Here's my theory. We support competition in almost every aspect of life, while demanding equality, thus PROJECTING inequality. Its like we're in a state of mass cognitive dissonance where we feel like we can live in a world where we rank people and support the art of competition, yet also live in a world where we're seen as equal. (not necessarily as minorities but in gender roles and any other way that anyone can be shat on for something)

My solution? Inequality goes as soon as competition goes.

Your thoughts?

and belief in competition

relative judgment and comparative thinking are cognitive abilities all human being possess
ridding the world of competition would indeed change the human brain and experience
technology...meh
arts....meh
science...for what

equality is largely about fairness..which in its self an ideal
an ideal to which changes over time

what need is there to "rank" people? one thing may be good for one person, another thing may be good for another. if you're better at running and im better at abstract thinking, why do I need to rank you as inferior. why cant we just be different?

we can use relative thinking and comparative judgement to classify, but competition is ego

>what need is there to "rank" people? one thing may be good
>for one person, another thing may be good for another. if
>you're better at running and im better at abstract thinking,
>why do I need to rank you as inferior. why cant we just be
>different?

who's doing this?
nobodies is ranking Stephen hawking and usain bolt on the same spectrum
especially not themselves

>we can use relative thinking and comparative judgement to
>classify, but competition is ego

ego is needed in society point blank
inflated versions maybe not but ego is part of our natural state

Some people are stronger.
Some people are smarter.
Some people are taller.
Some countries are rich in natural resources.

There is no real equality.

All society can do is provide people with the same access to resources and opportunities as everyone else.

so why the need to rank one person as "better" than another. why not just relegate us to the fields that we belong in (or we gravitate towards those fields)

what i'm saying is, cant things just be DIFFERENT than one another? why must things be considered better or worse?

its like a matter of perspective. if everything is RELATIVE, then the notion of something being better or worse is flawed. its based on the false premise that everyone has the same perspective, which isn't true

i know i dont

Going to a good school can be life altering.

Eating better food affects our health.

in life.

does it really matter?

vote for bin: http://tinyurl.com/qz8zep5

If the wealth was determined by how heard each individual worked or how they smart hey were, most people could live with that. People have a problem with wealth being determined by whose family you were born to.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

http://www.tumblr.com/blog/blackpeopleonlocalnews

>If the wealth was determined by how heard each individual
>worked or how they smart hey were, most people could live with
>that. People have a problem with wealth being determined by
>whose family you were born to.
>
>
>**********
>"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then
>they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson
>
>http://www.tumblr.com/blog/blackpeopleonlocalnews

that either got lucky or made decisions that paid off or were just plain wiser with finances.

>People have a problem with wealth being determined by
>whose family you were born to.

What has been challenging post civilization is the sense that a surplus of resources is needed to keep the civilization going. This reinvigorates the competition. So civilization which thrives off of our most natural (read primitive) habits.

I'm not sure that you can do away with competition, but what could be done is to value cooperation more than it. If we were dependent on our own cooperation for resources rather than the acquiring of a surplus (which will inevitably leave some out) then perhaps we might find it takes us to equal heights.

But that sounds too much like socialism so fuck that.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." © Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

nm

it's basic math

no two ways abt it

i believe there are maybe ways to make capitalism work w/out exploitation (marx would disagree w me here btw), but the existence of corporations make it impossible

and i dont mean corporations as in the vague 'oooh corporations are bad' rhetoric, i mean corporations as the specific definable entities that they are

basically if you take the most basic marxist principals of commodity trade, or more specifically, the capitalist mode of production, and combine them with the principal that corporations by their nature are singularly concerned with a maximized bottom line (specifically because they answer only to an anonymous group of shareholders who's sole purpose is share that same concern), exploitation is the inevitable result

the cold part about is if you take this inevitability and project it through the imperialism, white supremacy, patriarchy, etc that we've built, it's easy to see who's set up to win/lose

i have no idea if this is at all relevant to what you were posting about, but it's what it made me think of lol

The reality is some people are just that much greater (or luckier) than others. And even the most equal of societies are not exempt from that rule. Nature always wins in the end.