Spectrum Five: Competition vs. Cooperation
Summary
Humans, like all animals, form cooperative groups to compete
for limited resources. All life is ultimately competitive, because
the natural tendency of any population is to explode, although
it is kept in check by the limited food supply (and other factors).
Because there are more animals than food, animals must compete
to survive. In situations where the food supply is somehow sufficient,
deadly competition falls. Liberals therefore advocate the creation
of a sustainable economy, where the population is kept constant
(through birth control) and resources are used no faster than
they can be replaced. The result will be a more cooperative and
civil society.
Argument
In the debate over what type of society is best, conservatives
generally favor more competitive societies, whereas liberals favor
more cooperative ones. Let's attempt to see which side is correct,
by reviewing the fundamentals of competition and cooperation:
The origins of competition
Perhaps the first thing to note is that all life is ultimately
competitive. For many centuries, biologists have known that the
natural tendency of the animal population is to explode, but the
limited food supply keeps it in check. (There are also other limiting
factors, like space, climate, resources, etc.) Because there are
more creatures than food, this means that some will starve to
death. Thus, in order to survive, animals must compete for food,
killing each other if need be. (1)
The above observation is one of the most firmly proven facts of
modern biology. It's implications, however, have been deeply controversial.
The 18th century economist Thomas Malthus argued that
giving more food to the poor was self-defeating, since it would
only expand their population and create more of the same hunger
and misery that welfare was designed to alleviate. Malthus therefore
argued that welfare programs should be halted. Malthus' proposal
sparked a bitter political debate -- the poor charged that he
was heartless, while the rich congratulated him for applying science
to the issue of welfare. Interestingly, the controversy itself
was indicative of the class warfare that rages for society's limited
resources.
Likewise, Charles Darwin found the concept of deadly competition
important for developing his theories of natural selection and
survival of the fittest. Darwin theorized that if animals must
compete to survive, then the winners would be those with the strongest
traits, which would then be passed on to their offspring. Meanwhile,
those with weaker traits would be killed before they could breed,
and would be dropped from the gene pool. It is important to note
that even if you don't believe in evolution, natural selection
indisputably occurs in all other competitive systems. These range
from individual firms competing on the free market to individual
workers competing for job promotions. Indeed, the fact that natural
selection occurs everywhere else is a strong argument that it
occurs in biology as well.
Natural selection has developed in humans a natural desire to
compete. Those with non-competitive natures would have lost their
struggle for survival, and disappeared from the gene pool a long
time ago. On the other hand, those with an overly intense desire
to compete would have become dead heroes, and likewise failed
to pass on their traits. Thus, a reasonable attraction to competition
is both healthy and natural.
The competitiveness of humanity has worked itself even into our
most basic definitions of the social sciences. Economics
is formally defined as the study of "the efficient allocation
of scarce resources among competing uses." (2) Politics
is defined as the "relations between special interest
groups competing for limited resources." (3) War is a violent
competition for resources -- especially land -- hence Karl von
Clausewitz' famous remark that "War is nothing more than
the continuation of politics by other means." Because competitions
are won by those with the most power, political science
is defined as "An academic discipline which studies power
and the distribution of power in different types of political
systems." (4) Even though these different fields have taken
different routes to reach the same conclusion, the idea that humans
compete for limited resources is one that elegantly and coherently
unites the social sciences.
The origins of cooperation
But imagine what it would be like to live in a society where
each individual competes against everyone else, without any cooperation
at all. You wouldn't dare walk outside, for your neighbor could
shoot you and take all your property. Nor could you rely on the
police to protect you, since law enforcement is a form of social
cooperation. In a perfectly competitive world, only the strongest
or luckiest would survive.
But what if you were fortunate enough to be one of the strongest
or luckiest? After killing off most of society, you would only
find yourself among survivors who were highly competent killers
themselves, and the terror would start anew. And even if you emerged
the final victor, the rewards would be slight
how rich and
satisfied can you be when you're a hermit?
All species avoid this bleak scenario through cooperation. Among humans,
cooperation can be divided into two categories: friendly and hostile.
An example of friendly cooperation is the alliances you join to
compete more efficiently against other individuals or groups.
A good example is the business firm, where employees take specialized,
interdependent jobs and work together to compete on the free market.
The result is higher quality products and greater work efficiency
than if they competed alone.
Hostile cooperation, on the other hand, is what exists between
competitors. This may seem paradoxical, yet there is a good reason
why competitors often cooperate with each other: the rewards are
greater. For example, if everyone fights for a piece of the pie,
then the fight may become so costly that the pie will be nearly
gone when it comes time to divide it. It's much better to forget
the fight and come to an agreement from the very beginning. An
example of hostile cooperation is family members who are contesting
a million-dollar will. If they fight for the money too hard, then
no one will get any, because it will all go to their lawyers'
fees. Hence, it's in their interest to strike a deal.
As with competition, a moderated desire to cooperate is natural
and healthy. Those with non-cooperative natures would have very
low survival rates, as would those who cooperated so much that
they did not look out after their own self-interests in a competitive
world. It is for this reason that people take a healthy enjoyment
in belonging to a group, practicing teamwork, helping others,
etc.
The interplay between competition and cooperation
Nature has divided all life into natural alliances that compete
for survival: namely, species. Members of the same species generally
do not kill each other in their fight for limited resources, but
instead work together to kill members of other species.
However, cooperation within species is not as perfect as it would
seem. Even in normal times, there is subdued competition within
the group, as members vie for positions of power and status. One
famous example is primates, who divide themselves into alpha apes,
beta apes, etc. It is interesting to note that among primates,
male status is acquired through conflict. Among females, however,
the opposite occurs: conflicts are resolved by the female's status.
Hierarchies are found in countless species, but they are especially
extreme in humans.
Competition within the group becomes more severe as resources
become scarcer. When the situation becomes desperate enough, members
of the same species are perfectly capable of turning on each other
and killing each other. Just one example is the preying mantis,
a specie which solves the problem of scarcity by allowing the
female to eat the male after mating. Another is the chimpanzee,
the closest human relative. From her long-term studies in Africa,
Jane Goodall has reported that chimps sometimes divide into tribes,
whereupon the larger kills the smaller.
Humans are no different. War is an obvious example of deadly competition
within the human species, but most people don't realize that the
same continues even during times of "peace." In our
competitive economy, those who lack the skills, education, talent
or opportunity to compete well become poor. And the poor suffer
from death rates that are at least six times higher than the rich.
(5) This higher death rate is due to a lack of resources: namely,
health care, nutritious food, toxic-free environments, winter
heating, information and education, and countless other means
and devices that would protect and prolong their lives.
Here, critics may object that the above observation is based on
a faulty assumption. We do not live in a zero-sum economy (where
someone's gain is necessarily someone else's loss). We actually
live in a (slightly) positive-sum economy, where the standard
of living is rising for everyone. This is certainly true, but
our standard of living grows extremely slowly -- whereas the population
pressing against it tries to grow much faster. Therefore it's
still quite possible for a positive-sum economy to experience
deadly competition for limited resources. To understand this even
more clearly, let's look at the larger picture:
Carrying capacity is what biologists call the limited ability
of the land to sustain a population. This includes the amount
of available food, water, resources and space, as well as the
hospitality of the climate, the presence of other predators, etc.
Needless to say, the greater the land's carrying capacity, the
greater the population it can sustain.
Throughout most of human history, the carrying capacity of the
land has been quite low, with humans increasing it only slowly
and painfully. They accomplished this by inventing new forms of
productive technology, like the plow, the mill, the granary, etc.
But growth in productivity was far too slow to accommodate all
the humans born into the world. The result was frequent starvation,
famine and deadly competition for resources. To resolve this,
many societies frequently practised birth control, ranging from
abortion to infanticide.
But with the advent of the Industrial Revolution in the 18th
century, the land's carrying capacity soared. Through better science
and technology, humans have learned how to tap the earth's resources
at an ever growing rate. The result has been a population explosion.
It took from the dawn of humanity until the year 1800 for the
earth's population to reach 1 billion. But by 1960 it had already
reached 3 billion, and by 1998 it will reach 6 billion.
This trend has two ominous implications. First, dramatically increasing
the land's carrying capacity may have raised the individual's
standard of living, but it has also increased the number of individuals
competing for these new resources. Therefore, deadly competition
remains a problem.
Second, the earth's resources are ultimately limited, and it is
absolutely inevitable that our carrying capacity will one day
stop growing, and even shrink. What will happen then? Biologists
already know the answer, from their historical observations of
species that are hit by shrinking resources. The result will be
a sickening plunge in the population, as famine, disease, war
and other deadly competition take their toll.
As long as birth control keeps the population below the land's
carrying capacity, or humans can somehow increase carrying capacity
forever, then deadly competition is greatly reduced. People can
live their entire lives without resorting to war, murder, or even
subjecting the poor to mortal deprivations. Unfortunately, once
the population starts pressing against the land's limited resources
again, deadly competition resumes.
The solution that leftists propose is the creation of a sustainable
economy. This would involve holding the population constant
through birth control, and using resources no faster than they
could be replaced. We would then use our abundance and technology
to allow everyone a good standard of living. There would be no
need to compete for survival, and no need to kill anyone to survive.
This would tilt the balance towards cooperation, not competition.
Critics charge that humans are naturally competitive animals --
after all, they evolved that way. To create a perfectly cooperative
society, they charge, is both impossible and utopian. This is
certainly true, but fortunately, there is a way around it. Competition
for survival is only one of the many thousands of ways that humans
compete. Humans also fulfill their desire to compete through games,
sports, contests, social status, career status, academic status,
even mating. Eliminating the need to compete for survival would
hardly eliminate the countless other ways that humans compete.
Competition could still be used to improve society, even a sustainable
one.
The "state of nature"
Many political philosophers -- chief among them John Locke,
Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau -- have attempted to describe
what humans were like in their original "state of nature."
These accounts supposedly describe humans in prehistoric times,
before the rise of modern society. Most important was their attempt
to explain the rise of human competition and cooperation. These
philosophers felt that understanding the "state of nature"
would tell us how to run a more enlightened society.
Most of these accounts were scientifically false (which ought
to be obvious even to the non-scientist, since these accounts
completely disagree with each other). Nonetheless, they continue
to be highly regarded by many modern political philosophers. Here
is how the "Big Three" described the "state of
nature:"
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679): Hobbes correctly identified
that humans were locked in a deadly competition for limited resources.
But he misdescribed the "state of nature" as an anarchic,
chaotic, individualistic world where people were engaged in a
"war of everyone against everyone." Thus, Hobbes believed
life in the state of nature was "solitary, poore, nasty,
brutish and short." To resolve this, humans agreed to cooperate
for survival, by agreeing to surrender some of their freedom in
return for peace and stability. They did this by creating a social
contract -- that is, a large group agreement to cooperate
and abide by the laws of the government. However, Hobbes believed
that this government should take the form of a monarchy, not a
democracy.
The problem with Hobbes' account, beyond the obvious one, is that
humans have never lived in a chaotic, anarchic "war
of everyone against everyone." Group behavior predates the
rise of humans -- it exists in nearly all species everywhere.
This includes the practice of hierarchy within the group as well.
Even in the earliest human primates, paleontologists have found
evidence of interdependent, cooperative group behavior. Modern
society is merely an evolved form of this behavior.
John Locke (1632-1704): By contrast, Locke's "state
of nature" was an idyllic world of freedom, equality and
consideration of other people's rights. He wrote that the "state
of nature" is governed by a "law of nature," which
humans can discover through reason. Through his own reasoning,
Locke concluded that humans were "by nature free, equal and
independent." Furthermore, natural law obligated that "no
one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions."
Locke's writings are beset with numerous contradictions and difficulties.
One of these is his view of the social contract. On one hand,
he presents the social contract as an improvement over the state
of nature. However, it is not clear why individuals would want
to leave such an idyllic state of nature in the first place. Locke
does admit that the state of nature can easily degenerate into
a state of war, which some philosophers claim was Locke's justification
for the social contract. However, this would still contradict
Locke's claim that the state of nature was idyllic.
As an ideal, Locke's state of nature is certainly laudable, but
as a description of prehistoric humans, it is flat wrong. All
life is a deadly competition for limited resources, which means
that humans must violate Locke's proposed "natural
rights" of life, liberty and property just to survive. And
even within cooperative groups, the natural feature is hierarchy,
not equality. It certainly might be possible to engineer societies
that increase cooperation and equality, but such perfect ideals
are not to be found in nature.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778): The writings of this
French philosopher were meant as a rebuttal to Hobbes and Locke,
but Rousseau's arguments were no more scientifically accurate.
Rousseau argued that humans who lived in the "state of nature"
were solitary and non-competitive. They had no need or desire
to compete because their population was small, which made the
earth's resources relatively plentiful. Indeed, Rousseau would
argue that human competition, inequality and misery only increased
as the population and modern society grew. He thus evoked the
image of the "noble savage," the individual who lives
alone in the wild and is more dignified and content than his socialized
relatives. Rousseau thus admitted that there was no reason for
humans to flee the state of nature for the social contract. Instead,
modern society developed naturally, without anyone purposely creating
it to fulfill a conscious need. To Rousseau, modern society did
have some good points, but they were offset by as many bad ones.
Again, there is little in Rousseau's writing that would withstand
the scrutiny of modern scientists. Early humans were less numerous
because their survival technology was primitive, and their death
rate was phenomenally high. For hundreds of thousands of years,
humans were no more than wandering nomads and hunters and gathers.
It was only 10,000 years ago that human technology reached the
point where they could settle in one place and begin the Agricultural
Revolution. It was this event that solved ancient problems of
scarcity and allowed the human population to start building to
its current explosion.
Rousseau's "noble savage" is also pure fiction. Sociologists
know of several documented cases of feral children (or children
raised in complete isolation), and all behaved more like wild
animals than humans. They could not speak, reacted to humans with
fear and hostility, walked hunched or on all fours, tore into
their food like wild animals, were apathetic to their surroundings,
and were unable to keep even the lowest standards of personal
hygiene. (6) This is a remarkable indication of how much the nobility
of humans derives from society, not the inherent traits of individuals.
Despite these inaccuracies, Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau have had
a major influence on centuries of political philosophers, including
the U.S. Founding Fathers. Many people continue to appeal to them
as authorities, and view their teachings as particularly enlightened.
But if they reached some correct conclusions (like the call for
democracy), it was not because these conclusions flowed logically
from their mistaken premises. Given their serious flaws, one should
approach their work critically.
Return to Overview
Endnotes:
1. Michael Gilpin, "Population Dynamics," The 1995
Grolier Encyclopedia. Gilpin cites the following bibliography:
Andrewartha, H.G., and Birch, L.C., The Ecological Web
(1986); Begon, M., and Mortimer, M., Population Ecology,
2d rev. ed. (1986); Chapman, D.G., and Gallucci, V.F., eds., Quantitative
Population Dynamics(1981); Hutchinson, G. Evelyn, An Introduction
to Population Biology (1978); Smith, Robert L., Ecology
and Field Biology, 3d ed. (1980); Solomon, Maurice E., Population
Dynamics (1976); Whittaker, Robert, Communities and Ecosystems,
2d ed. (1975).
2. Stephen Casler, Introduction to Economics (New York:
HarperCollins, 1992), p. 3.
3. The term "politics" is so general that it has inspired
countless different definitions, many of them unrelated to each
other. I have chosen a composite definition that is based on the
most recurring themes. Perhaps the most common is that politics
is the "socialization of conflict" (E.E. Schattschneider,
The Semi-Sovereign People, 1960). Conflicts are inevitably
struggles of power, which are almost always over resources (ultimately).
Resources are doubly important, because they are not only the
goal of the conflict, but the source of each side's power. This
helps us understand the following definition of politics: "The
pursuit and exercise of the political power necessary to distribute
patronage and other government benefits." (Jay M. Shafritz,
"Politics," The HarperCollins Dictionary of American
Government and Politics (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.,
1993), p. 368.) Also: "A political system is any persistent
pattern of human relationship that involves (to a significant
extent) power, rule or authority." (Gordon Marshall, "Political
Socialization," The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Sociology,
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), p. 401.) In The Group
Basis of Politics (1952), Earl Latham famously described politics
as the referee of interest group struggle, responsible for "ratifying
the victories of the successful coalitions and recording the terms
of the surrenders, compromises and conquests in the form of statutes."
4. Gordon Marshall, "Political Science," The Concise
Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1994), p. 400.
5. In 1986, researchers studied two groups of men between the
ages of 25 and 64: those that made less than $9,000 a year, and
those that made more than $25,000. They found that poor white
men had 6.7 times the death rate of rich white men, and poor black
men had 5.4 times the death rate of rich black men. Robert Pear,
"Big Health Gap, Tied to Income, Is Found in U.S." The
New York Times, July 8, 1993, pp. A1. For other studies tying
higher death rates to poverty, see George Davey Smith and others,
"Socioeconomic Differentials in Mortality Risk among Men
Screened for the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial: I. White
Men," American Journal of Public Health Vol. 86, No.
4 (April, 1996), pgs. 486-496; George Davey Smith and others,
"Socioeconomic Differentials in Mortality Risk among Men
Screened for the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial: II.
Black Men," American Journal of Public Health Vol.
86, No. 4 (April, 1996), pgs. 497-504; Gopal K. Singh and Stella
M. Yu, "US Childhood Mortality, 1950 through 1993: Trends
and Socioeconomic Differentials," American Journal of
Public Health Vol. 86, No. 4 (April, 1996), pgs. 505-512;
C. Wayne Sells and Robert Wm. Blum, "Morbidity and Mortality
among US Adolescents: An Overview of Data and Trends," American
Journal of Public Health Vol. 86, No. 4 (April, 1996), pgs.
513-519.
6. R. Brown, Words and Things: An Introduction to Language
(New York: Free Press, 1958), Chapter 5; Lucien Malson, Wolf
Children and the Problems of Human Nature (New York: Monthly
Review Press, 1972); Harlan Lane, The Wild Boy of Aveyron
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976); Harlan Lane and R.
Pillard, The Wild Boy of Berundi: A Study of an Outcast Child
(New York: Random House, 1978); J.A.L. Singh and Robert Zingg,
Wolf Children and Feral Man, (New York: Harper and Row,
1942).