power of labor. ,,,"

Of course, the ultimate in "cheap labor" is "no labor" -- replacing labor by a machine, a computer, better design, cheap energy, or volunteers, or something else. Technology is making that all possible, and even easier. For example, cloud computing makes it easier to get rid of system administrators.

So, in general, the bargaining power of most labor is eroding, because productivity is rising but demand is limited (Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and Reduce, Reuse, Recycle)..

I'm not saying the bargaining power of all labor is eroding, just most labor. Some people are still in demand, generally those with certain combinations of rarer skills combined with social connections. But all that contributes to an increasing rich/poor divide. More and more people are finding that a highly automated industrial system just does not need them. And that is bad news in the absence of some sort of social safety net, or better, some sort of social security as a human right as a citizen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms

You used the word "competitive", but the fact is, cooperation is more what we need.
http://www.share-international.org/archives/cooperation/co_nocontest.htm

Why should US citizens have to be "competitive" with wage slavery or full automation because of an income-through-jobs link?
http://www.whywork.org/rethinking/whywork/abolition.html
http://educationanddemocracy.org/FSCfiles/C_CC2a_TripleRevolution.htm

People saw this was going to happen even in the 1960s, but sadly the Democrats ended up pushing for full employment rather than social equity as a right to access the fruits of the industrial commons:

And the Republicans became the party of technological progress in some ways (but co

Thanks for the insights in this (as well as your other two recent replies).

Still, without denying the truths in what you wrote, there remains the issue of arms races and of one player dashing the game to the ground. That is the "finite" vs. "infinite" game aspect.

See also:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_and_Infinite_Games
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_game
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_gameplay
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_board_game
    http://familypastimes.com/
    http://www.learningherbs.com/wildcraft.html

From:
        http://www.share-international.org/archives/cooperation/co_nocontest.htm
"Kohn defines competition as any situation where one person's success is dependent upon another's failure. Put another way, in competition two or more parties are pursuing a goal that cannot be attained by all. He calls this 'mutually exclusive goal attainment' (MEGA).
    Kohn goes on to define two distinct types of competition. In 'structural competition' MEGA is an explicit, defining element in the nature of the interaction. For instance in a game of tennis there can be only one winner. The same is true of beauty contests, presidential elections, and wars. Everyone knows they are out to beat the others though the rules of engagement may vary considerably between events.
    Intentional competition' is a state of mind, an individual's competitiveness or his proclivity for besting others. Anyone can go to a party determined to establish him or herself as the most intelligent, the most attractive, etc. Similarly, in school, the work place, and on teams people can try to beat others whether or not anyone is formally keeping score and declaring winners and losers.
    One place where competition cannot exist, according to Kohn, is within oneself. Such striving to better one's own standing is an individual, not interactive matter; it does not involve MEGA. Of course some people cannot imagine pushing themselves without the possibility of 'winning' or the threat of 'losing', but this by no means implies that all motivation is dependent upon competitive frameworks. Throughout history countless large and small accomplishments have been achieved simply out of an individual's desire to do better without any thought of beating others. Such striving for mastery cannot be confused with competition."

In any case, if you and an "opponent" play Go mainly to increase your mastery of the game and ideas like balance (as you obviously have) and to find joy in cooperating together to do so, then I guess one might say you are playing a cooperative infinite game, even through the finite competitive mechanism of Go? :-)

Anyway, thanks again for the very informative analysis of current US defense posture from the perspective of an experienced Go player.

As I say here:
    http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html
"Still, we must accept that there is nothing wrong with wanting some security. The issue is how we go about it in a non-ironic way that works for everyone."

Call that having an "efficient" war machine, if you want. :-)

From: http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html
"Military robots like drones are ironic because they are created essentially to force humans to work like robots in an industrialized social order. Why not just create industrial robots to do the work instead?"

From the article: "This work was funded by Grant No. N00014-08-1-0696 from the Office of Naval Research (ONR)."

How should your tax dollars be at work? Funding irony, or funding intrinsic mutual security by creating abundance for all?

That said, the robots sound cool ("the road to hell is paved with cool technology"?), and I liked that the article also said: "While there may be advantages to creating robots with the capacity for deception, there are also ethical implications that need to be considered to ensure that these creations are consistent with the overall expectations and well-being of society, according to the researchers. "We have been concerned from the very beginning with the ethical implications related to the creation of robots capable of deception and we understand that there are beneficial and deleterious aspects," explained Arkin. "We strongly encourage discussion about the appropriateness of deceptive robots to determine what, if any, regulations or guidelines should constrain the development of these systems.""

So consider my first link (and essay by me) as a suggestion towards that end...

I just finished reading (sadly) the last book the late James P. Hogan wrote (Migration) and central to the plot is the fact that a robot might be easily deceived and put to nefarious purposes because it did not understand the notion of deception. So, a complex issue. Still, I'd expect one can understand deception and illusion without engaging in it?

Also, again from the article: "A situation had to satisfy two key conditions to warrant deception -- there must be conflict between the deceiving robot and the seeker, and the deceiver must benefit from the deception."

They have left out a key third possibility -- there has to be no other way to resolve the conflict than competition, which is rarely (or perhaps even never?) the case. See also:
    "No contest: the case against competition" by Alfie Kohn
    http://www.share-international.org/archives/cooperation/co_nocontest.htm
    http://www.alfiekohn.org/books/nc.htm

http://www.share-international.org/background/miracles/mi_circles.htm
Or at least maybe the space brothers?
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NewAge/Creme_Maitreya.htm

people don’t see the true genius behind Steve Job’s vision and moves.

Another day, another worship piece for Jobs. Could he be the Maitreya after all? http://www.share-international.org/maitreya/Ma_main.htm

Their leader had to put out a message on the subject stating that Patel is merely inspired by the messiah:

Q. I can’t seem to find any individuals who give me the feeling that Maitreya would give one if hearing him speak on television. I do not sense any people with any spiritual energy emanating from them when they speak. The closest thing to someone as an ordinary person is Raj Patel the author of The Value of Nothing who appeared on Democracy Now and the Colbert Report in 2010. He even travelled from India to London in 1977. However he doesn’t seem to talk much about creating a new civilization based on sharing and justice as much as one would expect Maitreya to do. Is he in fact just an ordinary man inspired by Maitreya?Also he denied being Maitreya but agrees with your ideas and purpose.

A. The ideas of Maitreya have penetrated all planes for many years and thousands of people are ‘inspired’ by these ideas.

http://www.share-international.org/magazine/old_issues/2010/2010-03.htm

From: http://www.share-international.org/magazine/old_issues/2010/2010-03.htm (linked from their home page)

Maitreya, we know, will never say Who He is until the Day of Declaration.

Bad luck, saying you're not him will not help ...

Their website: http://www.share-international.org/

They talk about his a lot on the main page (apparently they call him "Maitreya").
And of course most of the stuff said is pretty ridiculous and funny.

We are obviously talking the "Share International" Maitreya cult here .. http://www.share-international.org/ You can shove it up your ass, Creme then take it out and shove it through the noses of the people paying you.

The main idea behind the cult is there are a 40 some "Ascended Masters" here to guide humanity in the "New Age". Each of these masters will address a specific concern .. and those concerns are healthcare, economics, .. I think you get the picture. The idea is for us to step aside for 40 galactic "benevolent" dictators while they take over. I for one don't think so. I'm not sure if they are a spin-off of the "Ashtar Galactic Command" or if it is the other way around.

Thanks for the first hand report.

An alternative approach instead of censorship is to just put a heavy tax on certain media, because of the cost it may impose on society:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
"""
In economics, an externality or spillover of an economic transaction is an impact on a party that is not directly involved in the transaction. In such a case, prices do not reflect the full costs or benefits in production or consumption of a product or service. An advantageous impact is called an external benefit or positive externality, while a detrimental impact is called an external cost or negative externality. Producers and consumers in a market may either not bear all of the costs or not reap all of the benefits of the economic activity. For example, manufacturing that causes air pollution imposes costs on the whole society, while fire-proofing a home improves the fire safety of neighbors.
    In a competitive market, the existence of externalities would cause either too much or too little of the good to be produced or consumed in terms of overall costs and benefits to society. If there exist external costs such as pollution, the good will be overproduced by a competitive market, as the producer does not take into account the external costs when producing the good. If there are external benefits, such as in areas of education or public safety, too little of the good would be produced by private markets as producers and buyers do not take into account the external benefits to others. Here, overall cost and benefit to society is defined as the sum of the economic benefits and costs for all parties involved.
"""

Media that contributes to social violence, or which displaces time that could be spent on learning better solutions to social conflicts, could be considered as creating a negative externality. More on this general issue, about the dilemma between helping kids work through developmental needs to move beyond violence versus sending a message about avoiding violent solutions:
    http://www.amazon.com/War-Play-Dilemma-Childhood-Education/dp/080774638X

A violent media tax could be redistributed equally to everyone as a "basic income", or it could be used to fund other projects (including other media) that promote cooperation.
    http://www.basicincome.org/bien/aboutbasicincome.html
    http://www.share-international.org/archives/cooperation/co_nocontest.htm

Here is another first hand report on someone from the US heading to Venezuela and then heading back to the USA, realizing they would never fit in for a variety of reasons (even as they admired aspects of the changes there):
    http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/110706_mcr_evolution.shtml

It's been said by Major General Smedly Butler that War is a Racket:
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

Well, another racket is the unhealthy alliance between toymakers and media makers, a racket that started with deregulation of children's media under the "family values" Reagan Administration. That racket has destroyed big chunks of healthy childhood for many young boys:
"The War Play Dilemma: What Every Parent And Teacher Needs to Know"
http://www.amazon.com/War-Play-Dilemma-Childhood-Education/dp/080774638X

One of the authors of that book suggests a similar unhealthy alliance has make a lot of money harming young girls as a racket, too:
"So Sexy So Soon: The New Sexualized Childhood and What Parents Can Do to Protect Their Kids"
http://www.amazon.com/So-Sexy-Soon-Sexualized-Childhood/dp/0345505077

Also, an indirectly related book from the time just before the first September 11th (in Chile in 1973):
"How to Read Donald Duck: Imperialist Ideology in the Disney Comic"
http://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Donald-Duck-Imperialist/dp/0884770230

With that said, I don't think banning is the answer. Money poured into alternatives and discussion is probably a better solution. Alfie Kohn's work is a good start for such discussion (beyond the above books):
"No Contest: The Case Against Competition"
http://www.share-international.org/archives/cooperation/co_nocontest.htm
http://www.amazon.com/No-Contest-Case-Against-Competition/dp/0395631254
"Contending that competition in all areas -- school, family, sports and business -- is destructive, and that success so achieved is at the expense of another's failure, Kohn, a correspondent for USA Today, advocates a restructuring of our institutions to replace competition with cooperation. He persuasively demonstrates how the ingrained American myth that competition is the only normal and desirable way of life -- from Little Leagues to the presidency -- is counterproductive, personally and for the national economy, and how psychologically it poisons relationships, fosters anxiety and takes the fun out of work and play. He charges that competition is a learned phenomenon and denies that it builds character and self-esteem. Kohn's measures to encourage cooperation in lieu of competition include promoting noncompetitive games, eliminating scholastic grades and substitution of mutual security for national security."

Another related book to understand how it all went so wrong:
"Supernormal Stimuli: How Primal Urges Overran Their Evolutionary Purpose"
http://www.amazon.com/Supernormal-Stimuli-Overran-Evolutionary-Purpose/dp/039306848X

Also, curing vitamin D deficiency that people get from staying indoors too much playing games or even just reading is probably more important:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml

Also, kids need to learn the irony that in a world full of fancy computers and advanced manufacturing (like depicted in many such violent games), fighting over land or oil is just ironically stupid, instead of using that technology to make the world work for everyone. The unrecognized irony is more deadly than those games.

"They also provided for their own needs via informal "jobs" like hunting, gathering, farming, etc. It seems likely to me that "jobs" were a big deal then as they are now."

That statement confuses the physical notion of doing something a person think needs to be done with the social notion of a job implying a "boss", a currency system, a state with police to enforce property rights and contracts, rich/poor divides, and so on. There will always be things to do and people to do them (if Skynet running Predator drones does not kill us all) -- but that does not mean there will always be "jobs", like Bob Black talks about.
http://www.whywork.org/rethinking/whywork/abolition.html

Sahlins points out that a couple hours of self-directed activity a day was all most hunter/gatherers did as work on average (the rest being what we would term either recreation or child care or socializing or household tasks). That is a completely different psychological experience than eight to ten hours a more a day in a highly structured hierarchical environment. It is more akin to the psychological experience of healthy wealthy people. Farmers had a much tougher life, granted, as you can see from the decrease in skeleton size when people were forced to switch to agriculture -- but humans are naturally adapted to material prosperity for much of our recent existence, with small populations and a huge planet.

Why do things cost so much? Mostly, at this point, due to artificial scarcity. As Bob Black references, most labor today relates to guarding in some form or another. It is not just the huge amount of money spent on the military or obvious private security or prison guards (the US has the highest incarceration rate of any industrialized country). It is also every sales clerk, every lock, almost every lawyer, every medical billing staff person, much of what many accountants do most of the time, most of what most government employees do, and so on -- all guarding something or someone. These people are all guards. Patents and copyrights are all about guarding (not the ideas and digital files themselves, but the legal aspects). Much of schooling is about guarding, both imprisoning kids during the day and creating a bunch of certification hoops to keep them busy, sometimes for decades. And because things need to be guarded, people can't cooperate, driving up even more costs by redundancy or sabotage. Probably (guessing) at least 90% of the economy is about guarding. So, that's why things cost 10X more to produce than they have to if they were free.

If things cost one-tenth what they do now, would people have to worry so much about guarding them? So, it is a hysteresis effect or a form of self-fulfilling prophecy -- people need to guard everything because guarding makes everything so expensive and precious. It is the tragedy of the anti-commons, the tragedy of competition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_anticommons
http://www.share-international.org/archives/cooperation/co_nocontest.htm
"""
We need competition in order to survive."
"Life is boring without competition."
"It is competition that gives us meaning in life."
These words written by American college students capture a sentiment that runs through the heart of the USA and appears to be spreading throughout the world. To these students, competition is not simply something one does, it is the very essence of existence. When asked to imagine a world without competition, they can foresee only rising prices, declining productivity and a general collapse of the moral order. Some truly believe we would cease to exist were it not for competition.
Alfie Kohn, author of No contest: the case against competition, disagrees completely. He argues that competition is essentially detri

This phenomenon is a sign that today we live in a most extraordinary time in history.

Some will know that a year has passed since Share International released a news release, where they predicted that very soon a bright star-like sign would appear in our skies, visible day and night. This 'star' was to be similar in its nature to the biblical Star of Bethlehem - announcing that a great teacher for our time is among us and is ready to step forward into the public, having his first public interview on one of the major american television networks.
Many will also know that such a 'star' has indeed appeared not a month after the prediction, and that Share International magazine has every month since then published a number of photos and reports of the 'star', coming from all parts of the world. Likewise many people uploaded their own videos and reports to and talked about it on forums and blogs.
The latest information from Share International is that this spiral over Norway was yet another instance of the 'star', this time showing itself in such a spectacular way. Further such manifestations are to be expected in the near future.
See "The 'Star' Sign" on.

This phenomenon is a sign that today we live in a most extraordinary time in history.

Some will know that a year has passed since Share International released a news release, where they predicted that very soon a bright star-like sign would appear in our skies, visible day and night. This 'star' was to be similar in its nature to the biblical Star of Bethlehem - announcing that a great teacher for our time is among us and is ready to step forward into the public, having his first public interview on one of the major american television networks.
Many will also know that such a 'star' has indeed appeared not a month after the prediction, and that Share International magazine has every month since then published a number of photos and reports of the 'star', coming from all parts of the world. Likewise many people uploaded their own videos and reports to and talked about it on forums and blogs.
The latest information from Share International is that this spiral over Norway was yet another instance of the 'star', this time showing itself in such a spectacular way. Further such manifestations are to be expected in the near future.
See "The 'Star' Sign" on.

This phenomenon is a sign that today we live in a most extraordinary time in history.

Some will know that a year has passed since Share International released a news release, where they predicted that very soon a bright star-like sign would appear in our skies, visible day and night. This 'star' was to be similar in its nature to the biblical Star of Bethlehem - announcing that a great teacher for our time is among us and is ready to step forward into the public, having his first public interview on one of the major american television networks.
Many will also know that such a 'star' has indeed appeared not a month after the prediction, and that Share International magazine has every month since then published a number of photos and reports of the 'star', coming from all parts of the world. Likewise many people uploaded their own videos and reports to and talked about it on forums and blogs.
The latest information from Share International is that this spiral over Norway was yet another instance of the 'star', this time showing itself in such a spectacular way. Further such manifestations are to be expected in the near future.
See "The 'Star' Sign" on.

You wrote: "They aren't so much competitions as they are organizations who try to determine which students have best displayed future potential for their fields. It's not like a one-on-one "science off" where two students try to one-up one another with their mastery of arcane mathematical facts; it's a bunch of students, all of whom are amazing in their own right, versus panels of distinguished judges. You don't "compete" beyond the fact that an organization can't give an award to everyone - in fact, some of my best friends are the ones that I met through these competitions."

More from:
http://www.share-international.org/archives/cooperation/co_nocontest.htm
"""
Kohn defines competition as any situation where one person's success is dependent upon another's failure. Put another way, in competition two or more parties are pursuing a goal that cannot be attained by all. He calls this 'mutually exclusive goal attainment' (MEGA).
Kohn goes on to define two distinct types of competition. In 'structural competition' MEGA is an explicit, defining element in the nature of the interaction. For instance in a game of tennis there can be only one winner. The same is true of beauty contests, presidential elections, and wars. Everyone knows they are out to beat the others though the rules of engagement may vary considerably between events.
Intentional competition' is a state of mind, an individual's competitiveness or his proclivity for besting others. Anyone can go to a party determined to establish him or herself as the most intelligent, the most attractive, etc. Similarly, in school, the work place, and on teams people can try to beat others whether or not anyone is formally keeping score and declaring winners and losers.
One place where competition cannot exist, according to Kohn, is within oneself. Such striving to better one's own standing is an individual, not interactive matter; it does not involve MEGA. Of course some people cannot imagine pushing themselves without the possibility of 'winning' or the threat of 'losing', but this by no means implies that all motivation is dependent upon competitive frameworks. Throughout history countless large and small accomplishments have been achieved simply out of an individual's desire to do better without any thought of beating others. Such striving for mastery cannot be confused with competition.
"""

Note also that:
"Studies Find Reward Often No Motivator: Creativity and intrinsic interest diminish if task is done for gain"
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/motivation.html

Also, as was pointed out to me by Hans Moravec when I hung out in his lab, good research involves taking risks, and coping with repeated failures. He suggested that he was as successful as he was (and he is brilliant and a thought leader in many ways) because he failed a lot early in life. :-) Now that you have a reputation to protect, you may find this difficult.

See the ideas outlined here to see more on why I am concerned about this (as a parent for my own child):
"How Not to Talk to Your Kids"
http://nymag.com/news/features/27840/ [multiple pages]
"Dweck had suspected that praise could backfire, but even she was surprised by the magnitude of the effect. "Emphasizing effort gives a child a variable that they can control," she explains. "They come to see themselves as in control of their success. Emphasizing natural intelligence takes it out of the child's control, and it provides no good recipe for responding to a failure." In follow-up interviews, Dweck discovered that those who think that innate intelligence is the key to success begin to discount the importance of effort. I am smart, the kids' reasoning goes; I don't nee

I like this part of the speech (will they be open source?):
"The MacArthur Foundation and industry leaders like Sony are launching a nationwide challenge to design compelling, freely available, science-related video games."

But, sadly, they are still promoting "competitions" even in that "challenge", plus another part: "Time Warner Cable is joining with the Coalition for Science After School and FIRST Robotics -- the program created by inventor Dean Kamen, which gave us the "Cougar Cannon" -- to connect one million students with fun after-school activities, like robotics competitions."

See:
http://www.share-international.org/archives/cooperation/co_nocontest.htm
"""
"We need competition in order to survive."
"Life is boring without competition."
"It is competition that gives us meaning in life."
These words written by American college students capture a sentiment that runs through the heart of the USA and appears to be spreading throughout the world. To these students, competition is not simply something one does, it is the very essence of existence. When asked to imagine a world without competition, they can foresee only rising prices, declining productivity and a general collapse of the moral order. Some truly believe we would cease to exist were it not for competition.
    Alfie Kohn, author of No contest: the case against competition, disagrees completely. He argues that competition is essentially detrimental to every important aspect of human experience; our relationships, self-esteem, enjoyment of leisure, and even productivity would all be improved if we were to break out of the pattern of relentless competition. Far from being idealistic speculation, his position is anchored in hundreds of research studies and careful analysis of the primary domains of competitive interaction. For those who see themselves assisting in a transition to a less competitive world, Kohn's book will be an invaluable resource.
"""

Sometimes you just have to make a choice between helping the larger society prosper versus turning inward and perhaps, by inaction, helping bring about the very catastrophe you are worried about.

But, from a "preparedness" perspective, working from pessimism, interesting reading:
    http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/110706_mcr_evolution.shtml
    http://www.alpharubicon.com/prepinfo/themainmessage.htm

Ideally, one can do both -- build strong local communities that are more self-reliant while at the same time developing ideas that help everyone. One issue with the Alpha Rubicon people is that they choose to keep most of what they learn to themselves, presumably to give themselves and edge in a catastrophe? Maybe there is a different reason? Ultimately, a competitive mindset may be what dooms us unless we can move beyond it:
    "No contest: the case against competition"
    http://www.share-international.org/archives/cooperation/co_nocontest.htm

As another reply, by "Alex Belits" points out, aspects of what you outline, like hoarding, would be considered dysfunctional in other paradigms. A study of other cultures, like some Native American tribes, shows that a "Tribal Chief" was selected and replaced at will by the people. They were picked from their lifelong behavior in the tribe, often to serve as more a spiritual leader than a dictator. Example from recent Iroquois history:
http://www.peace4turtleisland.org/pages/tributetoshenandoah.htm
"This article was written by Kanatiiosh as a tribute to Chief Leon Shenandoah who held the Onondaga title of Tadodaho and was truly a good man who lived his life according to the original instructions given by the Creator."
A book of his wisdom that I have enjoyed reading:
http://www.amazon.com/Become-Human-Being-Tadodaho-Shenandoah/dp/1571743413

What you write towards the end reminds me of this:
"No contest: the case against competition"
http://www.share-international.org/archives/cooperation/co_nocontest.htm
"""
We need competition in order to survive."
"Life is boring without competition."
"It is competition that gives us meaning in life."
These words written by American college students capture a sentiment that runs through the heart of the USA and appears to be spreading throughout the world. To these students, competition is not simply something one does, it is the very essence of existence. When asked to imagine a world without competition, they can foresee only rising prices, declining productivity and a general collapse of the moral order. Some truly believe we would cease to exist were it not for competition.
Alfie Kohn, author of No contest: the case against competition, disagrees completely. He argues that competition is essentially detrimental to every important aspect of human experience; our relationships, self-esteem, enjoyment of leisure, and even productivity would all be improved if we were to break out of the pattern of relentless competition. Far from being idealistic speculation, his position is anchored in hundreds of research studies and careful analysis of the primary domains of competitive interaction. For those who see themselves assisting in a transition to a less competitive world, Kohn's book will be an invaluable resource.
"""

Part of this issue is what we mean by "health", whether for an individual, a family, a community, a society, a biosphere, or a noosphere.

Again, from Alfie Kohn's work:
"No Contest: The Case Against Competition" By Alfie Kohn
http://books.google.com/books?id=bLudHIk3gsMC
"""
If competitiveness is inherently compensatory, if it is an effort to prove oneself and stave off feelings of worthlessness, it follows that the healthier the individual (in the sense of having a more solid, unconditional sense of self-esteem), the less need there is to compete. The implication, we might say, is that the real alternative to being number one is not being number two but being psychologically free enough to dispense with rankings altogether. Interestingly, two sports psychologists have found a number of excellent athletes with "immense character strengths who don't make it in sports. They seem to be so well put together emotionally that there is no neurotic tie to sport." Since recreation almost always involves competition in our culture, those who are healthy enough not to need to compete may simply end up turning down those activities. ... Each culture provides its own mechanisms for dealing with self-doubt. ... Low self-esteem, then, i