Regarding Competition

Regarding Competition by Alton C. Thompson Table of Contents Regarding Competition.............................................................................................................................. 2 A. Preface.............................................................................................................................................. 2 B. Some Background Information.........................................................................................................3 C. Assumptions Underlying Discussions of Competition..................................................................... 5 D. Is Competition a Natural Phenomenon?.......................................................................................... 6 E. Is Competition Good?....................................................................................................................... 6 F. Competition and Global Warming....................................................................................................8 G. Conclusions......................................................................................................................................9 September 11, 2024 Regarding Competition Alton C. Thompson A. Preface The football season has begun once again,1 and if any sport involves competition, it’s football! That fact causes me to ask: Is this because competition in sporting activities is intrinsically fascinating, or is it because our elite has been “pushing” it in an effort to retain competition in our economy (while enriching the owners of sports teams!). Has, that is, been pushing competition for selfish reasons only? I do have an opinion on this matter, but do not provide it—or support for it—in this essay; rather, I simply offer some evaluative comments on competition here. I need first, though, to admit that having been born and raised in small-town Wisconsin (Waushara County), it’s “natural” that I would be a fan of the Green Bay (“title town”!) Packers2 for over 70 years (I’m 84)! Except for the 13-year period when I lived out-of-state (consecutively in North Carolina, Maryland, and Ohio), I have been able to watch them play on television—and even attended one of their games (using our son’s press pass, which enabled our older daughter and I to stand on the sidelines—in freezing weather!—during the game, the last one of the season). Even though I have philosophical problems with competition, I will continue to be a Packers fan, and will continue to watch their games on television3—and offer no excuses here for doing so! Next, as to competition: It’s clear that competition is valued in our society, so that if one is born and raised in this country, one will learn that fact about our country. A reason why I am an exception to that “rule” is that I spent my grade-school years in one-room classrooms—first in a one-room country school (about 2 miles from where we lived), then in the Waushara County Normal School for the next 6 years (about 1 ½ miles from where we lived).4 When recess time came, if we were to play baseball, it needed to be “work-up” ball—which involves no teams, thus no winners and losers, and no competition. Instead, it was just fun— and we treated each other as if we were all members of the same family! 1 It’s also a political season, and last night (September 10, 2024) Kamala Harris beat former—and worst!— president convicted criminal Donald J. Trump in their debate. 2 Along with the Milwaukee Braves, until they moved to Atlanta in 1966. Such names as Hank Aaron, Eddie Matthew, Warren Spahn, Joe Adcock, Billy Bruton, etc. 3 Until our species goes extinct, that is!—a matter that I discuss later in this essay. 4 Usually, my (older) sister, younger brother, and I had to walk to school. 2 One-room schools are pretty much a thing of the past now, so that few individuals now have the experience of attending a one-room school. It’s not surprising, then, that most of us USans5 today take competition as simply a fact of life. B. Some Background Information If one asks why competition plays such an important role in our thinking and behavior in this country, I suppose that the name Adam Smith [1723 – 1790] would be the first one to come to mind. Smith published his An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations in 1776—the same year that our Declaration of Independence was signed. The context for discussions of competition—by Smith and others—is usually the economy (production, buying/selling, etc.), and the key concepts in Wealth, in particular, claims one author were:  The central thesis of Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" is that our individual need to fulfill selfinterest results in societal benefit.  He called the force behind this fulfillment the invisible hand.  Self-interest and the division of labor in an economy result in mutual interdependencies that promote stability and prosperity through the market mechanism.  Smith rejected government interference in market activities.  He believed that a government's three functions should be to protect national borders, enforce civil law, and engage in public works. As to “invisible hand,” Smith first used that term in his The History of Astronomy—written “Sometime around the middle of the eighteenth century,” but not published until 1795 (after his death).6 Here’s how Smith used “invisible hand” in his History (on p. 95): Fire burns, and water refreshes; heavy bodies descend, and lighter substances fly upwards, by the necessity of their own nature; nor was the invisible hand of Jupiter every apprehended to be employed in those matters. It being unclear, though, what Smith meant here by “the invisible hand of Jupiter”! And, one should keep this fact in mind: In a context of discussing science more generally, Smith himself once described "invisible hand" explanations as typical of unscientific discussion. (!) 5 A “USan” is a resident of the United States. USans are also Americans, of course—but so are Mexicans, Costa Ricans, Brazilians, etc. 6 This article argues that Smith “believed in and applied induction in his philosophical investigation of ethics in the Theory of Moral Sentiments, as well as of economics in the Wealth of Nations. His goal was that of reducing wonderful phenomena to a well connected sequence of familiar objects following the infinite regression up to the first of the sensible (visible) causes.” 3 Thus, not only did Smith: 1. Use the term rarely: “Smith himself used the metaphor [just] twice when discussing economic topics.” In fact, Nowhere in . . . “The Wealth of Nations” does Smith refer to any theory as the “invisible hand of the market.” Nowhere in the book do the words “invisible hand of the market” even appear. Only once in Smith’s tome of more than a thousand pages do the words “invisible hand” appear. They appear as a metaphor, not for a market or any feature of markets, but for the desire to reduce risk in the specific case of a merchant deciding to employ his capital at home rather than abroad. And the late [1940 - 2018] Gavin Kennedy wrote this about “invisible hand”: References to an ‘invisible hand’ that link it to Adam Smith are ubiquitous in books and articles from scholarly and media sources. This is strange because Adam Smith did not credit the invisible hand metaphor with the importance that authors, from the mid-20th century onwards, give to it. In this paper I discuss what Adam Smith most probably meant by his use of the ‘invisible hand’ metaphor, which is quite different from what has become its modern meaning. Among recent contributors, William Grampp (2000; cf Minowitz 2004) identified nine different meanings given to the invisible hand (ten, including his own, strange one) in modern literature. Warren Samuels has published an authoritative account and analysis of the way the invisible hand metaphor has been used by modern economists, and, therefore, I have not addressed the details of this almost wholly 20th century phenomenon. Emma Rothschild gave a detailed exposition of the invisible hand and what Smith meant by it – a ‘mildly ironic joke’ in her considered view (Rothschild, 1994, 2001). Yet, three leading economists lauded the invisible hand metaphor and gave it uncalled-for prestige in support of their own interpretations of appropriate economic policies. (!) 2. And in his: The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) and in The Wealth of Nations (1776) Adam Smith speaks of an invisible hand, never of the invisible hand. I should also add that: Nowhere in “The Wealth of Nations” does Smith argue anything comparable to “the free market always works.” Smith argued that self-interested behavior in markets often, inadvertently, benefits society. Smith also argued that self-interested behavior in markets often benefits society more than behavior intended to benefit society. But Smith was anything but dogmatic. The first three sections of “The Wealth of Nations” alone offer 70 examples of self-interested behavior that inadvertently harms society. If “invisible hand” actually played little role in Smith’s thinking, “division of labor” did: In the first sentence of An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776), Adam Smith foresaw the essence of industrialism by determining that division of 4 labour represents a substantial increase in productivity. Like [Henri-Louis Duhamel, 1700 1782] du Monceau, his example was the making of pins. Etc. Enough attention given to Adam Smith! What I want to comment on next are: 1. Assumptions underlying discussions of competition. 2. The claim that competitive behavior is natural. 3. Whether or not competition is a “good thing.” 4. Competition as it relates to global warming. C. Assumptions Underlying Discussions of Competition “Competition” tends to be discussed as an abstract concept, with the individuals who comprise a given society as being virtually identical in: 1. Interests. 2. Abilities. 3. Economic means. 4. Etc. The fact of the matter, though, is that our society, for example: 1. Is highly inegalitarian. 2. The individual members of our society vary greatly in their interests—with some members being obsessed with “getting ahead,” others being only mildly interested in economic matters, and still others (such as myself) as having little such interest.7 3. Individual members of our society vary greatly in abilities—inherited and acquired—in large part because they vary greatly in “connections” and in the social class into which they are born. Discussions of competition tend to ignore these important facts! 7 To survive in this society, one must, of course, have some interest in economic matters! I should add here that my favorite uncle (the youngest brother of my mother) was like me in “lacking” an interest in economic matters; and all three of the children of my wife and I are in “service” occupations rather than occupations typically engaged in to “get ahead.” I, for one, am proud of that fact! 5 D. Is Competition a Natural Phenomenon? This article asserts that: Competition is part of human nature. According to Darwin’s theory on the mechanism of evolution, competition among individuals becomes more intense within the same species. Research shows that children begin to compare themselves to others as young as four and five, which is when they start to develop the urge to compete. It’s clear that that author is unaware of Prince Peter Kropotkin’s 1902 Mutual Aid; nor has he read the critique of Darwin that I offer in my 2012 Ringing the Bell for Darwin. And lacks a knowledge of cooperation among penguins, for example! With humans—who for 99+% of their existence so far were gatherer-hunters—and who therefore became “designed”8 for that way of life (especially being designed for small-group living)—a part of our design is cooperative behavior. Thus, it’s such behavior that is natural for us—and it was only during the Neolithic Revolution (when agriculture began to replace gathering-hunting in some groups) that the new sedentary mode of existence fostered growth in group size, and inequality/competition for the first time—and also social problems for the first time! E. Is Competition Good? As to the matter of the “goodness” of competition, this author writes: Competition is one of the most abused and misused concepts in economics and society. What is easily forgotten is that competition is a concept derived from the inhuman theory of the survival of the fittest, which in turn is a more glorified descendent of the law of the jungle—of might is right. We seem to have learnt nothing from the long history of the world. The truth, which most ideologues ignore is that none of the mightiest of living beings, who were the fittest to compete and win survived in the long run. The same is true among the different species of human ancestors as well. The unmistakable truth is that all animals including some species of early humans, which practised wanton individualism ultimately decimated themselves. The world is now left with only those species, which practised and perfected the art of living together and working together cooperatively. Human civilisations made progress with the help of cooperation and not competition. Empires that chose to compete and sought victory over others met with nothing but their destruction in the end. The progress of human civilisation has always depended on the proper understanding of the limitations of the so called good things and learning to use these wisely by cooperating with each other rather than blindly competing with each other. This article, though, argues that competition has a “dark side,” in that: 8 The late anthropologist Alan Barnard [1949 - 2022], Hunters and Gatherers: What Can We Learn from Them (2020), p. 56. 6 certain private‐market solutions can increase economic inequality, stifle entrepreneurship and innovation, injure consumers both physically and financially, and destroy competitive industry ecosystems. This one argues that: “Local competition increases people's willingness to harm others.” This one asks: “How Competition Kills Economics & Economies?” With the author asserting: I am determined to expose the sinking sands on which modern economics stands. In this post, I focus on the all important concept of competition, which forms the core of not only economics but also allied social philosophies. This article argues, however, that competition  Ignites creativity  Sparks motivation  Teaches you to take risks  It’s a learning experience And this one asserts that: Competition can be healthy and beneficial, as it can motivate individuals to work harder, learn new skills, and achieve their goals. It can also lead to innovation, creativity, and progress in various fields, as people try to come up with better solutions and ideas than their competitors. However, competition can also have negative effects, such as causing stress, depression, suicide, anxiety, and social comparison, and can lead to unethical behaviour, cheating, and aggression. Therefore, it is important to strike a balance between healthy competition and cooperation and to cultivate a mindset of growth and self-improvement, rather than just focusing on winning at all costs. This article states: Competition is when people do whatever they can to win, but there’s only one winner. This might mean using different tactics or feeling stressed to do better than others. Even so, with winning being the main goal, competition motivates you, makes you think creatively, and gives you a feeling of accomplishment. And this article has the bold title: “Competition: The Fuel for Greatness”! Thus, there are some “out there” who perceive advantages in competition—but especially in the economy. 7 F. Competition and Global Warming Today, the implications of competition are of the utmost seriousness! For the “invidious comparison,” “conspicuous consumption,” etc., of Thorstein Veblen’s [1857 - 1929] classic The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899) have implications for global warming! In a society within which competition is highly valued—so that interpersonal comparison is the norm— one will tend to strive to prove one’s superiority over others, and do so by engaging in “conspicuous consumption.” Because one will tend to feel insecure in a mass society such as ours, one will tend to “feed” that feeling by engaging in conspicuous consumption. Consumption, of course, involves previous: 1. Extraction of “raw” materials. 2. Their transportation to a processing site. 3. Their processing. 4. Their transportation to a manufacturing site. 5. Their manufacture. 6. Their transportation to wholesalers, storage facilities, retail establishments, etc. 7. Consumer transportation to retail/service establishments to make purchases. Since the Industrial Revolution, those various activities have involved: 1. The burning of fossil fuels (and release, thereby, of “greenhouse gases” into the atmosphere). 2. Deforestation activities (and, thereby, the reduction of the “carbon sink” capability of forests). Both of those activities—but the first one, especially—cause global warming! As the graph left shows, since about 1850 (while the Industrial Revolution was underway) that warming has been in a clear upward trend! (Note that the graph shows the global temperature 8 trend over the past 2000 years, through 2019). Not only has global warming been increasing since about 1850, though; it has been accelerating! And the reason for that may be that permafrost—which is present in vast areas of the Arctic—is beginning to thaw in response to the warming that we humans have caused. That thawing results in the release of greenhouse gases—such as methane (which is up to 80 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide!); and that release, in turn, intensifies the warming that we have caused. The danger here is that global warming will begin to “feed on itself” at some point—and global warming will then continue until the permafrost has released all of its greenhouse gases! At some point before that has occurred humans are likely to go extinct! This article from last year states (referring to the graph in the article): The image below illustrates the threat that the temperature rise may exceed 3°C. The blue trend, based on January 1880 to March 2023 data, shows how 3°C could be crossed in 2036. The magenta trend, based on January 2010 to March 2023 data, better reflects relatively short-term variables such as El Niño and illustrates how 3°C could be crossed as early as in 2025. In making that statement the author assumes that when the global mean temperature reaches 3° C. above the pre-industrial level, our species will be no more! Whether a 3° C. rise in the global mean temperature is the critical rise is debatable, of course. G. Conclusions We do not, of course, want global warming to begin “feeding on itself” but our failure to take global warming seriously is likely to result in our extinction—and “soon”! The 5 scientists who co-authored this recent article (which has been signed, so far, by “15,682 from 165 countries”!) asserted that: To secure a sustainable future, we must change how we live, in ways that improve the vital signs summarized by our [29] graphs. But will we “change how we live”? It’s highly doubtful that we will!! With our obsession with diversions—such sporting events and celebrity—we tend not to give attention to what really matters, such as our continued existence as a species! This virtually guarantees that we have little time left! And that if we do act, it will be too late to “save” our species from extinction! We humans have convinced ourselves that our “story” has been one of virtually continual “progress.” Eugene Linden’s important Affluence and Discontent (1979), however, argued convincingly (to me, at 9 least!) that our trajectory has been downward, likely to end in (p. 178) “apocalypse”! Were he writing that book today, I suspect that he would use “extinction” rather than “apocalypse”! Today is the 23rd anniversary of the attack on the “Twin Towers” causing the deaths of 2,996 people, including 2,977 victims [including 343 members of the New York City Fire Department and 71 law enforcement officers] and 19 hijackers who committed murder–suicide. Thousands[a] more were injured,[3][4] and long-term health effects have arisen as a consequence of the attacks. What I find ironic about that event is that it has not led us to actions that would have the purpose of preventing our extinction “soon”! Competition has played a “role in driving our society forward,” it’s been claimed. It has become abundantly clear, however, that such a perspective is a “head in the sand” one! Climate scientists today know that our species is in deep trouble! Our media, however, have failed to educate the public about global warming. Twelve years ago the late Robert Parry [1949 - 2018] wrote: What has become most striking about the growing evidence that climate change is a clear and present danger indeed an emerging existential threat is the simultaneous failure of the U. S. news media to deal seriously with the issue, another sign of how the Right can intimidate the mainstream into going silent. And in this article: We speak with author Genevieve Guenther [9 about “climate silence” and how the corporate media routinely fails in reporting on worsening extreme weather events. “You need to connect the dots from what you’re reporting to the climate crisis, and then through the climate crisis to the use of fossil fuels that is heating up our planet,” says Guenther, whose forthcoming book is titled The Language of Climate Politics.[10] Here in Milwaukee (I live in a suburb), when I asked (in an email) the lead meteorologist at one of the local television stations why I never heard “global warming” discussed, I received this response: Our management forbids us to do so (!!) That’s not merely criminal, it’s genocidal!! But what to do about it?! I wish that I had the answer to that question!! 9 Here’s some information about her. 10 Here’s a link to a discussion of that book. 10