Slashdot Mirror

What motivates people is autonomy, increasing mastery, and a sense of purpose. See Dan Pink's talk:
"RSA Animate - Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us "
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Or look at the writing of Alfie Kohn:
http://www.alfiekohn.org/artic...
http://www.alfiekohn.org/artic...
http://www.alfiekohn.org/punis...
http://www.shareintl.org/archi...
" "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."

Progress or "advancement" in what direction is another good question to ask yourself. Is it a good idea to more quickly advance off a cliff? For example, the World Wide Web might have been a much better place and the web browser might have been a much better tool if not for all the effort various groups have put into undermining web standards for private gain (for example, Microsoft in the early years). The problem with a lot of competition is it encourages people to use power (including political power) to private gains while socializing costs, and that can be very costly and unpleasant overall for a community. Once can have *diversity* without explicit *competition*. What it takes is something like a basic income, easy subsistence production, free-or-cheap-to-the-user planned infrastructure, or some other means of ensuring people have the time and resources to create.

If our culture was as aggressive as the Romans, maybe the Earth would be a nuclear wasteland by now? Although, as "I, Claudius" suggests, a lot of Roman aggression was turned in on itself at some point, with political murders including of the leaders who might otherwise have made Rome a better place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
"During the prosperous reign of Augustus, he is plagued by personal losses as his favored heirs, Marcellus, Marcus Agrippa, Gaius Caesar and Lucius Caesar, die at varying points. Claudius reveals that these untimely deaths are all the machinations of Augustus' cold wife Livia, who seeks to make her son Tiberius succeed Augustus. ... As Tiberius becomes more hated, he increasingly relies on his Praetorian Captain Sejanus who is able to make Tiberius fear Germanicus' wife Agrippina and his own son Castor. Sejanus secretly plots with Livilla to usurp the monarchy by poisoning Castor and beginning to remove any ally of Agrippina and her sons. ... Caligula soon loses his mind, after recovering from

If we did not have weapons based on the tools of abundance like nuclear bombs as a result of harnessing abundant nuclear energy, aggression out-of-control would not be such a big global issue and threat (even if aggression could always be a local issue). Ironically, harnessing nuclear power and other forms of advanced technology that could produce abundance (including abundant destruction) like robots and new materials has removed the reasons for much aggression over material goods, but we still are stuck in our old mindset emphasizing aggression as a way to deal with material scarcity. So, for example, we are ready to use nuclear energy in the form of nuclear weapons delivered by robotic cruise missiles whose batteries were charged by solar panels to fight over oil fields on the other side of the planet from us -- instead of using nuclear energy (or robot-constructed solar panels or whatever) to generate power locally. Image what the 21st century could have been like without two Word Wars if 1910s and 1930s Germany had worked towards breakthroughs in solar power and energy efficiency and agricultural efficiency instead of trying to steal someone else's coal and land. Now Germany focuses inward on innovation and efficiency and is peaceful and the economic powerhouse of the European Union.

I wrote about this broad issue at length here:
"Open Letter to the Intelligence Advanced Programs Research Agency (IARPA)"
http://www.phibetaiota.net/201...
"The greatest threat facing the USA is the irony inherent in our current defense posture, like for example planning to use nuclear energy embodied in missiles to fight over oil fields that nuclear energy could replace. This irony arises in part because the USA's current security logic is still based on essentially 19th century and earlier (second millennium) thinking that becomes inappropriate applied to 21st century (third millennium) technological threats and opportunities. That situation represents a systematic intelligence failure of the highest magnitude. There remains time to correct this failure, but time grows short as various exponential trends continue. ..."

That's the big issue as I mention in my sig, and it plays out in other ways including with food, media, addiction, and so on as human traits adapted evolutionarily for scarcity cause difficulties when confronted with some sorts of modern abundance.
http://www.drfuhrman.com/libra...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
http://www.paulgraham.com/addi...
http://www.pdfernhout.net/the-...
http://www.nancycarlssonpaige....
http://dianeelevin.com/sosexys...

All that said, cooperation within groups has also been a key trait of human beings.
"No contest: the case against competition"
http://www.shareintl.org/archi...

But it is true that humans tend to have in group cooperation and out-group competition, something E.O. Wilson has written about. And human mating rituals also often revolve around proving something to stand out from the crowd, like James P. Hogan touches on in "Voyage From Yesteryear" depicting a culture where people compete by demonstrating excellence in some area. So, again, the biggest issue is not aggression or competition itself, but how those impulses are culturally directed. As. Mr. Fred Rogers' sang: "What do you do with the mad that you feel?" That is the question.

BTW, bacteria are actually the dominant species on this planet, :-) and we forge

From: http://www.shareintl.org/archi...
===
"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.
===

BTW, I'm quoting Morton Deutsch there (as indicated). Here is the source link (also on the previously linked page):
http://www.beyondintractabilit...
" Q: You're starting to see the analogy to international conflict, or intractable conflict on a larger scale?
A: Yes. Well, I wrote a paper about preventing World War III. That was during the height of the cold war, I think I wrote it in 1982, it was called "The Presidential Address to the International Society to Political Psychology." And there I took the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union and characterized it as a malignant relationship, which had some of the characteristics that I was talking about with the couple. It was right for both the United States and the Soviet Union to think that the other was hostile, would undo it, would damage it, you know, all of these things. The relationship was a malignant one. They had to become aware of the malignancy, and the only way out really was recognizing that it's hurting, recognizing that there is a potential better way of relating. And that better way of relating involves having a sense that one can only have security if there's mutual security. And that's true in most relationships. That's particularly true to recognize groups that have had bitter strife where they've hurt each other. They have to deal with the problem of how to get to where they can live together. It may be ethnic groups within a given nation or community. They can only live together if they recognize that their own security is going to be dependent on the other person's security. So each person, each side, each group has to be interested in the welfare of the other.
On a national level it has to deal with military and other economic security. At the group level and personal level, it often has to do with psychological security. It has to do with someone recognizing, I shouldn't be treating the other in an undignified, disrespectful way. So in an interpersonal relationship, that kind of security, recognizing that not only are you entitled to it, so is the other person entitled to it. And if you don't give that other person that entitlement the relationship is going to move in the other direction, back to bitter conflict."

That said, sure, if you look at evolution, there is a sense that every generation is filtered somehow. Only one sperm of millions gets to the egg... But, what really matters to survival of humans once they are conceived? Cooperation seems very important among humans. Individual ex

http://pcast.ideascale.com/a/d...
"This suggestion is about how civilians could benefit by have access to the sorts of "sensemaking" tools the intelligence community (as well as corporations) aspire to have, in order to design more joyful, secure, and healthy civilian communities (including through creating a more sustainable and resilient open manufacturing infrastructure for such communities)."

Even just to cope with the implications of what Google is doing in AI... Still working on them, slowly...

My feeling is that our trajectory coming out of any AI singularity will have a lot to do with out moral and social trajectory going into one. So, we should do all we can now to make the world a better place for everyone, to hopefully improve that outcome.

I used to do AI in the 1980s, with my undergrad work at Princeton related to the Pointrel system maybe helping a bit to inspire Wordnet (started by my undergrad advisor as I was graduating), and (accidentally) making probably the world's first simulation of self-replicating cannibalistic robots... But in hanging around CMU's Robotics Institute in the mid 1980s, I got the disturbing feeling that it might be too easy to make "Mind Children" good enough to destroy us humans, but not good enough to "replace" us. After all, an aggressive enough self-replicating robotic cockroach could probably do in the human species, and that does not take much intelligence. As I said at a talk I gave at a conference on AI and Simulation, it is very easy to make AI and robots that are destructive (as I learned unexpectedly from my own simulations); it is much harder to make robots that are cooperative (either with each other or humans). Someone from DARPA literally patted me on the back after that talk and said "keep up the good work" -- which gave me a lot of pause, but I'm not sure which aspect he emphasized (the destructive or constructive). But that sort-of cemented my feelings, and I have not worked much on "AI" since (in an independent AI sense; one might argue any knowledge management stuff has a flavor of AI, including my Pointrel system work).

Still, as with any arms race, and that is what the current push to AI has become, and arms race whether in commercial or military terms, it can be hard to figure out some way out of it before total destruction. So, better sensemaking tools might help with that. There are other problems we wrestle with as well that they could help with, like human health issues. Such tools, as they get smarter, will hopefully be designed as cooperative platforms, for each interaction between the machine and a person, and between people, and between machines.
http://www.shareintl.org/archi...
"These words written [praising competition] 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."

In gen

Great example; the same is true of people living in harsh climates like snowy areas -- or even, like on slashdot of people giving each other technological advice yet probably working in competing companies. One might even see that in a marriage -- with spouses working together when a child is sick yet also squabbling over housework... Life is at the interface of fire and ice, meshwork and hierarchy, competition and cooperation...

Politics is a process of resource allocation by discussion (backed ultimately by violence and also gift-giving or its withdrawal), as opposed to, say, mainstream US capitalist/consumer economics which is about resource allocation by moving the digital equivalent of pieces of artificially-scarce green paper around (within a larger US political context, as above backed by violence and gift-giving or its withdrawal). Yet, there is no reasons those communications and currencies could not be emails and IRC chats and bug tracker pstings, like coordinates much of Debian GNU/Linux.
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/08/04/14/1349202/study-reports-on-debian-governance-social-organization

So, it is not unreasonable to say that wherever human go, they will take some aspects of all that along. My father travelled the world as a merchant marine sailor for about twenty years, and one of his favorite sayings was a variation on "wherever you go, you take yourself along".

Yet. I think there is a deeper issue like mentioned in my sig. China has demonstrated new technologies of abundance by putting a robot on the moon powered by solar and nuclear technologies. Those technologies could produce physical abundance for all by today's standards -- even for trillions of people via self-replicating space habitats. That is a new truth. It can be a new truth even if probably humans may always find things to squabble about, like two kids in a room filled with toys can fight over the same one for whatever reasons of the moment.

Yet, such new technologies in a way make the world a smaller place, like the how the US space program to put a man on the moon in the 1960s was seen in US government as only justified in getting lots of funding in order to show the USSR that the USA was capable of landing a nuclear missile on Red Square. So many technologies can make the world smaller and smaller relative to our capacity to use such technologies to cause harm, like I write about here:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html
"There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security thinking. Those "security" agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all."

We may always have competition between people for various reasons (the mating dance?), yet our society can still figure out ways to structure that competition in healthier ways.
"No contest: the case against competition"
http://www.shareintl.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 word

http://bullies2buddies.com/
http://bullies2buddies.com/Free-Manuals/enjoy-our-free-resources.html
"How to Stop Being Teased and Bullied Without Really Trying.
This manual will teach kids why they are being picked on and how to make it stop without anyone's help and without getting anyone in trouble!"

It doesn't matter if kids are smarter, dumber, shorter, taller, fatter, thinner, darker, lighter, or whatever -- any noticeable difference (or even none at all except being on the other side of the room) is something someone else can try to make fun of. Most bullying situations can be handled by following Izzy Kalman's advice which teaches the vitim how to break a cycle of social behavior by just not responding in old ways that give the aggressor rewards, and he points out the few percent of bullying situations which can't. He suggests most current anti-bullying laws often just make the probem worse because they ignore the underlying social system dynamics. Serious violence rarely comes out of nowhere. There is a pattern of escalation, and Izzy Kalman's ideas, based on "The Golden Rule" and "Love Your Bullies" are ways out of that escalation.

See also this other author, Alfie Kohn, for a different vision of success than the competetive one celebrated by so many in the USA:
http://www.shareintl.org/archives/cooperation/co_nocontest.htm

http://www.educationrevolution.org/

Great points; thanks! That's why I feel we need something like a "basic income" so individuals and communities have the time and resources they need to bloom.

On competition and cooperation, from: http://www.shareintl.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.
====

Still, it is also true that male college students are of an age where competition for mates is a big deal, whereas older males at least tend more towards cooperation. But like James P. Hogan talks about in the sci-fi novel "Voyage From Yesteryear", we can as a society at least redirect competitive urges into more socially productive ends.
http://www.jamesphogan.com/books/info.php?titleID=29&cmd=summary

My main concern (in my sig) is that modern day technologies of abundance (biotech, nanotech, nuclear, robotics) make such formidable weapons (used to fight over perceived scarcity instead of to bring abundance) compared to the scale of the Earth that we need to create a more cooperative egalitarian society just to survive the 21st century. As well as move into space to hedge our bets. :-) And even currenltly materially wealthy individuals will be better off for it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level:_Why_More_Equal_Societies_Almost_Always_Do_Better
http://www.livableincome.org/amillionairegli.htm

Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, The Netherlands, just to mention a few.

Bullshit, bullshit, and more bullshit, just to name a few.

We take care of our people here, no matter how desperate their situations.

You sure do.

You know when people start saying stuff that is ... not just stupid, but as utterly absurd as what you just said... I have to wonder ... are you really that stupid? Or do you think that everyone else is?

This is like Ahmadinejad standing up in front of the audience at Columbia, and, with a straight face, telling them there are no homosexuals in Iran. "We don't have that phenomenon, like you do in the US. I don't know who told you we have". Your statements are on that level of absurdity. The immediate response of any rational individual is uncontrollable laughter. Why would you say something like that?

"And as to (7): ok Alfie, name any area of life where the possibility of success and/or winning does *not* lead to cheating."

Self-improvement. Spirituality. Being a good friend. Planting a tree. Setting a good example. Upholding a sense of honor. Developing free and open source software.

See also:
    "No contest: the case against competition" By Alfie Kohn
  http://books.google.com/books?id=bLudHIk3gsMC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false
    http://www.shareintl.org/archives/cooperation/co_nocontest.htm
"Alfie Kohn ... 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."

Japan appears on the surface to be pure capitalism, but the Japanese also practice European-style paternalism. Companies are not allowed to fail, thus throwing millions out of work. Banks continue to lend money even to companies that surely should go bankrupt. Major companies in Japan avoid laying off workers. All this paternalism breeds inefficiency. The average Japanese worker is, in fact, less productive than the aggressive American worker. There are some exceptions: e.g. Toyota blue-collar worker

I'll disagree with you here. I'm sure the homeless living in Shinjuku and Ueno Parks would take issue with you -- the Japanese government refuses to acknowledge their existance because it is a shame on the society. When they do acknowledge them, it is to evict them for "environmental beautification programs", which aren't actually anything other than mass evictions. The homeless return a month or so later. Notice that up until a handful of years ago, there was no budget for homeless welfare, as opposed to USD 2.2 billion in the US. However, recently, the budget was raised to a whopping USD 20 million! Way to look after your own people! An Osakajin states The country has been turning a blind eye to the problem. In fact, when the emperor visits the park, the government makes the homeless people take down their shantytowns and leave!

The USA has a track record of being more supportive of homeless people than Japan. Companies will lay off employees to save money now. This isn't the Japan of the 1980s that guarantees lifetime employment.

Furthermore, it is not paternalism that saves the companies that should otherwise go bankrupt; rather, it is widespread corruption. Research the links between the Yakuza (organized crime) and the Liberal Democratic Party (the ruling party) sometime. I'm sure you'll be surprised. Companies are bailed out by their friends in high places, not by a government seeking to be gentle to its citizens. The only people who are saved in Japan are the wealthy.

I know I'm making a bleak picture of Japan, but the image outside the country is of a sparkling Coruscant, and it's not like that at all from the inside -- there is large amounts of homeless people, run down homes; heck, the Japanese people I talk to on a regular basis refer to their homes as rabbit holes and other disparaging terms which equate their homes with places where insects and rodents reproduce rapidly (despite a 1.something birthrate!). I can't remember the word in English right now, but its was one with negative connotations.

America has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world. America is one of the few industrialized nations to continue to liberally practice capital punishment.

Now, I say this in partial jest, but, you complain of overcrowding of prisons and the practice of reducing overcrowding? If we didn't have capital punishment, we'd have even more criminals! ;)

In this eloquent and visionary book, Hawken describes a third way, a path that is inherently sustainable and restorative but which uses many of the historically effective organizational and market techniques of free enterprise.