[martinmakesgame]

> We work longer, not shorter. We work as a couple, not as a single breadwinner. We have less job security than ever. The combined stress of a life long quest and grind for economic relevance is the greatest source of human suffering remaining.

I feel like a part of the issue is a belief that competition is necessary for an economy to function. Some people say to themselves, "I need to work longer because I need to be competitive against other people doing the same work".

Moving from a competitive mindset to a cooperative one would help everyone. What's the point of being in competition if anybody loses? We all win when we help each other win. Why can't economics function from a starting assumption of cooperation instead of competition? How about instead people just do what they need to for its own intrinsic value instead of maximising income.

I find that there is a wealth in life that is not dependent on economics at all. Relationships with others and a relationship with myself. In my experience people are generous by nature, with their time, company and help.

Competition is completely unnecessary and is a choice that people choose to believe in. It is possible to work from a mindset of just helping others instead.

[over_bridge]

I'm of the opinion that competition is unnecessary too. It seems more of a modern construct than a natural law - one aimed at disenfranchising workers and creating divisions between people who should be allies. If two lions constantly fight with other, do they get stronger, or do they become weak, injured and maimed? Much better to work together. I can't imagine that humans in hunter gatherer tribes competed with each other, nor in villages. What a waste of energy. Between two different ones, sure, but the default human interaction would have been a cooperative one with your peers looking out for you.

[akiselev]

Economic competition isn't a battle between two animals or a war or something. It's a decentralized optimization or maximization strategy. Sometimes it works well, sometimes it doesn't, but it's not some violent struggle between competitors (usually).

[fleddr]

Fully agree, hunter gatherers were cooperative, which means we are cooperative from birth.

The competition institutes we have today are very recent and made up.

A business or organization does not naturally occur, and hasn't for 99.99% of our existence. Same for countries.

[lotsofpulp]

How does this work in winner take all markets? Or on a global scale where various societies are competing for resources?

If there was an unlimited supply of desired resources, then people would not compete. But a limited supply of the desired resource will necessarily lead people to compete.

Unfortunately, it might be human nature that that desired resource is power, whether it be on a micro or macro scale.

[bobthechef]

You almost sound like you're describing Heinrich Pesch[0].

[0] https://insidethevatican.com/magazine/culture/the-longest-ec...

[fleddr]

With or without competition, my belief is that we have an economy that not only wrecks the planet, also the people living on it. It very poorly serves the average human being, or is even openly hostile to it.

Perhaps the most telling sign of it is the increasingly old age at which people have children, if at all.

So I can only agree. Life value, for lack of a better word, has been ignored too much. We race to acquire stuff and invent new stuff to acquire. Family, arts, personal health, nature...the very core of our humanity is side-lined as a "hobby" at best.

That's why I believe in a UBI-like solution. Consider it a technical belief, not a political one. I believe that we should have the technical capability and scalability by now to provide most people on this planet at the very least a humane existence.

Let's for the moment assume it to be a reality. A secure bottom. This eliminates the need for cut throat competition which people engage in as an economic survival instinct.

Instead, people are free to naturally align with their true interest, passion and skills. Now combine this with free education. Education is mostly just content, there's zero need for it to cost so much.

You'll probably consider it an utopia, but let's continue our day dreaming. In this world, people are not subject to the lottery of nations. Your place of birth deciding on your economic faith. Or the economic status of your family. At an elementary level, you're equal in access the opportunities.

The only variable part being genetics, the unique talents (and flaws) given from birth. The little boy from Nigeria might become a rocket engineer. The variability in given talents aligns beautifully with evolution theory.

Imagine the untapping of human potential currently lost. Imagine the natural motivation people would have if they could align with their passion without being distracted by basic survival. You wouldn't need a whip to force a contribution, it would come natural. You'd then discover that people are good and want to contribute to the world.

It sounds like a John Lennon song, and a cynic can think of a million reasons why it won't work. And that's exactly our problem, a cynical world view. Accepting that the world is dark and will only get darker.