Are our resources limited?

Competition arises when there is high demand for a scarce resource. Following this definition, competition should occur only in areas where resources are limited — when resources are unlimited, everybody can have as much as he/she wants without any sense of depleting or diminishing the other one.

At any given time, the food in the world is limited. So, if the food requirement of all the people alive exceeds the total amount of food, there’s obviously going to be competition for food. Over time, of course, the total food production may increase, reducing the level of competition for food. At any given time, the space in the world is limited. If the total space needs of the people are more than that limited amount, there’s obviously going to be competition for space. Over time, the rise of multistoreyed flats, the urbanization of forests and other measures are being employed to reduce competition for space.

The number of top positions in a given company is limited. And there are many who want to be in a top post. The number of seats in a college is limited. And the number of applicants is typically far in excess of the number of seats.

Summary: Wake up to the realities of the modern world. Our resources are limited, and competition is an inevitable consequence of this limitedness.

Agreed?

I think this all depends on what we mean by resource. Of course, physical resources are limited. Food and space are limited, and these are serious constraints because every human being needs food, water and shelter. But beyond the need to have good food, good water, good air to breathe, a good temperature at which to sustain ourselves, and some space in a conducive environment, what are our further needs? What resources fulfil those further needs? Our such resources limited? Do we need to compete for those additional resources?

Recall that competition has two essential ingredients:

• A lot of people want a resource
• The number of people who can actually have the resource is limited.

I think that in a lot of the areas where we talk of competition, neither of the two is true. Let’s take, for instance, the area of career planning, something that I already referred to in a previous post.

In India, career planning is almost like the traditional caste system, with a meritocratic instead of hereditary twist. In the traditional caste system, people were supposed to do the same jobs that their parents did. The caste system was more than that: it was implicitly hierarchical, in the sense that crtain jobs (and hence the communities that performed those jobs) were placed in higher esteem than others.

Now, people’s jobs and professions are almost completely determined by their academic abilities as demonstrated in childhood. A student who is good in studies typically takes up the science stream, a student who is slightly behind takes up the commerce stream, a student who is even lower takes the humanities stream. Among students in the science stream, those who are doing really well are encouraged to prepare for competitive examinations (engineering, medical). The others are encouraged to put in a half-hearted effort for competitive examinations, while focussing the rest of their energy on performing well enough in school to get admission to a local engineering college, or if not that, a local science college. And so on and so forth.

The difference between this system and the previous one is that, while fairly rigid, the system does not retain the orderliness of the earlier caste system, where people simply could not jump out of their caste. Rather, despite its rigidity, the system keepsrequiring people to prove their position through considerable hardwork and consistent performance, because there are always swarms of people below them, willing to take their place.

Notice how the system has cleverly transformed itself. It started out with a traditional rigid hierarchy, where people suffered and were miserable, but there wasn’t competition because they knew they couldn’t really escape. Now, people are made to want certain things just because those things are higher on the hierarchy, and are made to compete for them just beacuse they know that other people also “want” them, and are constantly on the edge for fear of losing what they have.

The question: why did the hierarchy come up? This is a difficult question to answer. I think there are a lot of factors. Firstly, at certain stages in the planning process, the leaders of our society, as well as the big industrialists, realized that certain knids of jobs were crucial for the community. However, many of these jobs required several years of rigourous training. So, they glorified the jobs through high pay and high prestige. They spent huge sums of money on such educational purposes, they spent huge amounts of money on the salaries of those workers. Naturally, many of the top people rushed to such jobs. Now, even as the demand of society for these jobs has reduced, the tempo has been built up.

The second question: why do people, in today’s free society, so meekly submit themselves to the hierarchy? Why do people so greatly hesitate to put their own choices, priorities and interests first and go only for what their marks and grades suggest that they do? I think one reason is that people are not encouraged to think and dream of what they want to become. Even if people have childhood fantasies, very few are given the encouragement to transform these childhood fantasies into more mature adult visions.

I’ve been reading a book called Who You were meant to be: a guide to finding or recovering one’s life purpose by Lindsay C. Gibson. I haven’t yet finished reading it, but it points out to a number of interesting things. It says that most of us have been taught righgt from childhood not to indulge in childish fantasies, and have instilled in us a sense of guilt for dreaming. Serving others as opposed to serving oneself is viewed as a noble activity. Thus, people never allow their childish fantasies to mature into adult visions, they learn to suppress their ideas.

What does all this have to do with competition for resources?

My thesis is that competition for resources is much worse and much more severe when people are being forced to compete for it rather than genuinely wanting it for its own sake. When you compete for something out of desperation, you are already in a bad mood. Then, the mroe the competition, the worse it gets. When, on the other hand, you are competing for something you want and love, you enter the arena in a good mood. You carry positive feelings with you. The competition becomes a game, a sport, that you enjoy.

Think of the traffic jams and the shouts of people as they get stuck in the traffic jam? Is the traffic jam merely because of the “competition” on the road. It’s more than that. It’s because many people didn’t want to be on the road in the first place. They were forced to be on the road to earn the living, or to commute, or for other reasons. The road is not a source of pleasure for them.

And it’s the same with us as we compete for our career dreams. A lot of us don’t want to be there. We are already entering the arena in a snappy, groggy mood. Then, we see a whole lot of traffic in front of us, and we groan.

So, the frustration that arises through competition is not just about not being able to get the things that you want, it is about having to try hard and rough for things you are supposed to want but don’t really want.

So back to the original question. If our resources are not limited, where is the scope for expanding them? The scope for expanding our resources comes by looking at our own inner and personal desires, our dreams. Our dreams and our visions are our resources. Our resources are measured in terms of our ideas, our creations. And these are practically unlimited.

Humans have, with their ideas, created new wealth. Agreed, everything cannot be achieved by the human mind. But the potential is tremendous. Really tremendous.

In subsequent posts, I plan to explore how people can create more resources, and what distinguishes the people who create and contribute from the people who just let their lives slip by in conformity with the hierarchies established by others.

ya ya ya .. cynicism and frustration

One of the key ingredients of the “competitive” outlook of today’ society is a general kind of cynicism and frustration I see in quite a few people around me: frustration with themselevs, frustration with the world. For many, this frustration grows into distrust, and this distrust comes right in the way of everything.

Sometimes, while chatting with friends (physically or electronically) I ask the questions: “Are you a light to society? Do you think you are a noble contributor to society? Do you seek to be a light to society?” I have often got the two responses discussed below.

One response is that today’s people are too materialistic, they trod on the environment, they compete ruthlessly with each other ,the rich snatch stuff from the poor, we live on the backs of poor people, and ultimately, that our existence is a drain on society’s resources. I argue that we, through our good deeds, by performing our duties with sincerity and directing our energies towards noble goals, can and do seek to correct this imbalance, that we are lights to society rather than drains of its resources. The response is tinged with skepticism, which, in simple words, may translate to: You can say all this, because you have it good in life, and through having it good in life, you trample on the rights of others. Imagine a life like that, where you feel that wherever you step, you trample on somebody else, and if you stay rooted on the spot, you crush the ground below! Is such a life worth living?

The other kind of response I encounter is people who say proudly that the world isn’t their concern, they shouldn’t bother about having to live noble and meaningful lives, they have their own stomachs to fill and their own dreams to fulfil. Quite right! But the response goes further than the desire to fulfil personal ambitions, it goes on to condemn or belittle personal fulfilment that could arise through work done to serve others. I think somewhere beneath, this comes from a general distrust of others’ motives, and the belief that everybody has to look out for himself or herself and others cannot be trusted.

Looking at both these responses, I cannot help but be struck at how inherently untrusting and disillusioned they appear, and how they are similar in a key respect: the feeling of cut-throat competition, the feeling of loneliness, that they reflect. Further, people with these cynical outlooks prefer to tout it as practical and realistic and think of those not in their camps as idealistic and removed from the real world.

Frustration with the real world typically comes under the following headers:

1. Distrust of others: People (specially those who are well-off and happy) are selfish and brutish and live off the bounties of others, of the downtrodden and distraught. Ergo, it is morally superior to be downtrodden and distraught than to be well-off and happy. It is morally superior to be poor than to be rich, to be rejected than to be accepted, to lead a “simple” life rather than lead a “competitive” life.
2. Distrust of self: A large number of people don’t trust themselves. They don’ttrust their abilities to dream, to fulfil their dream, to solve the big problems of their lives,to take themselves forawrd, to succeed, to do anything they care about.

First, as regards distrust of others.

I think that people are inherently very good-natured, and usually perform their duties admirably well, though they may miss out on certain aspects of their duties or on some things they could do to make their lives and the lives of those around them better. Further, we live in a social fabric, and it is in the interests of our selfish well-being to desire the good of the society in which we live.

Some simple thoughts to help us appreciate our connectedness and interdependence:

• The food we eat everyday. Breakfast made in the toaster, lunch in the canteen, dinner from an eatery (or whatever). Think of the large number of people whose concerted work and effort has made this possible for us — the people growing the foods, the people processing the foods, the shopkeepers who go and get the foods for us, the people making the equipment with which we cook the food, the people in canteens who serve the food to us.
• The water we use for bathing and washing. Think of the municipal water supply, the architects who fixed the water pipes, and all the others, due to whom you can get water simply by turning a tap.
• Access to the Internet. Think of all the people involved in the idea of the Internet, all the people and agencies involved in setting up telecommunications, all the people involved in making computers, all the people who have worked hard to make the websites and mail services you so fondly use.

All these reflect the material and economic side of connectedness, wherein people put in effort for each other’s material comforts.

Equally important, though not so easily measurable, is the emotional and personal connectedness that we as human beings enjoy. These range from good gestures to strangers on the street, to intimate discussions and sharing of feelings with close friends and family members. Apart from the short-term enjoyment and emotional richness we experience through this connectedness, it also defines our long-term existence and purpose.

What I’m driving at is that we are, as human beings, cooperating and helping each other a lot. In fact, we have more opportunities to do so than possibly in any past era. Whether from community motives or purely selfish motives, our lives are more intertwined than ever. But the human mind is, in some sense, not ready for the enhanced level of interaction, or the stresses that go with it. It is precisely because of this tremendous expansion of our responsibilities that we often end up unable to cope with it.

Which stil leaves the question: what brings about the frustration and cynicism? Why does the mere overload of responsibilities lead to a distrust of the basic motives of other people? Why are we unable to trust people who have done nothing to indicate themselves untrustworthy?

From what I have seen, there are typically two factors responsible: one is a general air of distrust passed on from others around us. Typical things include one nation distrusting the motives of another, one family member distrusting the motives of a relative, a homemaker suspecting that the vegetable sellers are out to rob him or her, citizens not placing any confidence in the ability of the government to bring about positive changes. As children, we often pick this general air of distrust right from a young age, and seek confirmation of it in all our interactions, hoping to “discover” it for ourselves.

The other factor is a specific betrayal close to the home or heart. This could be a fight between the parents, a quarrel between a parent and his or her sibling, a breakup with a boyfriend or girlfriend, or a public humiliation by a close friend. Once the initial shock of these events is over, the person develops a protective layer around himself or herself, saying “I don’t want to get hurt again. People are untrustworthy. Let me not get too close to them. Let me stay at a safe distance.”

And for both of these, the answer is get out of it. There’s no way being cynical about people’s basic motives is going to help one get on in life. It hinders exploration, it obstructs commitment, it prevents proper communication. It makes us feel unnecessarily competitive and tense and uncertain in situations where we could gain a lot through interacting. Past memories and childhood biases are, in short, holding us hostage, preventing us from living happy lives. Who wants such a sacrifice, whatever the moral brownie points?

I now come to the other cause for frustration and cynicism: distrust of oneself. Distrust of onself is closely related to what I had, in the previous post, termed self flagellation. But a distrust runs deeper than simply flagellation. While flagellation restricts itself to specific tasks and shorter attitudes, deep distrust often take the form of NEVER, of statements like:

• I can NEVER make it big in life.
• I can NEVER make money out of what I enjoy.
• I can NEVER have a satisfactory personal relationship.
• It is just IMPOSSIBLE for me to keep myself in good physical shape.
• I am simply INCAPABLE of getting on to a worthy path in life.
• NOTHING will ever work for me.

Again, this distrust arises in two ways: the hand-me-down stuff from parents, teachers and peers, who may either directly undermine our self-confidence or whom we may perceive as doing so. Teh other is when we fail to do something on which we have set our heart, mind and soul. The distrust of one’s potential isthen simply a protective covering against yet another risk of failure and fear.

Where does all this analysis take us?

Cynicism and disbelief in the motives and intentions of others is one of the major negative ingredients of what we perceive as today’s competitive environment. Yet, the causes for these, as I have discussed, are not so much competition, as they are influences and the result of personal experiences. And the beauty is that these can be eliminated, with minimal effort, and we can lead our lives with a much greater sense of connection with the people around us.

And there’s only one direction to go in from a cynical attitude: away.

Thinking Beyond Flagellation

The title “Thinking Beyond Competition” may evoke mixed responses — what does it really mean? Does it imply that we people today are too competitive and need to shed our competitiveness? Not exactly. I think that today we have a lot of potential in our hands and consequently, also a lot of responsibility. Excellence and specialization is the order of the day. When different agencies and entities strive towards excellence in the same area, competition is a natural corollary. This competition is qualitatively different from the competition for food, water, mates and territory that our animal instincts try to make us cope with. Consequently, we humans often end up applying the wrong “coping mechanisms” to the current competitive scenarios and suffer the consequences.

I’m not talking about the coping mechanisms for out-and-out competition, where the competing agents have no common interests. Rather, the scenarios I discuss here are those frequently encountered in situations where the competing agents are also simultaneously trying to cooperate with each other. This usually happens when the total number of competitors is very large and thus, small groups of competitors consider it in their own interest to align with a few others.

The first of these coping mechanisms is the so called mutual flagellation mechanism. Mutual flagellation works as follows. A and B are both supposed to do a certain task (say, a homework assignment). A, for some reason, was unable to do it. Now, A hopes that her not doing it is nothing unusual, viz that the assignment is hard to do. Hence, A tells B things like: “You haven’t done the assignment, have you?” If B replies that she has done the assignment, A laments about the soup that she is in, and throws praise on B for having done the assignment in time. Somewhat disconcerted, B hastily underplays her having done the assignment, saying that she is behind on a number of other things, and just happened to be able to do the assignment. If B also hasn’t done the assignment, A suggests that they do it collectively, disses the teacher for setting such a hard assignment, or commiserates about the burden of assignments,

The subtlety here is that A seeks reassurance of her competence through something negative about B. This is, of course, not the most pernicious consequence of the “competitive mindset”. But it is one of the most common, something that I am sure you all see at least twice a week, may be even every day.

The second “coping mechanism”, which is fortunately far less common, is that of topper flagellation. Some people simply view it as jealousy, but I think it has a deeper meaning. Once again, it arises from the need of people to feel that they cannot do better.

Suppose you have been working for days on developing or practising something and at last you feel you have something worthwhile. Then, you see a colleague of you produce something of far superior quality. You don’t logically see how, had you been in his shoes, you could have produced something so magnificent. There are lurking doubts within yourself: may be I’m intrinsically not as good? or may be I didn’t exert myself? But it is uncomfortable to put oneself under the scanner, so you instead pick on the other person to rationalize the situation. Typical excuses: if the other person outdid you in academics, you can claim that the person doesn’t have a social life; if the other person outdid you in a co-curricular activity, you can say the person sacrificed time meant for academics; if the other person succeeded in a sedentary activity, you can criticize him for neglecting his bodily health; if the other person has succeeded by putting in long and inhuman working hours, you can safely criticize him for neglecting his family and friends.

Ergo, that person cheated in order to succeed, and you would rather be a good and normal person than sacrifice other things to achieve such a lopsided success.

The third, and possibly most pernicious “coping mechanism” is that of self flagellation, which basically means that I criticize myself for not being able to cope up with the competition. Superficially, it appears as if the self-flagellators have got it right — they are looking inwards to determine reasons for their failure rather than seeking to fix the blame on others or shift responsibility. However, 99% of self-flagellation fails to miss on the genuine causes and the genuine improvement measures needed to achieve greater success: all too often, they focus on peripheral issues I already know have existed, do exist, and will continue existing. Typical things are:

1. I didn’t work hard enough
2. I was juggling too many things
3. I wasn’t really all that keen on it.
4. I don’t have the correct level of experience and the right resources at my disposal

All these points can be said for almost every endeavour. The point where self-flagellation becomes dangerous is when people start converting these flagellations to self-praise:

1. I am not one of those hardworking types. I enjoy. Chill Chill Chill.
2. I always have lots of things on my agenda. I’m in demand. I’m not like one of those jobless people who can afford to give their full energies to one task.
3. I’ve learnt not to go around getting attached to worldly achievements, worldly objects, people, dreams etc. I live life a day at a time. Why go around risking your neck?
4. I lead a simple life. I don’t go around accumulating resources and wasting other people’s time to fulfill some stupid ambitions. I stay within my boundaries. I’m not one of those aggressive arrogant types.

A quick review of the three “coping mechanisms”:

1. Mutual flagellation (second person flagellation)
2. Topper flagellation (third person flagellation)
3. Self flagellation (first person flagellation)

Interesting, isn’t it, that all of these coping mechanisms are flagellative: they seek to pull both oneself and each other down. Is this what competition entails today? Do we want to remember ourselves as flagellators, as people who discouraged one another, who looked down upon doing things properly, who looked down upon dreaming and achieving? Surely not! That’s the very antithesis of competition. Why, then are we moved so much towards flagellation in today’s competitive world?

I’ll explore these questions in subsequent posts.

Looking forward to comments in the meantime.