<p>I'm willing to accept any suggestions. Please point out my shortcomings as many as possible!~!!</p>
<p>Assignment: Do people achieve more success by cooperation than by competition?</p>
<p>To succeed in the long run, people, especially for the benefit of collective society, need to cooperate rather than compete. Some would argue that Darwin’s theory of survival of the fittest proves that competition, the natural way of evolution, drives humanity to progress. However, as highly civilized human beings, with morality and compassion, we will never dump members who are not the most competitive despite the diminishing resources. As examples from science and history demonstrate that collaboration is much rewarding than contest.
Many significant scientific discoveries involve cooperation. For example, Watson and Crick, along with Wilkins, were awarded the 1962 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine nine years after their most important discovery of the twentieth century— the molecular structure of DNA, which opened the door to the modern field of molecular biology. Both Watson and Crick attributed their success to their special relationship: their ability to complement, criticize, and stimulate each other.
In 1951, Watson joined Crick’s research on the structure of DNA. Using Franklin’s X-ray diffraction images shown by Wilkins, Crick and Watson hurriedly produced and showed off an erroneous first model of DNA, driven in part by the fear of their competitor Linus Pauling. This time, Franklin provided crucial help as she shared her chemical knowledge with them pointing out that their first model was obviously wrong. Linus Pauling, who failed to visit UK for the restriction by the US government and lost the opportunity to see Franklin’s data, announced the same wrong answer of the structure of DNA.
According to Crick, the failure of Wilkins and Franklin to cooperate to find a molecular model of DNA was a major reason why he and Watson eventually made a second attempt which ultimately succeeded.
The Watson-Crick collaboration was a fortunate one, for Crick doubted that either he or Watson could have discovered the structure of DNA alone. Contrast to Linus Pauling who didn’t receive help from other scientists and Wilkins and Franklin who didn’t collaborate, Watson and Crick made best use of the power of teamwork and help from other fellows.
Likewise, history has proved that alliance brings about much more benefits than battle. In the first half of the 20th century, World War I and World War II, which brought enormous destruction of thousands of cities and millions of lives, were ignited mainly by inconsistency among European countries caused by imbalance in colonies and military forces. A few decades after the end of the wars, European leaders realized from their non-win conflicts that cooperation was a better way to settle disagreements, so to secure peace by guaranteeing people free trade across national borders, European Coal and Steel Community was set up, which became known as European Community and European Union later. Without awareness of the catastrophic impact of discord, the European countries wouldn’t have realized the value of concord or have collaboration leading to greater wealth and a higher standard of living.
As these instances demonstrate, people achieve much more success by cooperation than by competition.</p>