[drcomputer]

I think that is one possible perception, but I could argue the same for the existence of 'chaos' or 'randomness' and make the same point.

Do things succeed because they adapt correctly over a given time frame or do they succeed because the adapt correctly over a given time instance. The evaluation of whether competition successfully denotes success is limited to the scope of variables that the competition tests. If those variables cease to be indicative of success, then we have a lot of stuff that appears like it won the war, when in actuality it only won a very small subset of selective battles, much of what we only arbitrarily correlate to success (because without reproducing the conditions exactly, the data and information we can derive about the past is limited and/or subject to malleability).

We've evolved this far because we did. It's survivor bias.

It is entirely likely that there exist good things that are adapted for everything they purport to be, aside from competitive environments. If competition is eliminated, we can at least begin to separate the variables that are a function of the competitive process, and the variables that denote skill.

It is not necessary that we leave the survival of culture and ideas up to the same primitive mechanisms that determine whether a fish with smaller gills reproduces in a shallow pool rather than a deeper one - and make the inference that because it does survive, that it was because of the depth of the pool, and not because of the lack of sharks. Just because it has worked so far does not mean it will continue to work. Competition can cause emotions to control direction rather than objectivity over the data as it exists. When people want to win just because they want to win, .. Then competition becomes a measurement of competition, and not of the things it purports to select for.