Cooperation or Chaos

As it was pointed out in class: even in competition there must be cooperation. Any sport or game must have rules, even the most brutal of competitions. Think of why cheating is so frowned upon. By making the odds unfairly in your favor it destroys any attempts of cooperation. It removes any test of skills or strength and instead the competition becomes another pointless bout of survival. You can also observe this outside of  any game or sport. Take the market system as an example. By every business or product theoretically having the same opportunities, consumers are allowed to choose which product they purchase. The competition comes into play with commercials and general advertising as well simply making the best product possible. If a company decides to completely destroy, or make it impossible for another company to produce, then the cooperation is broken. Also, as many know, competition, and therefore cooperativeness, helps the quality and prices of products. There simply cannot be competition without cooperation. Other wise it is chaos.

Intelligence and Technology

In class the idea that technology is causing people to be increasingly less intelligent or knowledge able. I do not think this is true. Consider how much information has been made accessible by technology. Of course there are books filled with information, and they still hold great value, but the amount of information that has been made available to the masses over the internet is almost miraculous. Technology has also acted as a medium to a better understanding, and knowledge of other countries. Although many people remain rather ignorant of other cultures there is no doubt that we are moving forward.
Technology however, by allowing people to accomplish tasks faster, has given people more time to spend as they wish. The problem comes into play when people chose to spend their extra hours goofing off instead of continuing to expand their knowledge in some manner.

Traits Against Us

When talking about Darwin's theory of natural selection people often tend to think of the traits of a parent  being passed down to the offspring helping them to survive. I know that personally (and I bet many others have done so to) I used to forget about the idea of bad traits or genes being passed to the next generation, such as being more likely to drink or have certain diseases. I wonder if this is in fact part of natural selection. It a harsh thought, that part of humanity may be systematically diminished, but then again many of the individuals still manage to have children and pass on the gene.

The Burden of Freedom

Sartre's concepts bring up the very touchy idea of being 'condemned to freedom', suggesting that freedom is a sort of burden. For Americans, a country who prides itself with freedom, even the suggestion seems, to many, like an insult.  We are condemned in the aspect that we have no choice but to choose one path over another. We can not simply sit idly and wait, for even that is a choice we make. This means that no matter how much we  may not want to we must always decide in some way. However true Sartre's statement I believe his wording is almost too harsh causing people to automatically want to dismiss his theories. Our freedom to choose is still something to cherish, it means that as a species we have the intelligence to make, and capability to act upon, these choices.

Another Observation

In response to philosowater.

I also would be cautious about dealing out absolutes. As far as the idea of people choosing to be poor there are a number of examples to consider. Without doubt there are definitely people who, despite their best efforts, fall into poverty and/or remain there. There are also those who choose to live a simplistic life, for religious believes or other personal beliefs.  There are then the individuals who simply abuse the opportunities that are presented to them. For example there are many stories of families in near by towns that have a low income job but instead of choosing to pay their rent, the money they obtain goes towards their Cable or internet bill. In many of these cases, these families rely and expect, state money to support them. So instead of trying to save up the money that they earn in order to secure a better future, it is often spent on unnecessary goods. It is simply another factor that might be considered before claiming that no one chooses to live paycheck to paycheck.

Determinism and Sartre

Sartre's idea of radical freedom of course conflicts greatly with any concept of determinism but then it is still possible for the two ideas to coexist in  some context. Determinism eliminates any possibility of free will, but even if you fully accept the concept of determinism no one can possibly conceive whatever path has been determined. So even if you believe fully in determinism you can not simply stop making choices(even to stop making choices would be a conscience choice) . For every aspect of our lives that we can actually perceive, it does seem as though everything relies on our choices and as Sartre( in his early works) would argue we are alone in our minds to make these choices.

Choosing

Sartre's idea that all choices are completely and unarguably our responsibility brings to mind the ignorant statement that people choose their sexuality. It can be heard constantly among religious followers and politicians  that individuals chose to be homosexual and that should be able to simply choose to be heterosexual. As if to say that individuals choose to be under constant ridiculed. They suggest that any one who is not heterosexual choose to be constantly bullied and assaulted by members of society. Even more so, that individuals choose to remain homosexual and end their lives instead of simply choosing to change their sexuality. These claims are arrogant and simply stated idiotic. It is the equivalent of saying that an man or woman could chose to be a different race or skin color that they were born.