Collaboration Will Take Us Where Competition Can’t
Are people inherently altruistic, or are they self-centered? This question brings us to the heart of how we have organized our societies, economies, and governments. It is the most consequential question of our time. How we answer it determines whether we keep building our institutions around competition and mistrust or around collaboration and a shared future.
OnTrackWorld is founded on the conviction that collaboration and coordination, not competition, are the superior means of ensuring that business and government serve the best interests of all. Establishing that principle as the foundation of civilization is our purpose. But, we must first understand how we came to believe the opposite and why that belief has never been as solid as we were taught.
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 "survival of the fittest" was not Darwin's phrase at all — it was coined by Herbert Spencer and only adopted by Darwin in a later edition of On the Origin of Species. Contrary to popular belief, Darwin's key observations of natural selection did not focus on 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.
Across the world, at any moment, on any given day, billions of people go about their business looking out for each other's best interests. If that weren't true, the world would not work as well as it does. Cooperation and thoughtfulness abound, while selfish, antagonistic acts pale in numbers. "Are people inherently compassionate or self-centered?" has remained an oft-posed question because of the difference in impact between acts of cooperation or love and acts of aggression or thoughtlessness.
Hug someone today, and the feeling of love can fade by tomorrow. You almost have to hug them repeatedly, and we do. Shoot or knife someone, drive drunk and crash, or meanly criticize another person, and the memory and consequence can last a lifetime. It is this severe and often lasting impact of violence and negativity that muddies 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?
"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 Darwinism 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." 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.
Effective, 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.
Mounting environmental stresses from the world's exploding population and ever-increasing competition to exploit the globe's abundant yet finite natural resources threaten our peace and prosperity.
It is more crucial than ever to discard these outdated, limiting assumptions and embrace a new paradigm — one of commitment to our community, both locally and globally. It is time to redesign our systems of governance and commerce around collaboration, to ensure sustainability and prosperity for everyone.
What is OnTrackWorld's role in this essential shift in priorities? We teach and lead by convening stakeholders in productive dialogue using our question-based dialogue method, IntelliSynthesis®. By their nature, questions open 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 — with competition serving as a tool within that collaborative framework, not as the framework itself.