[lazide]

For sure. Though at least monks nominally figured out the only winning move is not to play. Depending on your definition of ‘winning’ anyway.

Depending on one’s perspective, it could be the ultimate loser religion, or the ultimate winner.

Pretty clear why China loves to kick Nepal in the sensitive bits, either way.

[hackable_sand]

I maintain that competition is a human construction.

Eat and be eaten, but accept both for what they are.

[lazide]

Since most species appear to have some variant of competition, why do you think it is a human construction?

[hackable_sand]

I disagree.

Not to say that keeping score is immoral, just artificial.

[lazide]

What do you call ‘bucks fighting over the cows, and the winner gets to breed them’ other than keeping score?

Or ‘the biggest bear gets the territory and the associated food’. While marking trees and rubbing musk.

Humans have just evolved a more abstract and indirect way of accomplishing the same sorts of things.

What else is money/power, after all?

Instead of doing those things, Humans put up signs saying things like ‘This project brought to you by Mayor Daley’ with their picture on it, or ‘Speed limit enforced by Radar’ while driving around in obnoxiously obvious cars with their department name on the side.

It’s the same thing though. It’s fundamental to the nature of evolutionary success in most dynamics we’re in. Not all though.

Sea turtles don’t seem to care, for example.

If you’re talking about ‘keeping score’ in the sense of ‘retribution’/‘removing competition’ then I present [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_in_carnivores], specifically ‘non parental infanticide’.

[hackable_sand]

I will accept that we have vastly different philosophical models for life and leave it there.