POST FROM
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: bhishma kukreti <bckukreti@gmail.com>
To: A Community of Uttarakhand Lovers <members@apnauttarakhand.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 14:15:58 +0530
Subject: Re: [Members-MeraPahad] Do you think there is regionalism issue in UK which is obstructing Development ?
My answer is to study the following and apply accordingly
Competition
Competition
is a combat between individuals, groups, nations, animals, etc. for territory, a niche, or allocation of resources. It arises whenever two or more parties strive for a goal which cannot be shared. Competition occurs naturally between living organisms which co-exist in the same environment. For example, animals compete over water supplies, food, and mates, etc. Humans compete for water, food, and mates, though when these needs are met deep rivalries often arise over the pursuit of wealth, prestige, and fame. Business is often associated with competition as most companies are in competition with at least one other firm over the same group of customers.
Competition may give incentives for self-improvement. For example, if two watchmakers are competing for business, they will hopefully improve their products and service to increase sales. If one watchmaker is more responsive to the needs of consumers, this watchmaker will flourish. If birds compete for a limited water supply during a drought, the more suited birds will survive to reproduce and improve the population.
Etymology
The Latin root for the verb "to compete" is "competere", which means "to seek together" or "to strive together".[1] However, even the general definition stated above is not universally accepted. Social theorists, most notably Alfie Kohn [2] and cooperativists in general, argue that the traditional definition of competition is too broad and vague. Competition which originates internally and is biologically motivated can and should be defined as either amoral competition or simply the survival instinct, i.e. behavior which is neither good nor bad, but exists to further the survival of an individual or species (for instance hunting), or behavior which is coerced (for instance self-defense). Social Darwinists, however, state that competition is not only moral, but necessary for the survival of the species.
[edit] Sizes and levels
Competition may also exist at different sizes; some competitions may be between two members of a species, while other competitions can involve entire species. In an example in economics, a competition between two small stores would be considered small compared to competition between several mega-giants. As a result, the consequences of the competition would also vary- the larger the competition, the larger the effect.
In addition, the level of competition can also vary. At some levels, competition can be informal; more for pride and/or fun. However, other competitions can be extremely serious; for example, some human wars have erupted because of the intense competition between two nations or nationalities.
[edit] Destructive competition and co-operative competition
[edit] Destructive competition
Destructive competition seeks to benefit an individual/group/organism by damaging and/or eliminating competing individuals, groups and/or organisms; it opposes the desire for mutual survival. It is “winner takes all”, the rationale being that the challenge is a zero-sum game; the success of one group is dependent on the failure of the other competing groups. Destructive competition tends to promote fear, a "strike-first" mentality and embraces certain forms of trespass.[3]
[edit] Co-operative competition
Further information: coopetition
Co-operative competition is based upon promoting mutual survival - “everyone wins”. Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” is a process where individuals compete to improve their level of happiness but compete in a cooperative manner through peaceful exchange and without violating other people. Cooperative competition focuses individuals/groups/organisms against the environment.[3]
Consequences
Competition can have both beneficial and detrimental effects. Many evolutionary biologists view inter-species and intra-species competition as the driving force of adaptation, and ultimately of evolution. However, some biologists, most famously Richard Dawkins, prefer to think of evolution in terms of competition between single genes, which have the welfare of the organism 'in mind' only insofar as that welfare furthers their own selfish drives for replication. Some social Darwinists claim (controversially) that competition also serves as a mechanism for determining the best-suited group; politically, economically and ecologically.
On the negative side, competition can cause injury to the organisms involved, and drain valuable resources and energy. Human competition can be expensive, as is the case with political elections, international sports competitions, advertising wars and arms races. It can lead to the compromising of ethical standards in order to gain an advantage: for example, several athletes have been caught using banned steroids in professional sports in order to boost their own chances of success or victory. It can also be harmful for the participants, such as athletes who injure themselves when pushing their body past its natural limits, or companies which pursue unprofitable paths while engaging in competitive rivalries. And in the case of an arms race, it can possibly lead to mutually assured destruction.
(from Wikipedia
Poll