[Byrks]

(Original post by jordanosborn)
Well it depends really. To me it's not as clear cut as one or the other they both have their positives. Winner/loser would generate competition and improve products and would encourage people to succeed and be their best. But it would leave the vulnerable behind which to me is unacceptable. Where as the other option every one would be the same so there is no drive to succeed or innovate which would stifle human progress. So I believe a mixture of the two is necessary. I believe it would be worse for everyone involved if we choose the extremes of these two options as one would leave the vulnerable behind and the other would stop the drive to innovate.

Contrary to what most people would say, I do not think competition in winner/loser societies improves products because people compete and people try to be their best. Do university professors only teach because of the incentive of money? (Ok, maybe some economics professors do, but I mean the rest) Or because they have an interest in educating young people and generating knowledge and critical thought in society? Do natural scientists (biologists, physicists, chemists, astronomers, etc.) research the universe because they are competing against each other to be the best and receive a Noble prize? Or because they want to advance humanity and give humanity more knowledge and better tools? Do social scientists do what they do to be paid? Or because they want to advance society and fix its problems?

Human beings are far more complex than competitors whose only drive is to win and be above others.

That said, I obviously support an equal society based on cooperation for humanity's sake rather than a winner/loser society based on competition for the individual's own sake.

[green.tea]

I believe in unequal meritocracy. So id make the education system fair by deciding who went to the best schools on ability alone, have lots of specialist schools since i dont think one size fits all and try to make sure everyone had the best environment to make the most of any talent they had. Obviously the good schools would now need more public money so id do away with the nhs since society would now be geared towards ensuring anyone of importance was able to achieve success and fund their own healthcare.

[cl_steele]

Simple fact is people arent equal, you can try and kid yourselves as much as you like that we are but we're not. Some people will alwyas be more intelligent, better looking physically fit etc. than others, its the way the world works and i see no reason to try and enforce change on it, after all in relaiton to the post how can you say a burger flipper at mcdonalds is equal to a neuro surgeon...?

[Annoying-Mouse]

Winner/loser. As long as the loser isn't losing too much and there's a safety net i.e. welfare state, I ain't got a problem. I'm competitive and I don't want to be limited in what I can acquire.

[jordanosborn]

(Original post by Byrks)
Contrary to what most people would say, I do not think competition in winner/loser societies improves products because people compete and people try to be their best. Do university professors only teach because of the incentive of money? (Ok, maybe some economics professors do, but I mean the rest) Or because they have an interest in educating young people and generating knowledge and critical thought in society? Do natural scientists (biologists, physicists, chemists, astronomers, etc.) research the universe because they are competing against each other to be the best and receive a Noble prize? Or because they want to advance humanity and give humanity more knowledge and better tools? Do social scientists do what they do to be paid? Or because they want to advance society and fix its problems?

Human beings are far more complex than competitors whose only drive is to win and be above others.

That said, I obviously support an equal society based on cooperation for humanity's sake rather than a winner/loser society based on competition for the individual's own sake.

Yeah I understand what your saying. Yeah I also think that some people like scientists would do what they do regardless, due to curiosity. I am also curiosity driven so I would likely pursue being a scientist regardless of the money as long as it was enough to live on. But sadly most humans are profit driven. Your everyday man/woman. But I also believe that due to the ability to succeed many devices have come to fruition. I think many people who invented our everyday devices were profit driven. Discovery's would carry on but would we get better products via people wanting to compete and do better. In an equal society I think that discoveries would not stop but they would slow down significantly.

[RobertWhite]

(Original post by placebo24)
Depends on your notion of 'fair'. In my view, fair would be a society where one puts in what they can give and get outs what they need. A society where you work for the benefit of others, for solidarity, rather than ego.

Expecting those who can give more to reap the same benefits of those who give less is unfair. Humans drive to rise above their peers, we can't deny our evolutionary roots and go against this; it would never work. As a race we advance through competition with each other.

[IAmTheKing]

(Original post by cl_steele)
...how can you say a burger flipper at mcdonalds is equal to a neuro surgeon...?

More people need food than people who need brain surgery. Now in communist terms, that burger flipper would most likely also be the farmer who raised the livestock to make the burgers.

[SnoochToTheBooch]

the mad thing is that even the person at the "botom of the ladder" in our society still has things way, way better than almost any other human that has ever lived.

[RobertWhite]

(Original post by IAmTheKing)
More people need food than people who need brain surgery. Now in communist terms, that burger flipper would most likely also be the farmer who raised the livestock to make the burgers.

The neurosurgeon would have to go through far more hardship to get to that level of performance than a burger flipper/livestock farmer would.

There is no equality in that.

[IAmTheKing]

(Original post by RobertWhite)
The neurosurgeon would have to go through far more hardship to get to that level of performance than a burger flipper/livestock farmer would.

There is no equality in that.

It would all level out; the farmer would be performing far more labour intensive work than a neurosurgeon, and serving a much higher population.

[placebo24]

(Original post by RobertWhite)
Expecting those who can give more to reap the same benefits of those who give less is unfair. Humans drive to rise above their peers, we can't deny our evolutionary roots and go against this; it would never work. As a race we advance through competition with each other.

As I said, fair is subjective.

On the point of evolution, this is widely disputed with many now arguing for 'group evolution' instead, the concept that we progressed best together. As for developing through competition, I disagree. I think competition has actually halted progress a lot. Imagine the scientific advancements we could have made if the greatest minds were working together rather than competing against each other for profit and kudos? Contemplate the progress that could result if we stopped focusing on commodities, a direct product of competition, and put that effort into more worthwhile ventures. I'm also firmly an advocate of Marx's view that we act like the society we are raised within; I don't think we are inherently selfish, I just think we are acting in the context of our system. I believe if we were to move towards an equal society our attitudes would change with it.

[Meteorshower]

(Original post by Byrks)
Contrary to what most people would say, I do not think competition in winner/loser societies improves products because people compete and people try to be their best. Do university professors only teach because of the incentive of money? (Ok, maybe some economics professors do, but I mean the rest) Or because they have an interest in educating young people and generating knowledge and critical thought in society? Do natural scientists (biologists, physicists, chemists, astronomers, etc.) research the universe because they are competing against each other to be the best and receive a Noble prize? Or because they want to advance humanity and give humanity more knowledge and better tools? Do social scientists do what they do to be paid? Or because they want to advance society and fix its problems?

Human beings are far more complex than competitors whose only drive is to win and be above others.

That said, I obviously support an equal society based on cooperation for humanity's sake rather than a winner/loser society based on competition for the individual's own sake.

Competition is an absolutely crucial part of the academic environment. It's just not always financial. Almost all scientists compete for recognition and the better positions. You'd see a far worse quality of scientific community if there was no competition and everyone was considered equally.

[RobertWhite]

(Original post by IAmTheKing)
It would all level out; the farmer would be performing far more labour intensive work than a neurosurgeon, and serving a much higher population.

True, but a neurosurgeon would still live quite a stressful life. At least I would find saving people's lives stressful. We could never make every profession equal.

(Original post by placebo24)
As I said, fair is subjective.

On the point of evolution, this is widely disputed with many now arguing for 'group evolution' instead, the concept that we progressed best together. As for developing through competition, I disagree. I think competition has actually halted progress a lot. Imagine the scientific advancements we could have made if the greatest minds were working together rather than competing against each other for profit and kudos? Contemplate the progress that could result if we stopped focusing on commodities, a direct product of competition, and put that effort into more worthwhile ventures. I'm also firmly an advocate of Marx's view that we act like the society we are raised within; I don't think we are inherently selfish, I just think we are acting in the context of our system. I believe if we were to move towards an equal society our attitudes would change with it.

It is a nice idea - but I'm not sure people could ever overcome what I believe to be in our genetics. I think scientists probably make more progress as they are now. Many people don't enter the scientific profession for money, but for recognition (Noble prize) and work incredibly hard to get it.

[Meteorshower]

Why would a neurosurgeon go through 10+ years of training for no extra reward than a farmer?

[Martyn*]

(Original post by IAmTheKing)
I didn't say it has ever worked, I was merely mentioning that this entire discussion is basically communism vs capitalism. Which it is.

No room for Socialism?

[isusovaca]

(Original post by canŵio)

i definitely prefer win/lose. because you just have to work hard to be a winner. a 'fully equal' society is only good for those who would lose in the win/lose society.

Definitely. It's impossible to create a fair society, but this is the closest we can get. When everyone has everything equal, then why bother actually doing something and working hard?
People are not equal, some are more talanted, hardworking and smarter and they deserve to lead a better life. Of course luck plays its role too, but it's still million times better then an equal society.

[IAmTheKing]

(Original post by Meteorshower)
Why would a neurosurgeon go through 10+ years of training for no extra reward than a farmer?

Because the neurosurgeon might be helping, at a guess, 100 people a year, whereas a farmer would be providing food for 100+ people a day. As I already said, it would level out.

[perrytheplatypus]

If this is purely hypothetical, then an 'equal' society, in which talent is the only factor influencing ones outcomes.

It's quite difficult to achieve this in the real world though...

[Meteorshower]

(Original post by IAmTheKing)
Because the neurosurgeon might be helping, at a guess, 100 people a year, whereas a farmer would be providing food for 100+ people a day. As I already said, it would level out.

I'm telling you that no-one would ever bother to become a neurosurgeon because of the difficulty of the training procedure.

I'm aware you are arguing that it would be fair that a farmer and a neurosurgeon got equal reward, but that's pretty irrelevant if no-one becomes a neurosurgeon.

[TheCookieduck]

To be honest a fully equal society is against nature, it's not at all viable or sustainable. In nature all you see is competition and survival of the fittest. Its that way for a reason: for progression.

Definitely I believe we should have less prejudice and things like that, and an equal society would be good theoretically, but I think it would mean changing humanity completely, and not in a good way....