Last time I wrote about the myth that evolution is about competition. What might seem to be competition is often subtle forms of mutual benefit. It depends upon how we look at it. What are the consequences of competition?
Belief that competition is the norm has consequences. Here are some consequences based on a New Statesman article, “Fishing with Dynamite” by Margaret Heffernan, in the 20 -26 June 2014 edition:
- Dysfunction – the idea that competition diversifies the marketplace is questionable. For example, gas providers copy each other and so reduce diversity in the marketplace. They have to do this because they are competing over an inherently non-diverse product. Another issue is where people hold back information to retain a competitive advantage and so it becomes harder to innovate.
- Corruption – competition between sales people, can lead to, for example, mis-selling. It becomes harder to retain staff as competition becomes more toxic. People sabotage each other.
- Waste – is competition between energy suppliers likely to help with reduction in carbon footprint? It seems unlikely.
- Environmental degradation – maybe competition to reduce carbon would work but if it meant people withheld information, it would be counter-productive.
- Inequality – competing on price drives down labour costs.
- Unwinds social fabric – the most effective way to grow a company is by mergers and acquisitions. Companies get bigger and so need employ fewer staff, often relocating businesses. The customer experiences standardised services.
Questioning Competition
I haven’t proved the point here, my aim is to make the point and suggest we should question the mindset that sets competition above all other approaches. Is it true competition is more natural than collaboration?
Both competition and collaboration are mindsets. They are ways of seeing we project onto the world. The world is no more naturally competitive than it is collaborative. The consequences of which model we project are real though.
Last time I used the example of foxes and rabbits. I suggested that you can read it as either a competitive model or a collaborative model. But which is most helpful in understanding what happens in this admittedly simplified ecosystem?
Whilst we may deplore the violence of foxes and note the callous attitude of those who argue rabbits have to die for the good of the system, we also note the consequences when the system breaks down. The point is there are constraints on the foxes. The consequences for the fox of unrestrained violence are devastating.
What evolves is a system that supports both foxes and rabbits. We can look at it and decide this justifies violence because violence is a necessary part of the system. But how do we avoid that excuse being used to legitimate behaviour that is destructive of the system?
Actually, ecosystems constrain violence. When foxes become too powerful they destroy their own food source. The same applies in economic systems. Unconstrained competition is ultimately destructive.
So, what is the alternative?
