Nice essay.
The author of this book has been arguing a similar case for years.

http://www.alfiekohn.org/books/nc.htm

As does the author of this essay (and book).

http://www.dabase.org/p2anthro.htm

Also http://www.dabase.org/coopdoub.htm

Hi Caryn,

Actually there is a good case that co-operation has largely got us to the (good aspects of the) current situation. Kropotkin's Mutual Aid deserves to be better known. If ants competed with each other there'd be no nests and they'd all die. Patent wars are slowing innovation not helping it.

I do agree that compassion is needed - I just think the case is much stronger than you state.

Probably the major problem with competition is that it narrows focus - to the 'winning'. So companies only care about profit and so on. But people aren't only concerned with profit so their other needs (like a healthy ecology, vibrant society and so on) can be negatively effected by corporates.

This article is based on a false dichotomy. Both competitive and compassionate behaviour contribute to human thriving. They are not mutually exclusive or incompatible. Empathy and co-operation are essential in competitive activities from business to sport, and competition has, as the article points out, delivered huge benefits for human welfare by spurring innovation.

Totally agree with the author about the benefits of co-operation. But I think it is an exaggeration to suggest that humans have benefited from our cultural emphasis on competition.

Compassion is much needed in society- yet sadly only seems to be directed at the 'squeaky wheels'- some of whom often turn out to be users- while joe nobody gets ignored by doing the right thing (seems to be the small l liberal mantra- screw the peasants who are trying to make ends meet doing the right thing- but specifically jump on actually bad people to help them out- as if to show off how 'enlightened' their sense of remorse is).

I do a lot of things for others- but I staunchly refuse to help anyone who I think is a bad person- by helping a bad person I am in effect doing a bad deed, as I may well have helped them commit bad acts against others.

The idea is that sometimes people behave badly because they don't know how to be good, or why to be good and if we help them to become good people, we will all be better off. If we don't help the bad people, they will become even worse and we will need more jails, and need personal protection. Jails and personal protection are very expensive and limit our freedom.

People do behave badly, but it is not because they are bad people. The old idea of criminal genes, lazy genes etc has not been shown to he true or useful for preventing bad people.

It seems likely that there are certain genetic types that, in certain environments, are more likely to behave badly than other genetic types. The idea is that we find and elimate the factors in the environment that cause the bad behaviour and introduce factors - such as exposure to good role models - that will produce good behaviour and good people.