I'm not 100% sure that I like retaining the competition part. It might work in some circumstances but it always ends up leaving the least capable (or even the least competitive) behind until they are excluded, either in fact or in their perception. That is where we are at now; the wealthy can buy what they need to win are everyone else is disenfranchised.
I'll beg your indulgence for a quick story. Before the so-called 'original' expansion of the NHL took place in the 1960's, a tie was still considered a valid outcome (in my estimation the best possible outcome) of a well-played game despite the fact that 2/3 of the 'original six' teams were American. With expansion bringing ice hockey to many more American markets with limited experience of the game and it was decided that the fans in those markets would not accept a game ending without a 'winner' and many, different strategies have been tried to determine which of the 2 teams that played equally well is unworthy. The decision is often made by some small bounce which has nothing more to do with the way the game was played than flipping a coin. I refuse to watch and leave the TV with my decision . . . a tie.
So why would one compete to see who can do the most good? If someone helps a stranger who is less mobile to cross the street, they are as worthy as Bill Gates or Warren Buffett but would that be recognized, most importantly by the person who helped the stranger? If not, then it would just be another version of the same old, same old.
I think competition and co-operation require two completely opposing mind sets which cannot be combined to make a third way of accomplishing tasks. Apparently some of the very large co-ops from Italy have entered into competitive global markets but I understand that their values and ethics had to be compromised in order to do so and that many of the older families involved did not support such activity.
John F. Dunbar
I'm not 100% sure that I like retaining the competition part. It might work in some circumstances but it always ends up leaving the least capable (or even the least competitive) behind until they are excluded, either in fact or in their perception. That is where we are at now; the wealthy can buy what they need to win are everyone else is disenfranchised.
I'll beg your indulgence for a quick story. Before the so-called 'original' expansion of the NHL took place in the 1960's, a tie was still considered a valid outcome (in my estimation the best possible outcome) of a well-played game despite the fact that 2/3 of the 'original six' teams were American. With expansion bringing ice hockey to many more American markets with limited experience of the game and it was decided that the fans in those markets would not accept a game ending without a 'winner' and many, different strategies have been tried to determine which of the 2 teams that played equally well is unworthy. The decision is often made by some small bounce which has nothing more to do with the way the game was played than flipping a coin. I refuse to watch and leave the TV with my decision . . . a tie.
So why would one compete to see who can do the most good? If someone helps a stranger who is less mobile to cross the street, they are as worthy as Bill Gates or Warren Buffett but would that be recognized, most importantly by the person who helped the stranger? If not, then it would just be another version of the same old, same old.
I think competition and co-operation require two completely opposing mind sets which cannot be combined to make a third way of accomplishing tasks. Apparently some of the very large co-ops from Italy have entered into competitive global markets but I understand that their values and ethics had to be compromised in order to do so and that many of the older families involved did not support such activity.
Oct 16, 2012
Marie Poland
The name of the project I'm working on is "Weaving Our World."
:)
Jan 3, 2013
Sheridan Tinder
...she is known to me but is NOT a friend, though at one time I considered her a friend...
Jan 8, 2013