The Argument
Shenk argues that "the single best way to inspire better performance is to be surrounded by the fiercest possible competitors and a culture of extreme excellence" (105). Kenyan coaches will assign ridiculous amounts of training to their runners "even if four of out every five runners break down [because] the fifth will convert that training into performance" (106). However, Shenk later dismisses this type of laissez-faire competition due to its immorality and production of "unfortunate losers" (154). Developmental biologists argue that "all of human development is set up to be a response to problems and failures" (142). Therefore, wouldn't the laissez-faire form of competition bring out more development in everyone, including the ones that fail? Which type of competition do you think is more beneficial to a culture as a whole? Are humans the only organisms that exhibit growth through competition? If not, provide some examples. Please relate your answers to community interactions discussed in Section 54.1 of Campbell and competition for mates found in section 51.4. Also, relate your answers to the biological themes of interdependence in nature and evolution.
Josh Choi (joshchoi95@yahoo.com)
-The Argument
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, Shenk’s discussion on the laissez-faire idea that “pure self-interest and market efficiencies will create the most productive society” seems to be consistent with humans’ thought process of how other animals learn to survive through survival of the fittest and allocation of resources beneficial to the animals (154). Due to different processes of thoughts, humans share different views about society based on culture, family, and traditions. While the laissez-faire ideal may appear beneficial for Kenyan runners, the same ideals would appear unjustified by people from different environments where they are prone to different ideals and different interactions with other people. For humans, the type of competition is dependent on the environmental stimuli that can shape people’s beliefs.
Other animals, however, seem to share similarities with laissez-faire competition (without market influence). When we look at how many different organisms focus on survival in order to undergo maximal reproduction, competition is unavoidable. Many populations will contain an unequal amount of females and males as well as limited resources. In the many different societies of humans, resource management and migration and movement aren’t based on which individuals outcompete other individuals for resources that affect growth and survival. Yet, other organisms of different species and well as other organisms of the same species undergo interspecific and intraspecific competition respectively to outcompete one or the other. Different species are eliminated by the superior competitor through competitive exclusion and many organisms resort to resource partitioning to coexist in the same community while gaining viable resources for survival and reproduction. While humans have many different goals in their lives, other vertebrates and invertebrates focus only on sexual reproduction by gaining viable resources and performing courtship as well as agonistic interaction with other potential competitors for the specific mate (Campbell 1136). Other species appear to share laissez faire ideals and the thought processes of humans have lead us astray from the importance of survival and reproduction.
In the journal article, “Interference from long-tailed finches constrains reproduction in the endangered Gouldian finch.” Ecologist James Brazill-Boast discusses how long-tailed finches outcompete endangered Gouldian finches in resources within the sympatric populations of the two species of finches. Interestingly, while the long-tailed finches prevent the number of Gouldian finches from expanding, background research by Brazill-Boast suggested that the long-tailed finches also inhibit the number of Gouldian finches from decreasing and leading to extinction. The experiment involved interspecies competition for resources with different distances between the population of the two species and that long-tailed finches were in fact the superior competitors.
When we talk about sexual reproduction and competition, the inferiority of certain organisms and unequal allocation of resources doesn’t necessarily bring about disorder, but rather stability in ecosystems. The development of food webs and food chains explain how different species depend on other species through interdependence. Food webs and chains imply that the cycling of resources and food from one trophic level to the next prevent the extinction of a certain species in the food chain and in fact contributes to survival of the species as whole. Different species depend on the competitive interaction with other species to prevent the loss of the species’ existence as whole.
-Trish Chari (trishtennis@gmail.com)