Gerhard Adam

In discussing individualism and collectivism it needs to be clear that this represents overall philosophical perspectives that aren't confined to simple economic or political interpretations.  Rather these ideas permeate human society, its interactions, and the subgroups within it.

In reading some posts regarding health care reform, someone made a comment that struck me as unusual regarding the pharmaceuticals, namely that they had a right to make a profit too. What an interesting phrase; "a right to make a profit". Of course, it isn't even remotely true. Companies aren't even guaranteed a right to be in business, let alone make a profit. One could argue that companies are entitled to make whatever profits they may without interference from the government, but then why should a company have a right that isn't available to ordinary citizens? So where does such a phrase come from and what does it mean?

Individualism is the political philosophy or ideology that emphasizes independence and self-reliance. Individualists advance the idea of realizing one's goals and desires, while opposing most external interference upon those objectives, by society, or any outside agency.Collectivism is a term used to describe any perspective that stresses human interdependence and the importance of a collective or group, rather than the importance of separate individuals. In this view, the emphasis is on community and society, and priority is given to group goals over individual goals.

This is an oft mentioned safety rule that one should employ when driving to ensure an adequate distance is maintained with the vehicle in front of you. When conditions are wet or icy, the rule has been extended to recommend four seconds and up to 10 seconds respectively.This effectively fixes the traffic volume to a constant arrival rate regardless of the speed of the vehicles. In other words, it presumes to maintain a constant flow of traffic despite the variations in individual drivers and makes the traffic volume absolutely dependent on the number of traffic lanes available.Since we have a fixed arrival rate of 1 car every 2 seconds (per lane), then we can calculate how many vehicles per hour a road can handle.

This topic requires many considerations that may be more political than economic, but to try and retain focus, the point is primarily to examine how economic principles (like supply and demand) are dealt with in this arena.There are two ways in which multi-national businesses may manifest. In one case, a company maintains operations to provide goods and services in another country and is completely self-contained. In other words, the goods/services provided are provided by individuals in that country for individuals in that country. This is simply another closed system(1), albeit with a company that originated elsewhere.

In another post the general discussion regarding free will seemed to teeter on the edge of a definition that recognized the significant role that our genes and indoctrination played, while allowing some "wiggle" room for something like free will to emerge. However this also lead me to wonder about the role of determinism in this, because ultimately the argument against free will is based on the idea that we are defined by our genes and teachings, so whatever we do is inevitable.

Kin selection is one of those special considerations derived from “selfish gene theory” that postulates that it is the degree of relatedness between organisms that will determine the likelihood that altruistic actions will occur. This also clearly implies the existence of a social group, of some type, so it isn’t expected that it would play a role between members of different species, or among asocial animals (although it could).In general the idea of “kin selection” is that individuals are more apt to behave altruistically to “blood relatives” than to others in the interest of propagating their genes into future generations. A classic example occurs in eusocial insects where sterile females help maintain the colony for the reproductive queen.

The idea of the “selfish gene” was intended to shift focus from the organism to the gene to provide a different perspective on natural selection. It was been described as a metaphor, or simply a semantic issue. However, without precision in our use of such words, we risk creating assumptions and assigning values where none exist. This is the same problem that occurs in describing animal behavior when one anthropomorphizes. “The key question, as we shall see, is how natural selection can produce selfish genes that prescribe unselfishness.”Bert Hölldobler and Edward.O.Wilson, The Ants

Contrary to many notions about predators, it would seem that there are many whose success is directly linked to their social organization and more specifically to the role of the social leaders that may direct the group.Predation is, by its nature, an energy intensive, high risk endeavor. Unexpected events may occur resulting in injuries, which may directly affect the ability of the predator to survive.

In previous posts I have made the argument that the brain constructs a data organization framework which represents our worldview (or belief systems). It is against this structure that new information will be evaluated, accepted, or rejected. I also want to be clear that the idea of a worldview or belief system is not optional. All humans have one, since it is a requirement to provide a minimal framework against which data is acquired and classified. It should also be understood that the concept of a belief system carries no special connotation be it religious, superstitious, supernatural, or anything else. It is simply a term that refers to the data organization framework in the brain.

It should be clear that the vast majority of biological interactions are largely indifferent to others, while there is also a high degree of cooperation as necessitated by the evolution of sexual reproduction. It is this level of cooperation that has also given rise to many animals living in groups or participating in group arrangements.While there are many animals that are asocial, there are also a significant number that regularly interact and form groups of varying sizes. It should be clear that the formation of such groups is a cooperative effort, but more importantly it also gives rise to an additional consideration since there is often a “cost” associated in belonging.

The key issue in considering competition is the question of whether changes in resource availability or mates would alter the confrontation. If the answer is negative, then no competition can be said to have occurred. The mere existence of confrontation does not necessarily denote competition.So in considering competition the definition will be focused specifically on the conditions whereby two individuals engage each other in some confrontation for a specific and separate resource. To that end, one of the individuals will end up acquiring that resource while the other is either eliminated or goes elsewhere.However, in a general sense, it is useful to consider first how competition actually manifests itself.