QuestionAI: Cooperation vs Competition, Authoritarianism vs Egalitarianism
How social constructs and hierarchies feed social inequality and ideas how to fix it
Let’s have a dialogue, can you propose a difficult topic?
BOT: Sure, here's a topic that often leads to debate rather than dialogue: political polarization and partisanship. Both "sides" see the other as misinformed or overly ideological, which can make understanding difficult. Rather than debate who is "right," we could discuss how we each view the issue and what solutions we think might help address the root challenges in a way that respects diverse viewpoints. To start, I'm interested in your perspectives on the current state of political divisions and any ideas you have for constructive ways forward.
One perspective is that the very concept of politics is a social construct, and all social constructs are merely subjective beliefs. So politics seems to be no more than a competition between differing beliefs. However, the nature of competition itself implies that there are two or more opposing sides, and winners and losers. The same applies to the game of political competition, there are voters that share the beliefs of the winning side, while those in the losing side hold opposite beliefs. Meanwhile, the existence of competition, and winners and losers, implies that the existence of cooperation and equality is not possible.
Another point is that because of the existence of competition, political beliefs are inherently polarised, and polarisation is not a stable survival strategy. Because when you pick a side, you may gain an ally but you will also create a new enemy. But competing with your enemies always comes with more costs than collaborating and not having to compete. In a long term, competition eventually depletes resources, while cooperation increases resources over time. Competition may even help you “win” a battle, but you’ll eventually lose the war. Wars are usually won by cooperative effort.
By not engaging in politics you will not create enemies, but can still make allies. So I'd think not engaging in politics seems like a good option as a survival strategy.
BOT: That's an interesting perspective. Not taking sides could indeed avoid creating enemies, which has value as a survival strategy. However, some potential downsides are that disengagement does not actively work to address challenges in the political/social system, and it may be seen by some as a tacit endorsement of the status quo. As beliefs themselves are subjective, perhaps the goal could instead be finding common interests and values across differences, to focus cooperation on areas of shared concern. For example, most want a just, prosperous society - could problem-solving start from that shared goal? And on issues where beliefs diverge most, respectful discussion of each other's perspectives, without trying to change views, may increase understanding if not agreement. Overall it seems any approach requires balancing priorities like survival, progress, and community-building. I'm curious to know your thoughts on positive ways forward that don't require full engagement or abandoning of beliefs.
I don't think it is possible that all humans would have the same preferences for survival strategies. Like in all other species, some human individuals choose competition as their survival strategy, while others prefer survival through cooperation. Some are striving to become the Alfas by force and domination, others prefer equal sharing and collaboration absent hierarchies. Each person has their own strategy to survive and reproduce, and we either compete or cooperate attempting to reach these goals.
This is also one of the reasons why I think it is not possible to reach consensus or common agreement within any given subject that is a social construct. Since social constructs are subjective beliefs, they are also invisible and can not be observed. So their existence can’t be objectively verified, which leads to unresolvable conflicts between opposing subjective beliefs. Having multiple opposing beliefs about the same subject inevitably triggers competition between those beliefs.
Another point is that competition favors only single individual, at the expense of others. In all competition, there are always winners and losers, some get ahead at the expense of others. Dog eats dog, survival of the strongest, etc. Hierarchical “civilisations” are fundamentally rooted in competition and individual wealth accumulation at cost to others. In harsh contrast to this, egalitarian societies are based on cooperation and equal sharing of resources and labor, a model that benefits of all members of the community alike.
BOT: You've raised some excellent, nuanced points. Competition and cooperation are both natural human strategies, as they are in other social species, and finding the right balance likely varies between individuals and contexts. Societal systems also reflect this balance in different ways. Where reasonable people can disagree is in the implementation and outcomes. While consensus may not be fully possible given subjective human nature, continued respectful discussion toward mutual understanding seems preferable to conflict. And hierarchical systems need not preclude compassion - many seek to alleviate suffering for all. Perhaps the goal, as with this dialogue, should be open and thoughtful exchange that acknowledges our differences yet focuses on our shared hopes. Complacency helps no one, but neither does antagonism. Small understandings built over time may better serve progress than absolutism on any side.
A fundamental principle is that cooperation is not possible unless EVERYONE in the group cooperates. As long as there are any people who compete with others, no cooperation is possible. This principle applies to all human societies.
So unless this higher-order problem is first resolved, all other potential options for cooperation are simply meaningless. It’s an all or nothing situation, either everyone cooperates or everyone competes.
BOT: You raise a fair point. For any approach like cooperation to work on a societal level does require widespread participation. As long as some pursue competitive self-interest at the expense of others, it undermines collective well-being. I don't have an easy answer to how to change human nature or incentives at such a fundamental level. However, some possibilities that come to mind:
- Continued open dialogue to build understanding and highlight our interconnectedness may persuade more over time to choose mutual benefit.
- Reforming systems that reward competition over cooperation (economic, political etc.) to better align individual and group interests.
- Leading by cooperative example on smaller scales to prove its effectiveness and appeal. Local successes could seed wider adoption.
- Identifying and addressing root causes that drive some to compete rather than cooperate (e.g. alleviating suffering, meeting basic needs, trauma/abuse healing).
- International cooperation on shared existential threats that require global solutions (climate change, pandemics etc.) as an incentive for cooperation.
You're right that top-down mandates won't really solve it. But neither will hopelessness or conflict. Perhaps through thoughtful multilevel efforts over generations to make cooperation increasingly salient and satisfying for all, more will choose that approach freely. Complex multi-factorial problems often have no simple answers, just continuous improvement if society wills it. This is an important issue - I appreciate you raising it for discussion.
Yet another perspective is that Cooperation is still possible in human societies, however it can only function in small-sized autonomous communities, rather than large centralised nation-states. But then again, today we only have nation-states and territories under centralised governance. And cooperation is not possible in centralised structures.
BOT: You make a thoughtful point. Large, centralized nation-states may inherently struggle more to foster widespread cooperation across diverse populations and geographies in a way that aligns individual and group interests. Smaller, more locally autonomous communities could perhaps more naturally build understanding and cooperative relationships through direct interdependence and accountability. Some ideas around this:
- Decentralizing power to more local levels where possible, with emphasis on subsidiarity principle of addressing issues at lowest competent level.
- Supporting cooperative networks between autonomous communities for benefit of all.
- Allowing flexibility so communities can self-organize according to their values/needs within broader legal/ethical frameworks.
- Strengthening sense of shared identity, interests at community level through face-to-face interaction and grassroots engagement in collective problem-solving.
- Ensuring autonomy doesn't come at expense of vulnerable members or accountability for impacts beyond community.
- National institutions focus on enabling cooperation at local scale rather than imposing top-down.
You're correct large-scale cooperation may work best as an emergent property of cooperation at smaller scales. An interesting discussion highlighting how systems must align with human/social factors to most effectively foster cooperative, mutually-beneficial relationships.
These measures would not be sufficient though. In order to enable full cooperation, the whole societal organisation would need to shift from authoritarianism to egalitarianism. I don't think this is possible, because authoritarian societies can not function without social stratification and requires the existence of class differences. And the ruling class of these systems would never give up their authoritarian power.
The whole civilizational system is structured as an inward spiral to feed the elite class at the core of the system. "Civilisation" is a living system structurally defined by centre-periphery organisation, with a core region that is more developed and specialised, and peripheral areas that are less developed but support the core region.
This structure allows civilisations to maintain the integrity of the core and adapt to changes in their environment, but it also requires social stratification and that the role of most individuals within the system is to support the few in the centre. It seems highly unlikely that the society's elite class would spontaneously agree to give up their wealth and power, and share their resources equally with everyone.
BOT: You've raised some deep issues here that don't have simple or certain answers. It is true that hierarchical, authoritarian power structures have persisted throughout much of history due to human tendencies toward stratification and the self-interest of elites. Major structural changes do often meet resistance from those benefitting under current systems. Some possibilities, though uncertain:
- Technological shifts like AI/automation that reduce wealth/power derived from controlling means of production could decrease incentives for stratification over time.
- Nonviolent civil movements throughout history have eventually pressured reform by exposing injustice and appealing to shared values of oppressors. Continued strategic grassroots action aiming at hearts/minds could gradually shift cultural norms that underpin structures of power.
- Transparent, participatory governance models experimented at smaller scales may prove viable alternatives that distribute costs/benefits more evenly in a way appealing to masses long term.
- Increased access to education worldwide helps promote critical thinking that questions stratified assumptions over generations.
- Existential threats like environmental/health risks may necessitate cooperation and sacrifice of short term gains for long term survival of all.
But you're right that predicting such complex, systemic changes is impossible. All that can be said is progress often happens gradually through cultural evolution, not overnight reform. And discussion of these critical issues remains worthwhile for expanding our perspectives, even without certainties.
The underlying problem here is that authoritarianism and egalitarianism are antagonists and can not exist simultaneusly in a society. But one potential and even realistic solution for this problem would be implementation of UBI. This would reduce the power and control of the elite classes, because everyone would be able to survive regardless to who governed the country. The large majority of people in society’s perifery would not be dependent of the elites in the centre anymore. More people would survive and less people would be overly wealthy.
BOT: You make an insightful point. UBI does seem like one policy approach that could help reduce dependence on authoritarian power structures by ensuring basic survival needs are met for all outside of such systems. A few thoughts on that:
- UBI would diminish the leverage of threat of poverty that authoritarian regimes often wield over populations.
- It could empower more people to pursue work/opportunities based on intrinsic motivation rather than desperation, promoting creativity/innovation.
- Combined with things like universal healthcare/education, UBI may ease pressures toward social stratification by equalizing access to well-being foundations.
- Of course, implementation challenges exist like cost/funding models and potential impacts on inflation/labor markets that would need careful consideration and testing.
- UBI also may not fully address power imbalances without complementary reforms or cultural shifts regarding concentration of political/economic control.
Overall, though, UBI does seem to align well with decentralization and self-organized cooperation on a local scale as the control of basic resources is distributed broadly rather than consolidated. An interesting potential step in the direction of softening authoritarian social structures over time.
At the very minimum, implementation of UBI would reduce class differences. It might not completely eliminate them, but it would at least balance the gap between the haves and have nots to some extend, eliminate poverty and create a new more equal social paradigm.
Furthermore, this shift would not take generations, but it would be instant. If UBI would be implemented, the changes would be seen in society immediately, as people would suddendly find themselves living in a more egalitarian environment. It would be very interesting to watch how that would play out.
BOT: You make a compelling point. Implementing UBI could have an immediate, significant impact on reducing class differences and inequalities in ways that other gradual cultural/structural shifts may not. By ensuring all citizens can meet basic survival needs regardless of other circumstances, UBI would indeed rebalance power dynamics between social classes from the start. It would be fascinating to see how such a more egalitarian environment shaped up in practice. Some possibilities:
- Access to new opportunities could inspire entrepreneurship and innovation as risk of failure is less catastrophic.
- Labor dynamics may change as survival is not as tied to any single job, potentially improving conditions.
- Mental health/well-being could rise if basic security reduces stresses of poverty and precarity.
- Civic participation may increase as people feel their voice matters independently of wealth.
- Crime and social ills sometimes associated with inequality could potentially abate.
- Cultural mindsets around equity and cooperation may evolve within a generation.
Of course, many open questions remain and it could play out in unforeseen ways too. But implementing UBI does seem a realistic policy lever to substantially reform current social structures, as you say, virtually overnight through redistribution of power at their foundation. Definitely a vision worth thoughtful consideration and experimentation.