Collaboration, Not Competition: Difference between revisions

From OnTrackNorthAmerica
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(26 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
All across the world, at any moment, on any day, billions of people are going about their lives looking out for each other. If you pay attention, you will even see people helping others without expecting that help to be reciprocated. Cooperation and thoughtfulness abound, while selfish, antagonistic acts pale in numbers.
'''''The New Paradigm for a World That Works for Everyone'''''
[[File:-1 Connecting - Copy.jpg|right|557x557px]]
At the heart of OnTrackNorthAmerica’s work are the twin practices of collaboration and coordination. We believe this combination is a superior means of ensuring that government and business serve the best interests of all stakeholders and, ultimately, the entire community. But are collaboration and coordination even possible given the competitive climate that capitalism has fostered for almost two centuries? And, on a more organic level, are people inherently altruistic, or are they self-centered?


At the heart of OnTrackNorthAmerica’s work is the advancement of collaboration and coordination as a far superior basis for guiding business and government than competition.
In America, in particular, we have been taught that striving for individual success is beneficial for everyone, as a productive capitalist society depends on it. The scientific basis for this precept is ostensibly “survival of the fittest,” which has come to be widely accepted as the fundamental finding of Charles Darwin’s research. The modern interpretation of survival of the fittest posits that humans, like other species, are naturally selfish and that selfishness drives progress. But is it possible that this belief is not only mistaken, but that it exerts an undue and debilitating influence on society? And does it actually represent Darwin’s findings?


Yet, “Are people inherently compassionate or self-centered?” has remained an oft-posed question. I believe this wearying confusion has been perpetuated by the difference in impact between acts of cooperation or love and acts of aggression or thoughtlessness.
Most people would be surprised to learn that Charles Darwin never used the phrase survival of the fittest in the original volume of his seminal work, ''On the Origin of Species''. Contrary to prevailing belief, Darwin’s observation of natural selection did not highlight individual competition. Darwin observed that in nature, the community provides the best perches, food, and resources to the strongest members, which confers on them reproductive advantages, so they ultimately produce the healthiest offspring. Harmony ''within'' the community, not domination ''of'' the community, is what Darwin observed. Moreover, he wrote that individuals in nature are inherently social, which is ultimately what produces and sustains well-being for the whole community.


Hug someone today, and the feeling of love can fade by tomorrow. You almost have to hug them over and over again, and we do. Shoot or knife someone, on the other hand, drive drunk and crash, or meanly criticize, and the memory and consequence can last a lifetime. It is this severe and often lasting impact of violence and negativity that muddles our appreciation for the overwhelming amount of cooperation and consideration all around us.
So, how did we come to misapply Darwin’s transformative work? Why did we orient commerce and governance around competition and mistrust rather than cooperation and trust? What would have us think that we must pit individuals, companies, organizations, political parties, and countries in an endless competition?


But before establishing my own confidence in man’s ability to collaborate and work in the community’s best interests, I had to ponder, as many of us do, “What is man’s true nature?”
“Darwinism” gained popularity during the mid-19th century, when American and British industrialists sought a belief system to justify their massive accumulation of wealth and power. They sponsored members of a new intellectual field called Social Philosophy to promote a misreading of ''On the Origin of Species''. One of the movement’s leading figures, Herbert Spencer, originated the term survival of the fittest, and because the public’s access to Darwin’s book was limited, those in power used this disinformation campaign to influence public support for their versions of capitalism and democracy.


Particularly in America, we have been taught that striving for individual success is best for everyone because the authority, Charles Darwin, said that evolution depended on it. “Survival of the Fittest,” implying that humans are selfish by nature and that selfishness drives the advancement of the species, continues to exert a strong and debilitating influence on our society.
We all suffer under the influence of Spencer’s false and destructive misinterpretation of nature and, indeed, humanity. Modern governance and commerce have since developed around an over-reliance on competitive debate, competing factions, and constant jockeying for attention and favors. However, competition stifles the collective potential of a society and is ultimately highly inefficient for towns, counties, states, countries, and their businesses.


It occurred to me to read ''On the Origin of Species'' to see what Darwin actually said, not what I have been told he said. What I found was that Charles Darwin didn’t invent the phrase “Survival of the Fittest.” Contrary to prevailing belief, he wasn’t highlighting individual competition. Instead, he wrote that species, ecosystems, communities, and individuals organize themselves around the long-term interests of the community and future generations. In nature, the community provides the best perches, the best food, and the best resources to those amongst them that are strongest and, therefore, produce the healthiest offspring. He was inspired by the sacrifice and commitment of individual members to place their communities’ best interests before their own. Harmony with the community, not domination of the community, is what he observed. Charles Darwin said that individuals in nature are inherently social and communal, and that is what provides sustainability.
The most effective and efficient organization of all components of a sustainable industrial system is only possible through collaboration and coordination.


So, how did we come to misapply Darwin’s transformative work? Why did we orient the modern world’s commerce and governance around competition and mistrust rather than cooperation and trust? What would have us think that we must pit individuals, companies, organizations, political parties, and countries in an endless competition?
Of course, competition has its place in sports, games, and some aspects of business. However, orienting our civilization’s primary functions around competition is outmoded and unsustainable.


We remember this was the mid-19th century when American and British industrialists desperately wanted a belief system to justify their massive accumulation of control and capital. They sponsored members of a new intellectual field called Social Philosophy to promote a misreading of ''On the Origin of Species'' to give their domination cover. One of the movement’s leading figures was Herbert Spencer, the originator of “Survival of the Fittest.” The public’s access to the book was rare, allowing those in power to influence public perception with biased speeches and articles under the guise of “science.
The mounting environmental stresses of the world’s exploding population and the ever-increasing competition to exploit the globe’s abundant, yet finite, treasure trove of natural resources threaten our peace and prosperity.


Governance and commerce have since developed around an over-reliance on competitive debate, competing factions, and constant jockeying for attention and favors. Competition stifles our collective ability. Of course, competition can be beneficial. However, orienting our civilization around competition is outdated and unsustainable.
There is a better way.


We are fortunate that coordinating across industries, companies, agencies, political parties, and jurisdictions requires respect, collaboration, and system-level decision-making. They are the ways of being and practices we want in our world. It is highly inefficient for towns, counties, states, and countries to compete with each other. The wise placement of all the components of a sustainable industrial system is only possible through collaboration and coordination.
It is more crucial than ever to discard outdated and limiting assumptions and embrace a new paradigm, a paradigm of commitment to our community, both locally and globally. It is time to redesign our systems of governance and commerce around collaboration and cooperation, to ensure sustainability and prosperity for everyone.


As we face environmental stresses and extreme violence that threaten our peace and prosperity, it is more important than ever to release those outdated and limiting assumptions and embrace the reality of man’s inherent commitment to the community. Let’s redesign our industrial systems for sustainability and our governance systems for workability.
What is OnTrackNorthAmerica’s role in this essential shift in priorities? We begin by convening stakeholders in productive dialogue using our question-based dialogue method, IntelliSynthesis<sup>®</sup>. By their nature, questions are inherently interactive, opening our minds to intelligent thought, exploration, and shared knowledge. By synthesizing, cataloging, and utilizing this collective intelligence, diverse stakeholders can solve problems and implement action plans effectively.


OnTrackNorthAmerica convenes stakeholders in productive dialogue using our question-based inquiry method, IntelliSynthesis. Questions are inherently interactive, opening our minds to intelligent thought exploration and shared knowledge. Tracking and utilizing this collective intelligence allow diverse stakeholders to solve problems and implement action plans.
Our work is informed by close interactions with more than 11,000 individuals across the continent who have overwhelmingly expressed their heartfelt desire for a world that works for everyone. As Darwin discovered almost two hundred years ago, a society advances when its members orient around essential collaboration and coordination, striking a balance with useful competition.
 
Our work is informed by close interactions with over 11,000 individuals across the continent who have overwhelmingly expressed their heartfelt desire for a world that works for everyone. As Darwin discovered over 175 years ago, society advances when people balance useful competition with essential collaboration.

Latest revision as of 14:52, 3 July 2025

The New Paradigm for a World That Works for Everyone

Error creating thumbnail: File with dimensions greater than 12.5 MP

At the heart of OnTrackNorthAmerica’s work are the twin practices of collaboration and coordination. We believe this combination is a superior means of ensuring that government and business serve the best interests of all stakeholders and, ultimately, the entire community. But are collaboration and coordination even possible given the competitive climate that capitalism has fostered for almost two centuries? And, on a more organic level, are people inherently altruistic, or are they self-centered?

In America, in particular, we have been taught that striving for individual success is beneficial for everyone, as a productive capitalist society depends on it. The scientific basis for this precept is ostensibly “survival of the fittest,” which has come to be widely accepted as the fundamental finding of Charles Darwin’s research. The modern interpretation of survival of the fittest posits that humans, like other species, are naturally selfish and that selfishness drives progress. But is it possible that this belief is not only mistaken, but that it exerts an undue and debilitating influence on society? And does it actually represent Darwin’s findings?

Most people would be surprised to learn that Charles Darwin never used the phrase survival of the fittest in the original volume of his seminal work, On the Origin of Species. Contrary to prevailing belief, Darwin’s observation of natural selection did not highlight individual competition. Darwin observed that in nature, the community provides the best perches, food, and resources to the strongest members, which confers on them reproductive advantages, so they ultimately produce the healthiest offspring. Harmony within the community, not domination of the community, is what Darwin observed. Moreover, he wrote that individuals in nature are inherently social, which is ultimately what produces and sustains well-being for the whole community.

So, how did we come to misapply Darwin’s transformative work? Why did we orient commerce and governance around competition and mistrust rather than cooperation and trust? What would have us think that we must pit individuals, companies, organizations, political parties, and countries in an endless competition?

“Darwinism” gained popularity during the mid-19th century, when American and British industrialists sought a belief system to justify their massive accumulation of wealth and power. They sponsored members of a new intellectual field called Social Philosophy to promote a misreading of On the Origin of Species. One of the movement’s leading figures, Herbert Spencer, originated the term survival of the fittest, and because the public’s access to Darwin’s book was limited, those in power used this disinformation campaign to influence public support for their versions of capitalism and democracy.

We all suffer under the influence of Spencer’s false and destructive misinterpretation of nature and, indeed, humanity. Modern governance and commerce have since developed around an over-reliance on competitive debate, competing factions, and constant jockeying for attention and favors. However, competition stifles the collective potential of a society and is ultimately highly inefficient for towns, counties, states, countries, and their businesses.

The most effective and efficient organization of all components of a sustainable industrial system is only possible through collaboration and coordination.

Of course, competition has its place in sports, games, and some aspects of business. However, orienting our civilization’s primary functions around competition is outmoded and unsustainable.

The mounting environmental stresses of the world’s exploding population and the ever-increasing competition to exploit the globe’s abundant, yet finite, treasure trove of natural resources threaten our peace and prosperity.

There is a better way.

It is more crucial than ever to discard outdated and limiting assumptions and embrace a new paradigm, a paradigm of commitment to our community, both locally and globally. It is time to redesign our systems of governance and commerce around collaboration and cooperation, to ensure sustainability and prosperity for everyone.

What is OnTrackNorthAmerica’s role in this essential shift in priorities? We begin by convening stakeholders in productive dialogue using our question-based dialogue method, IntelliSynthesis®. By their nature, questions are inherently interactive, opening our minds to intelligent thought, exploration, and shared knowledge. By synthesizing, cataloging, and utilizing this collective intelligence, diverse stakeholders can solve problems and implement action plans effectively.

Our work is informed by close interactions with more than 11,000 individuals across the continent who have overwhelmingly expressed their heartfelt desire for a world that works for everyone. As Darwin discovered almost two hundred years ago, a society advances when its members orient around essential collaboration and coordination, striking a balance with useful competition.