winning is bad

**blueback** · 05-16-2008, 10:53 PM

A thought. The struggle is what is valuable, not the winning.

In capitalism, it is competition that makes the economy grow. Lots of companies competing against one another, constantly one-upping each other, leads to constant growth. If one company "wins", becomes a monopoly, becomes so successful that they shut out all the other companies, the economy stagnates. A monopoly produces less than it consumes because it has no reason not to. A king would be another form of monopoly. A king has all the power, no one can compete with him, and so he gradually fails.

In nature it is survival of the fittest which leads to evolution. Lots of animals fighting over a limited set of resources forces them to evolve to beat the other animals; to avoid extinction. However, if one animal "wins" by evolving so well that they kill or run-off all the other animals, the environment dies. A living thing can't live off of itself, so when it wins it dies. A parasite that is too successful, that manages to actually destroy the body's defenses will kill the host, and then it will die.

No one in sports has ever proposed that we get all the football teams in the world together and have them play one last game to decide which team is the best of all time and then stop playing football. That's not the point. The game isn't played to crown a champion that no one else can challenge, it is played to get better each time. Sure, someone wins each game, but there is always the next game. Someone wins each season, but there is always the next season. So no one ever "wins" completely, they can always be beaten in the next competition.

So, basically, what I'm saying, is that winning is bad. When you "win" such that you actually end the competition you are dooming yourself to stagnation and eventual destruction.

**fonmaneal** · 05-16-2008, 11:00 PM

TEMPUS EDAX RERUM
The nature of life is its going to die.
So have fun while it lasts..

**Motor Jax** · 05-17-2008, 06:06 AM

i love that post, PRB

it makes sense

but aren't all those physical attributes? who decides who "wins" an intellectual debate?

**PRBori** · 05-17-2008, 07:27 AM

hmm... I think winning is what you make of it. If you live to "WIN" all the time and cannot accept "LOSSING" then there is something wrong. But if you Strive to "WIN" just for your own personal reasons and do not care if you "LOST" other times.. then I think is healthy.

I used to do TRACK and VOLLEYBALL when I was younger. I liked to play and would try to "WIN" for my friends... but never felt negative if I LOST... instead I worked harder until I "WON".

So I don't think winning is bad, is more like how the person itself sees it and thinks of it.

**Motor Jax** · 05-17-2008, 08:06 AM

although physically able to win at something is probably inherent of the "Fight of the Fittest", as in the age that brute strength meant survival

but what about intellectually?

for some, there is strength and most like to flash that off

but the most important muscle is the one between the ears

and to lose sometimes is to think with the right muscle at times also

as a side note: i have always had great hand/eye coordination. and that helps with winning also

**taoista** · 05-17-2008, 08:44 AM

People get so happy when they win at stuff, but are mostly let down when they lose. I wish they would be as happy when they lost.

Come to think of it, sillyness would spread through the world
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

**blueback** · 05-17-2008, 01:10 PM

Okay, what I meant by "win" was that you competed so well that the competition ended. When a company gains a monopoly they effectively end competition. They push out everyone who was competing with them and they make the barrier to entry too high for any new competitor to enter. When that happens the monopoly raises prices and decreases production, which ruins the economy. If it's allowed to continue ultimately the monopoly will destroy itself by leeching all the resources out of the economy. It's the same thing in politics and nature. I brought up sports as an example of an artificial competition in which it's not even possible to get a monopoly because if you did it would ruin the competition. The point is that the game goes on, not that someone wins a momentary victory in it. Companies win momentary victories all the time, but the competition continues.

As long as the competition never ends you will always have someone to struggle against. As long as you have someone to struggle against you will have a reason to improve or at least maintain your abilities. When you no longer have someone to struggle against you will stagnate and eventually wither away to nothing.

**Motor Jax** · 05-17-2008, 01:33 PM

	Originally Posted by blueback
	I brought up sports as an example of an artificial competition in which it's not even possible to get a monopoly because if you did it would ruin the competition. The point is that the game goes on, not that someone wins a momentary victory in it.

but they do that anyways... so, in a way it is already a monopoly. otherwise, they wouldn't have those multi-million dollar contracts

now, you either have to be really, really, really good for them to even look at you. and never get injured ever, ever. and be really, really rich for them to even look at you.

heh, games have turned from something that was fun to how much money can both the players and the companies that sponsor you make. they have sucked the life out of the industry of fun

therefore, conquering fun...

ah, i get it now...

**sriv** · 05-17-2008, 02:08 PM

	Originally Posted by taoista To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	People get so happy when they win at stuff, but are mostly let down when they lose. I wish they would be as happy when they lost. Come to think of it, sillyness would spread through the world To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I love the INFP POV.

Yep, I dislike winning games of Super Smash Bros consistently. It means that the challenge in the competitor is lost and I have to go find a new one for me to improve.

I completely agree blueback.

**murkrow** · 05-17-2008, 02:30 PM

If winning is not a possibility then there is no competition.

I don't see how you could consider winning bad if it is the thing which inspires the competition you consider to be good.

Even if someone is to win, they still must continue to challenge themselves to remain the best because there will ALWAYS be someone who is trying to dethrone them.

In capitalism a monopoly will not be able to last unless it is constantly adapting itself in order to disallow new business ideas to develop a cheaper or superior product and disrupt their market.

The fact that I know I can win this argument is why I am arguing it.

**Motor Jax** · 05-17-2008, 02:34 PM

there is always a meaner, badder dog

**sriv** · 05-17-2008, 02:37 PM

	Originally Posted by murkrow To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The fact that I know I can win this argument is why I am arguing it.

I am in this argument because I want to see other points of view and learn.

**murkrow** · 05-17-2008, 02:43 PM

	Originally Posted by sriv To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I am in this argument because I want to see other points of view and learn.

If you aren't trying to prove a point then you aren't arguing, you're observing.

**sriv** · 05-17-2008, 02:50 PM

	Originally Posted by murkrow To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If you aren't trying to prove a point then you aren't arguing, you're observing.

Maybe I am.

You have no reaction to my observation?

**murkrow** · 05-17-2008, 03:02 PM

So you're saying that the capabilities of the competitive body should be limited to improve the experience of the observing body?

As hard as I try, the only way I can find any response to your observation is if I consider it in opposition to my own statement.

If I find purpose in the pursuit of victory, why should my purpose be denied?

**sriv** · 05-17-2008, 03:10 PM

	Originally Posted by murkrow To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So you're saying that the capabilities of the competitive body should be limited to improve the experience of the observing body?

Winning should be the object but it should not be the drive.


	As hard as I try, the only way I can find any response to your observation is if I consider it in opposition to my own statement.

It is offering new variables to your opinion, not negating it.


	If I find purpose in the pursuit of victory, why should my purpose be denied?

It shouldn't be denied.

**murkrow** · 05-17-2008, 03:22 PM

I find it impossible to set any specific goal as absolute victory.
If humanity is of unlimited potential then the game is never truly over.

So my goal is unreachable... but I know I can reach it.

Anyway, I oppose the idea that winning is bad but maybe that's because I don't see absolute victory anywhere in our society.

**sriv** · 05-17-2008, 03:27 PM

	Originally Posted by murkrow To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If humanity is of unlimited potential then the game is never truly over.

Exactly
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The point of life is life itself. Winning and losing are just signs.

**Ool** · 05-17-2008, 03:39 PM

Economic growth isn't the point of living.

Evolution isn't the point of living.

Sports analogies aren't a good representation of the point of living.

Stagnation isn't the reason for dying. Actually change is--the change from living to death.

None of these analogies in the original post make a good point. Our goal in life isn't to grow, to evolve, or to score points.

Happiness is our goal in life.

Everything you list are actually means to achieve happiness--under certain circumstances. If growth causes an increase in happiness then, by all means, let's grow. If it does not but causes crowding and unsustainable waste instead then we better cut down. If evolution causes us to change into happier beings then let's evolve. But if it causes us to suffer and die horrible deaths then we better look for an alternative. If competing at sports makes us happy then let's compete. But if the defeat humiliates and pains us then let's not.

And if we're in a state of sustained happiness then perchance it is the best time to stagnate and not change unless change is forced on us. Why rush the inevitable? Death is change, too. Why try it...?

**murkrow** · 05-17-2008, 03:49 PM

It's obvious that he believes productive economy, competitive sporting and evolution will all support happiness, that is why he wants to protect them.

**sriv** · 05-17-2008, 03:52 PM

	Originally Posted by Ool To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Happiness is our goal in life.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

**blueback** · 05-17-2008, 05:24 PM

Nope, reproduction is the goal of life. We might complicate things by having other goals which lead to reproduction, but the point was, is, and always will be reproduction. In a sense you can list survival too, but only as much as it allows you to still be alive to reproduce. There are life forms which don't have to be alive to finish reproducing, so even survival is a negotiable.

I think what complicates things is our rational mind. It is a sort of unnecessary upgrade to the living-thing that is a human being. It is capable of reasoning (coming up with reasons) so that's what it does. By default we end up very confused as we try to assign reasons to all sorts of things that don't have them.

BTW, reasoning is a competition between ideas. Potential explanations are compared against one another and tested. The one that best explains events or predicts future events wins, until a slightly better idea comes along. "A conclusion is the point at which you got tired of thinking."

**murkrow** · 05-17-2008, 05:47 PM

	Originally Posted by blueback To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Nope, reproduction is the goal of life. We might complicate things by having other goals which lead to reproduction, but the point was, is, and always will be reproduction. In a sense you can list survival too, but only as much as it allows you to still be alive to reproduce. There are life forms which don't have to be alive to finish reproducing, so even survival is a negotiable.

How can you claim that reproduction is the goal of life?
What is the goal of reproduction?

Why do you do anything apart from fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck eat eat fuck fuck fuck?

**brad** · 05-17-2008, 06:13 PM

I agree with Blueback as far as the original goal of life. It was reproduction. Until we came along with our capacity for self-determination. We have a conscious choice as to the aim of our lives.

I, for one, would not be satisfied with my life after reproduction, alone. Shit, I could have that more-or-less covered in a few weeks, if that's all I wanted. But then what? What world would my child be living in?

**sriv** · 05-17-2008, 06:22 PM

	Originally Posted by murkrow To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What is the goal of reproduction?

To form more life.
Does there have to be an ultimate goal?


	Why do you do anything apart from fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck eat eat fuck fuck fuck?

To find better ways to fuck and to ensure that everyone will get to fuck.
Everything else is extraneous and serves to please the ego as well as the superego.

05-16-2008, 10:53 PM	#1
blueback Core Member [154%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 6,169	A thought. The struggle is what is valuable, not the winning. In capitalism, it is competition that makes the economy grow. Lots of companies competing against one another, constantly one-upping each other, leads to constant growth. If one company "wins", becomes a monopoly, becomes so successful that they shut out all the other companies, the economy stagnates. A monopoly produces less than it consumes because it has no reason not to. A king would be another form of monopoly. A king has all the power, no one can compete with him, and so he gradually fails. In nature it is survival of the fittest which leads to evolution. Lots of animals fighting over a limited set of resources forces them to evolve to beat the other animals; to avoid extinction. However, if one animal "wins" by evolving so well that they kill or run-off all the other animals, the environment dies. A living thing can't live off of itself, so when it wins it dies. A parasite that is too successful, that manages to actually destroy the body's defenses will kill the host, and then it will die. No one in sports has ever proposed that we get all the football teams in the world together and have them play one last game to decide which team is the best of all time and then stop playing football. That's not the point. The game isn't played to crown a champion that no one else can challenge, it is played to get better each time. Sure, someone wins each game, but there is always the next game. Someone wins each season, but there is always the next season. So no one ever "wins" completely, they can always be beaten in the next competition. So, basically, what I'm saying, is that winning is bad. When you "win" such that you actually end the competition you are dooming yourself to stagnation and eventual destruction.
blueback is offline post a comment

05-16-2008, 11:00 PM	#2
fonmaneal Member [10%] MBTI: intj Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 403	TEMPUS EDAX RERUM The nature of life is its going to die. So have fun while it lasts..
fonmaneal is offline post a comment

05-17-2008, 06:06 AM	#3
Motor Jax Veteran Member [52%] MBTI: INFJ Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 2,105	i love that post, PRB it makes sense but aren't all those physical attributes? who decides who "wins" an intellectual debate?
Motor Jax is offline post a comment

05-17-2008, 07:27 AM	#4
PRBori Core Member [111%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 4,458	hmm... I think winning is what you make of it. If you live to "WIN" all the time and cannot accept "LOSSING" then there is something wrong. But if you Strive to "WIN" just for your own personal reasons and do not care if you "LOST" other times.. then I think is healthy. I used to do TRACK and VOLLEYBALL when I was younger. I liked to play and would try to "WIN" for my friends... but never felt negative if I LOST... instead I worked harder until I "WON". So I don't think winning is bad, is more like how the person itself sees it and thinks of it.
PRBori is offline post a comment

05-17-2008, 08:06 AM	#5
Motor Jax Veteran Member [52%] MBTI: INFJ Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 2,105	although physically able to win at something is probably inherent of the "Fight of the Fittest", as in the age that brute strength meant survival but what about intellectually? for some, there is strength and most like to flash that off but the most important muscle is the one between the ears and to lose sometimes is to think with the right muscle at times also as a side note: i have always had great hand/eye coordination. and that helps with winning also
Motor Jax is offline post a comment

05-17-2008, 08:44 AM	#6
taoista New Member [01%] MBTI: infp Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 19	People get so happy when they win at stuff, but are mostly let down when they lose. I wish they would be as happy when they lost. Come to think of it, sillyness would spread through the world To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
taoista is offline post a comment

05-17-2008, 01:10 PM	#7
blueback Core Member [154%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 6,169	Okay, what I meant by "win" was that you competed so well that the competition ended. When a company gains a monopoly they effectively end competition. They push out everyone who was competing with them and they make the barrier to entry too high for any new competitor to enter. When that happens the monopoly raises prices and decreases production, which ruins the economy. If it's allowed to continue ultimately the monopoly will destroy itself by leeching all the resources out of the economy. It's the same thing in politics and nature. I brought up sports as an example of an artificial competition in which it's not even possible to get a monopoly because if you did it would ruin the competition. The point is that the game goes on, not that someone wins a momentary victory in it. Companies win momentary victories all the time, but the competition continues. As long as the competition never ends you will always have someone to struggle against. As long as you have someone to struggle against you will have a reason to improve or at least maintain your abilities. When you no longer have someone to struggle against you will stagnate and eventually wither away to nothing.
blueback is offline post a comment

05-17-2008, 02:30 PM	#10
murkrow New Member [01%] MBTI: ENTJ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 52	If winning is not a possibility then there is no competition. I don't see how you could consider winning bad if it is the thing which inspires the competition you consider to be good. Even if someone is to win, they still must continue to challenge themselves to remain the best because there will ALWAYS be someone who is trying to dethrone them. In capitalism a monopoly will not be able to last unless it is constantly adapting itself in order to disallow new business ideas to develop a cheaper or superior product and disrupt their market. The fact that I know I can win this argument is why I am arguing it.
murkrow is offline post a comment

05-17-2008, 02:34 PM	#11
Motor Jax Veteran Member [52%] MBTI: INFJ Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 2,105	there is always a meaner, badder dog
Motor Jax is offline post a comment

05-17-2008, 03:02 PM	#15
murkrow New Member [01%] MBTI: ENTJ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 52	So you're saying that the capabilities of the competitive body should be limited to improve the experience of the observing body? As hard as I try, the only way I can find any response to your observation is if I consider it in opposition to my own statement. If I find purpose in the pursuit of victory, why should my purpose be denied?
murkrow is offline post a comment

05-17-2008, 03:22 PM	#17
murkrow New Member [01%] MBTI: ENTJ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 52	I find it impossible to set any specific goal as absolute victory. If humanity is of unlimited potential then the game is never truly over. So my goal is unreachable... but I know I can reach it. Anyway, I oppose the idea that winning is bad but maybe that's because I don't see absolute victory anywhere in our society.
murkrow is offline post a comment

05-17-2008, 03:39 PM	#19
Ool Member [12%] MBTI: INTP Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 499	Economic growth isn't the point of living. Evolution isn't the point of living. Sports analogies aren't a good representation of the point of living. Stagnation isn't the reason for dying. Actually change is--the change from living to death. None of these analogies in the original post make a good point. Our goal in life isn't to grow, to evolve, or to score points. Happiness is our goal in life. Everything you list are actually means to achieve happiness--under certain circumstances. If growth causes an increase in happiness then, by all means, let's grow. If it does not but causes crowding and unsustainable waste instead then we better cut down. If evolution causes us to change into happier beings then let's evolve. But if it causes us to suffer and die horrible deaths then we better look for an alternative. If competing at sports makes us happy then let's compete. But if the defeat humiliates and pains us then let's not. And if we're in a state of sustained happiness then perchance it is the best time to stagnate and not change unless change is forced on us. Why rush the inevitable? Death is change, too. Why try it...?
Ool is offline post a comment

05-17-2008, 03:49 PM	#20
murkrow New Member [01%] MBTI: ENTJ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 52	It's obvious that he believes productive economy, competitive sporting and evolution will all support happiness, that is why he wants to protect them.
murkrow is offline post a comment

05-17-2008, 05:24 PM	#22
blueback Core Member [154%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 6,169	Nope, reproduction is the goal of life. We might complicate things by having other goals which lead to reproduction, but the point was, is, and always will be reproduction. In a sense you can list survival too, but only as much as it allows you to still be alive to reproduce. There are life forms which don't have to be alive to finish reproducing, so even survival is a negotiable. I think what complicates things is our rational mind. It is a sort of unnecessary upgrade to the living-thing that is a human being. It is capable of reasoning (coming up with reasons) so that's what it does. By default we end up very confused as we try to assign reasons to all sorts of things that don't have them. BTW, reasoning is a competition between ideas. Potential explanations are compared against one another and tested. The one that best explains events or predicts future events wins, until a slightly better idea comes along. "A conclusion is the point at which you got tired of thinking."
blueback is offline post a comment

05-17-2008, 06:13 PM	#24
brad New Member [01%] MBTI: INTJ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 67	I agree with Blueback as far as the original goal of life. It was reproduction. Until we came along with our capacity for self-determination. We have a conscious choice as to the aim of our lives. I, for one, would not be satisfied with my life after reproduction, alone. Shit, I could have that more-or-less covered in a few weeks, if that's all I wanted. But then what? What world would my child be living in?
brad is offline post a comment