The debate "Evolution shows harmony is more sustainable than competition" was started by
June 9, 2020, 1:13 am.
20 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 9 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Harmony posted 1 argument, Nemiroff posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Harmony, AerichJ, therascal and 17 visitors agree.
safalcon7 and 8 visitors disagree.
there is certainly harmony in evolution: social or hive species like ants survive on teamwork, and symbiotic relationships exist throughout nature... however you were referring more to competitors finding seperate niches, and with both evolution and capitalism, that is only a temporary truce.
niche finding and diversification usually happens after an extinction or revolution (like a recession, or the development of the jaw). empty niches are easy to fill, but developing new niches is very rare. once they are all filled, streamlining and effiency take over; that's how you get omnivores, apex predators, and multinational conglomerate monopolies that can dominate many niches. left to their own devices, these systems create monsters. look how awesome nature's latest apex creation (us) has been to the rest of nature?
If you think evolution is a farse then think about survival in a business context.
For example: in London, Dominoes and Pizza Hut don't compete so they both succeeded, whereas in countries where they competed Dominoes won.
In London they simply cater to different niches of the pizza market. Dominoes delivers pizza quickly, Pizza Hut delivers a restaurant experience. They differentiated into two niches their environment -- the customers -- wanted, instead of competing head on until one side buckled.
Both survived because they harmonised with their environment. They looked at what their environment wanted and fit themselves into it ---- they harmonised.