Yesterday Mrs. 74westy and I were listening to a radio science show that discussed male fish who “compete” in the evolutionary struggle by having faster sperm than the next guy. Mrs. 74westy said something along the lines of, “they’re imposing competition on the fish!”
By way of background, we’re an extreme Odd Couple: I’m a hardcore scientific skeptic and she’s a touchy feely New-Ager. I couldn’t rule out the possibility that she thought that biologists were making fish competitive by polluting the Universal Consciousness with negative linguistic energy or something like that. Fortunately, upon interrogation she clarified that she thought that what is really happening evolutionarily was not adequately expressed by the word “competition” and that word creates a false impression that competitive struggle is central to our existence.
Strangely, I find that I do not disagree with her. The word “competition” is intended to mean that some organisms “succeed” in passing their genes on to the next generation and some “fail”. I’m fine with that but, alas, the word also connotes that the “competition” is conscious and deliberate and I’m not fine with that.
I think this usage leads to errors like Spencerism which in turn encourage over-reactions like Ben Steinism. Therefore, I hereby demand that the Scientific Priesthood outlaw the use of the word “competition” in the context of evolution or at least mandate the use of scare quotes.
Interesting point. Suppose two asteroids were on a collision course with earth, and the one that hit first would wipe out humanity. It would sound very odd to say that the asteroids were competing to destroy our species: if someone said that, I’d think, “no they’re not, they’d need some level of consciousness to compete like that.”
But we have no problem saying that saplings compete for scarce sunlight when an old tree falls, leaving an opening in the canopy, even though these saplings have no more consciousness than the asteroids do.
Why do we draw this distinction?
I wonder whether it’s something hardwired in us, an overattribution of consciousness to other living things.
Unfortunately, I thi nk Dio’s implication is right: there’s no good alternative word waiting in the wings. We need to recognize that competition, in Darwinian contexts, has a meaning distinct from the meaning it has when talking about human social contexts.
There really isn’t a requisite level of consciousness for things to be competing. An organism that is conscious can be in competition with another organism without ever knowing that the other organism exists. All that is required is that some particular resource (or biological imperative) is gained or not gained by one or both.
And sea kittens do too compete! Put a couple of male Bettas together and you’ll see some competition…
If it’s the way things are, it’s neutral. I see what you are saying and many people do incorrectly project an anthropic face onto evolution. But I want to hear the alternative description if you have one. If there’s an equally simple way to explain this process I’d support it. If the substitute hrase is overly technical, it creates a barrier to understanding.
Just because humans have a mental process that allows us to observe and be aware of our own deterministic behaviors, it’s still just machinery just like the fish and virus.
All living things need resources to survive and all living things have a biological imperative to reproduce. There are finite resources in the world, and not all efforts at reproduction are equally successful. This is very often because some living things are more successful at gaining those resources necessary for survival. Whether or not a sea slug is actively contemplating competition with other organisms doesn’t change the fact that what that sea slug does throughout its lifetime includes competition.
I’ll answer with a question: is the fact that one mass attracts another a positive, a negative or neutral? (And anyone who makes a joke about magnetism will be slapped across the face with a trout.)
In people, the male sperms race to fertilize the egg. It is easy to see how it can be seen as a competition. One succeeds and passes its info on to the next generations. Others fail and die. I do not see it as over attribution to say it is competition. The distinction of conscious decision as opposed to genetically driven at that scale is irrelevant. it is ,win the race and survive through time or perish.
Whenever I’ve read about competition being a force, it has always acheived its effects unconsciously. Some of human competition is a conscious effort, sure, but when we are discussing the effects of competition we’re discussing unconscious activity. The invisible hand isn’t invisible because it is the pink unicorn’s godly hand. It is invisible because no one intended anything of the sort. Most tales of market competition also illustrate it is the activity of one party trying to get more profit than another. This is competing for profits. But when we discuss the results of competition, the comments aren’t pedestrian waffling about those specific profits but the benefits to, e.g., consumers.
I would probably agree, however, I think that’s just because we view the asteroids as passive objects, propelled by forces etc - they’re not competing to destroy us, because one will arrive first and do it, the other will arrive later - and that could be quite clearly determined.
But suppose you had multiple asteroid bombardment coinciding with a massive, deadly pandemic - I don’t think it would feel wrong at all to say that the two threats were competing to destroy humanity.
Quite inanimate concerns can compete for your attention or spare time, businesses may compete for the same pool of resources (just as a function of what they do as businesses, rather than any explicit conscious desire to win that particular competition).
I don’t see the problem. Organisms compete whether or not they do so consciously - it just means that they are trying to do similar things, against each others’ mutual benefit.