Collaboration is better than competition

Apologies accepted bro. Sorry if you didn’t get the resolution, so let me clear it up.I wasn’t arguing for businesses to collaborate. I’m arguing for a collaborative economic system that does away with business, since essentially businesses are still competitive by nature.Resolution: A global economic system where collaboration is the fundamental principle is a far better system for the progress of humanity and solving problems than that of an economic system where competition is the fundamental principle (e.g., Capitalism). The idea of a collaborative system is simple and doesn’t need to be complicated. Remember my example scenario where you and your friends where stuck on an island? DanK, you did agree that if you and your friends wished to survive on the island, the best approach would be to collaborate and not compete with each other. That analogy holds true with our reality, except it is just scaled much larger. Planet Earth is analogous to the island, and you and your friends who were stuck on the island are analogous to the population living on this Earth. Thus, if we (the people/humanity) wish to survive on this planet Earth, the best approach would be to collaborate and not compete with each other, just like you and your friends did on the island. Because really, there’s no difference between people on an island and people on a planet besides the size of the land and population. Fundamentally, they’re still both the same problem.The electrons in the semiconductor is just an analogy and shouldn’t be compared literally, but figuratively. Of course, it’s just a physical property of the atom; the atoms don’t talk to each other and don’t actually collaborate. However, the point that I’m trying to make in the analogy is that humans are just like the electrons. When humans are competing against each other, our energies get divided, we move in our own independent directions, and many times we collide with each other (i.e. conflict), where ultimately our energies cancel each other out, producing little or no progress. This is exactly analogous to when the electrons move in their own random independent directions, causing them to collide with each other and cancel out their energies, resulting in no net kinetic energy flow. But when humans collaborate, it is analogous to an electric field being applied to the semiconductor which causes electrons to start moving towards the same direction. Because all the electrons’ energies are now moving in the same direction, it finally produces net current and energy. Human progress is analogous to the flowing current and kinetic energy, which is only produced when humans start moving in a unified direction and work together toward a common goal of solving human problems. “Competition gives the consumer freedom of choice, which is good since we don't all like the same burgers.” Yes, competition can also give us freedom of choice, but that doesn’t mean in a collaborative system everyone has to eat the same burgers. A collaborative system has nothing to do with the preconceived notion that most people have such as with communism, where everybody will live in the same exact house, drive the same car, wear the same clothes, eat the same meals, etc. People in a collaborative system would still be able to make choices according to their own personal likes and tastes. However, there would still be a limit to the degree that people can choose. Yes we all want freedom of choice, but we all know the world is finite. Ex. People woudn’t choose to own 10 houses and 20 Ferraris. In a collaborative system, your freedom to choose would be only as free as what the environment or planet can provide and sustain (ie. its capacity). Today in our competitive economic system, many people think and act as if our planet has infinite amount of resources where we can just continuously produce infinite products to buy and sell, without any regard to the physical limitations of the environment and planet. If humans continue at the current rate, by around 2030’s the world will need the equivalent resources of about two planet Earths in order to sustain our way of living.[1] Additionally if the entire world population today lived like Americans (this is in general; nothing against Americans), the world would require the equivalent resources of about five Earths. [2]Does this mean we all have to go back to the pre-industrial age where people all live in small villages and ride horses because it would be sustainable? No, of course not, but at the same time we can’t just keep consuming resources more than what our planet can provide. So if we want to keep our cars and technologies, how are we supposed to make society sustainable?That’s where human collaboration, along with our knowledge of science and engineering comes in. In order society to become sustainable and not over-consume the resources of the planet, we would need to use our resources as efficiently as possible. For example, lets start with cars. On average, most people drive their cars only for about an hour each day.[3] Throughout most of the day, we are not driving and cars are just parked. If you look outside, many parking lots are filled with cars that are just sitting there unused. [4][5] This is not efficient at all. Instead of just sitting there, cars could be used by other people. Today we have the technology of self-driving automated cars (e.g. Google Cars) which can be connected to the internet and use data from the network to determine who might need to use a car at what time. [6] Let me give a scenario. lets say on a typical day, I work from 9am to 5pm. The car would drop me off at work at 9am, and while I’m at work, it would go to other people to give them rides, and return back by 5pm. Computers would do all the planning and calculations for the times of the rides and the destinations. Now if for some reason I suddenly have to use a car before 5pm (say I wanted to go out for lunch), I can just use an app on my smartphone, press a button, and the nearest car available can come to pick me up (it doesn’t always necessarily have to be the same car that I used to get to work). With this system, it is way more efficient and society can produce significantly less cars, and use less resources. We don’t need to keep buying new cars every year, and every person doesn’t need to own their own car. Most people just care about access, and a collaborative system is about using technology to make more efficient systems that optimally allocates resources to where people need access. “Tesla was not the first to that party of electric cars, the first electric car produced was in 1867 and several have been produced since.”I never said that Tesla was the first to create electric cars, nor is that the point. Yes electric cars have been around for more than a century. My point with Tesla Motors was that Elon Musk started the company with a collaborative mindset. He didn’t built Tesla with the mission of beating competitors and making as much profit as he can. No, his primary mission is to help make society’s transportation system become clean and sustainable. That mission is what gets him out of his bed every morning. This is also why he proposed the Hyperloop, which was supposed to be a significantly cheaper, and more efficient alternative to the California High Speed Rail. Additionally, he made the Hyperloop plan open source so that other people can collaborate. [7]“he also did not invent the electric motor as Michael Faraday had already invented it in 1821. But again I ask, what does this have to do with your resolution?”Yes, Michael Faraday was the first to discover electromagnetic induction and did create simple electromagnetic devices. However it was Tesla that built the first practical AC induction electric motor. But again that’s not the point. My point was that Tesla didn’t work on the things he invented, because he wanted to ‘compete’ and make a profit.He did it because he had a collaborative mindset, and wanted to find a solution to a problem so that it can improve humanity. Ex., He invented the AC induction motor (AC current), which solved the problem of distributing electricity at long distances, and today the whole world uses AC current to distribute electricity. Ultimately the point is that real progress truly comes when our main effort is not to beat anyone, but to collaborate and improve society. [8]Ubuntu MovementToday there is a growing movement in South Africa called the Ubuntu liberation movement which was founded by Michael Tellinger. The movement’s goal is to start building communities based on the Ubuntu principle of “humanity towards others”. (This is where Linux’s most popular OS got its name, Ubuntu). [9][10][11]ConclusionIn conclusion, my opponent keeps complaining about my resolution which I have stated is an economic system based on collaboration vs. an economic system based on competition. Also I posted this debate on the economics section, so clearly I’m implying an economic system - collaborative vs. competitive. Furthermore, the opponent has made a lot criticisms on my arguments, but not has not really argued and proven his part on why competition is better than collaboration.In closing, I would like to thank DanK for participating in this debate. [1] http://www.footprintnetwork.org...[2] http://www.independent.co.uk...[3] http://nhts.ornl.gov... [4] http://www.reinventingparking.org... [5] http://www.ryot.org... [6] [7] http://www.spacex.com... [8] http://en.wikipedia.org... [9] [10] http://www.michaeltellinger.com... [11] http://en.wikipedia.org...(philosophy)