If we do not have competition how can we ever know who is best—reaiiy best?

Why do we ever need to know who is best in anything?

Why do we ever need to know who is the most beautiful—the most intelligent—the most successful—the most talented?

Why do we ever need to know who is the brightest—the fastest— the strongest—the sexiest— the richest?

Why do we ever need to know what the best film is or the best TV show or the best book or the best music or the best restaurant or the best country?

Why do we constantly pit people against one another?

Why do we have to have winners and losers?

For every winner we create scores of losers. For no reason at all.

This relentlessly competitive environment serves no useful purpose. Above all it proves nothing.

The fact is that there is no such thing as the "best." There is no such thing as the most attractive—the most intelligent—the most tal­ented.

There is no such thing as the best performer. No best director. No best writer. No best architect. No best physicist. No best pianist or violinist.

There is no best anything.

Most human activities cannot be quantified for accurate comparisons.

Then too this obsession with ratings trivializes everything. We triv­ialize learning—trivialize intelligence—trivialize creativity—trivialize science and art and business and politics and sports. We trivialize human relations.

The annual Academy Awards presentations highlighted with much fanfare on global television are an example of the trivialization of crea­tivity and entertainment.

Hundreds of actors—directors—producers—others involved in the making of films attend these ceremonies in formal clothes. (Perhaps the no-nonsense attire is intended to lend some sophistication to this ba­sically aggressive vulgar affair.) Awards for the "best" this and the "best" that are bestowed and ravenously accepted with pathetic mel­odrama.

This offensive annual display unleashed on the world trivializes the lovely magical world of cinema.

Why reduce everything to competition? Why childrenize and manip­ulate people by bestowing and denying rewards?

One day in the coming decades—as we evolve into more intelligent people—we will look back with embarrassment at such imbecile af­fairs as the Academy Awards—the Emmy Awards—the Nobel Prize Awards—the Olympic Games—the Miss Universe Contest . . .

Praise and reinforcement are certainly necessary. But why at the expense of others?

It is one thing to say "You are an admirable scientist" (or artist or whatever). It is quite another thing to proclaim to the world that "You are the best."

Decades ago psychologists made us aware of the injuriousness of pitting siblings against one another. Enlightened parents stopped the age-old habit of manipulating their children by comparing them with one another: "Your sister is prettier than you. Your brother is much smarter than you will ever be. . . ."

If it is obvious to us now that such manipulative parenting undermines the self-confidence of children and engenders lifelong aggressiveness and bitterness why do we persist in perpetuating such competitiveness in other areas of our lives?

Some people in California have created noncompetitive games and sports. The object of these activities is to help people collaborate— rather than compete—to keep a game going. We have introduced such no-lose games to our Futurist picnics in Los Angeles. They have been fun and stimulating.

We all need to incorporate this collaborative spirit in all areas of our activities.

Date: 2015-02-28; view: 1034