Question: Are we going to be collaborators or competitors in the creation of the future?
Answer: Probably both
It appears that, unlike the ants, we cannot all just work together in one collective (and when you consider ant hives occasionally going to war, neither can the ants).
Caveat: …well, maybe we can’t yet.
Still, when you take a larger scale view of humanity, cohesion and progress do emerge from competition (i.e financial market dynamics, scientific advancements driven by warfare). But the process of achieving such cohesion through competition still leads to stuff like genocides in the name of nationality, and the ongoing annihilation of ecosystems in the name of profit.
And obviously we can’t seem to exist in a state of total anarchy / ‘all vs all’ (even the systems that anarchists advocate are not ‘true’ anarchy)
So we get a (possibly false dichotomy of) ‘healthy competition’ vs ‘working together’.
The question follows: is there an optimal ‘middle ground’ between the two, and how do we determine it? Some kind of ideal group dynamic in humanity?
Is there some optimal number of human establishments in competition required to keep humanity progressing? And an optimal form of competition?
If so, how do we determine this?
If not, what is the alternative? Continuing on, raping our planet and killing each other in the name of tribe and personal gain? Appointing a perfect and neutral reasoning machine to make all the decisions? Some kind of raising of global consciousness in which the people and the power brokers see the bigger collective picture?