Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintessHeart
Social cooperation has its cons too. Being too cooperative can lead to the decline of scientific progress as people will not challenge ideas, and also creates a "lazy" society as each of us becomes more and more reliant on others to make up for our flaws instead of learning things for ourselves.
|
Vexx summed it up nicely, but I also wanted to say it for myself. What you're describing isn't cooperation, but being overly polite and agreeable. In terms of scientific research, it's the difference between academics and private industry. In academia there is competition and disagreement amongst labs, but labs will partner up (splitting technology and expertise for different purposes), and ultimately the goal is to publish your data; that is, to share it with the world. The funds to do the work are provided largely by society, and the work is done for society's benefit. That is "social cooperation" from top to bottom.
By comparison, private industry is incredibly closed. They keep much of their work secret (publications are not the goal), and go so far as to keep their employees under non-disclosure agreements. The end goal is to create a product that can be marketed and sold (or at the very least, for patents to be generated). Cooperation is still involved (industry does provide grants to academia), but it takes a very different form.
My opinion is that scientific progress would be stunted if we didn't have academia. Industry doesn't exit for the greater good, it exists for itself. Many Americans downplay the good and necessity of public projects, naively believing that industry alone will lead to a perfect society.