Not only do we help our family, tribe, but we extend that to animals.
When hunting, we feel a kind of sadness when taking the shot which downs the prey. Most hunter-gatherers then give a short prayer and thank the prey.
I wonder is there any connection between pray and prey?
Instead, he argues that historically and in societies around the world, we didn't fundamentally 'trade' in this way, but rather we 'gave things' and 'got things in return' in the same way we exchange things with friends and family ('tribe?'). The basis was cooperation, not cold exchange. The same goes for democracy. Instead of majority rule, most(?) societies operated through consensus models, with majority vote as an undesirable last resort.
I don't know enough about the topic to agree or disagree strongly, but having lived in a more 'traditional' society for much of my life, it does seem that many of the problems in my current society (Holland) are a direct result of the 'transactional' model. The interconnectedness and gift-based economics I experienced in that society had many advantages, and the lack of this here is, in my opinion, a primary cause for loneliness, alienation, lack of cross-class interaction, and resulting increase in individualism and self-centeredness.
It's also interesting to me to see that my younger friends are much more interested in communal living and similar sharing initiatives, engage much more with the 'informal economy', and generally speaking dislike consumerism. In part they have no choice, but in part they seem quite happy with the results (despite difficulties finding jobs and getting a 'normal' career going).
Do things succeed because they adapt correctly over a given time frame or do they succeed because the adapt correctly over a given time instance. The evaluation of whether competition successfully denotes success is limited to the scope of variables that the competition tests. If those variables cease to be indicative of success, then we have a lot of stuff that appears like it won the war, when in actuality it only won a very small subset of selective battles, much of what we only arbitrarily correlate to success (because without reproducing the conditions exactly, the data and information we can derive about the past is limited and/or subject to malleability).
We've evolved this far because we did. It's survivor bias.
It is entirely likely that there exist good things that are adapted for everything they purport to be, aside from competitive environments. If competition is eliminated, we can at least begin to separate the variables that are a function of the competitive process, and the variables that denote skill.
It is not necessary that we leave the survival of culture and ideas up to the same primitive mechanisms that determine whether a fish with smaller gills reproduces in a shallow pool rather than a deeper one - and make the inference that because it does survive, that it was because of the depth of the pool, and not because of the lack of sharks. Just because it has worked so far does not mean it will continue to work. Competition can cause emotions to control direction rather than objectivity over the data as it exists. When people want to win just because they want to win, .. Then competition becomes a measurement of competition, and not of the things it purports to select for.
You wouldnt survive a week or two if you had to compete with other animals and other humans.
Humans are the way we are because of co-operation rather than competition.
Humans are group living animals, we do not compete within the group or outside of the group - we co-operate so everyone, the group, can survive.
Humans are the way we are because we figure out a way to cheat.
Id like to see you go onto a wild horse with a spear or stick.
> Look at you, your legs, your nose, your fleshy hands, exposed ears ands eyes, soft belly. All soft targets, easily killed, unlike a snake, rhineceros or any animal with at least claws or fangs.
Right. Which is why we have complex language and hands capable of fine motor skills and an innate ability to band together in groups to fight off everything else.
Humans doubled down on the "big complex brain" strategy, then doubled again, then kept doubling until we were making marks to keep track of who owned how many cattle. It was a very short step, evolutionarily speaking, from that to the smallpox vaccine, Neil Armstrong, and the Eroica symphony. It was hardly a step at all, in fact.
Our brains were so successful that we didn't die of not having claws, fangs, or the ability to reliably have multiple offspring at once. In fact, human heads are pushing up on the size limits of what women can safely push out of the birth canal without endangering either mother or child.
In our way, our competitive strategy is just as specialized as a poison dart frog's: Whereas the frog is too toxic to eat, we're too smart to take down.
The fact a lot of our smarts comes down to the ability to cooperate within the species does not negate the fact we're competing with other species. Not so much now, perhaps, but I'd consider our competition with the polio virus to be rather heated. (Fairly one-sided, but heated.)
You're not so smart so you cant be taken down by yourself, your brain doesnt protect you from claws and fangs. Only as a cooperative group are we strong. Not when competing, but when cooperating.
Our brain is the cooperation centre. It has this capacity to feel with others, be it animals or humans.
Cooperating to do what? To compete against other species and groups of humans!
To answer your question; no, not to compete, but to find the answer to the meaning of all life and explore every corner and creek of this common planet, and together, to enjoy that.
Oh and good luck exploring the world if your species goes extinct because it got outcompeted.
When humans co-operate they become super apex predators, but even alone, unarmed, they are formidable.
Also, allowed humans to hold out in all sorts of climate zones of the world.