Friday, November 22, 2013

Competition

Competition--what's the point?  Nationally I mean.

I'm so tired of newscasts that talk about the competition that the US is in with other nations. "We're behind in math and science scores." "We're behind in trade balances." "We're ahead in Olympic golds." "We're behind in the production of ..." And now Obama is trailing Putin in international polls.

Who declared that nations exist to compete with one another?

Just because the US has been "No. 1" in this or that doesn't mean that that is the goal of existence.

But those who have been No. 1 usually fall into that trap. We've arrived, and now we have to stay there. King of the Mountain--it's a children's game. But whom do they learn it from? From their parents, from their culture, from the nature of things (survival of the fittest and all that).

Evolutionary theory implies that it all is a battle of species--a battle, a competition, for survival.

Maybe that's all wrong.

Maybe survival is a gift, and our responsibility in it all is to share the gift, to help others survive.

The TV show Survivor epitomizes the problem in our competitive outlook. The goal is to defeat everyone else and be the lone survivor. Great. Now I'm alone on my desert island. Good TV, perhaps, but a horrible approach to life.

How about (and public TV has tried some like these) Surviving, in which the premise is that we are all in this together, so how can we best work together to help all of us survive? Our foreign-aid policy at least attempts to exemplify an outward-looking attitude (whether it is is another question).

How about a newscast that begins, "Today the US advanced a step in helping provide the world with well-qualified compassionate scientists who will help us all"?   

Why can't the first "we" in our minds be the human race?



No comments: