BW: Moreover, "competition" is not a requirement for biological evolution. A new species variation is either successful or it's not, whether the environment changes or not. A bird born without a beak won't survive to reproduce, no matter how many seeds are in its proximity. Since all animals are naturally migratory, they can easily move to a *better* environment, even if their current environment has no scarcity of resources. And, they will "compete" with each other for a *convenient* food supply, even when there are plenty of other sources.
TSW: "Competition is a manifestation of instability, while cooperation is a manifestation of stability."
BW: Tossing in another word, without definition. There's nothing inherently "unstable" about competition. There might be a perfectly stable relationship among competitors. If it's a civil market, ten stores can offer chocolate chip cookies for sale, "competing" for the business of clientele with variable preferences, over time, for one or the other brand of cookie. Not every form of "competition" entails coercion, nor instability.
What you're entirely overlooking are the different *kinds* of competition or cooperation. For example, slavery is a "cooperative" - but usually unstable - relationship between individuals, because it's based on coercion. One doesn't want to be whipped, the other wants production, so they "cooperate" to satisfy their needs. That kind of relationship may be hostile, but it can also be stable ... over many generations.
TSW: "If competition reflects the struggle for existence, then cooperation reflects existence itself. Cooperation is the result of competition."
BW: These sentences make no sense. If something doesn't exist, it can't "compete" or "cooperate" with anything. An animal can be struggling for existence in an environment with no other animals to "compete" against. It would be very odd to say that he's "competing" with his environment.
BW: A pack of animals may "cooperate" in finding prey. In that case, competition (with the other animal, or for a share of the spoils) is the result of cooperation, not the inverse. If the animal being pursued is stronger, then the pack cooperation results in competition to be the furthest away from its wrath or cease to exist.
In other words, you can't simply put words in boxes and equate them with other things in relative motion, nor assume that they are two sides of a dichotomy. Competition and cooperation are just different kinds of relationships, which may be good or bad, depending on whether they entail coercion or voluntary action. Since you assume that there's no such thing as "voluntary", everything in the universe is either "dog eats dog" or "dog f*cks dog" and it's all necessary.
TSW: "The fact remains, however, that competition produces cooperation, and not the other way around."
BW: In some cases, that's true. In others, false. For example, a group of people with a common interest build a ship to sail to another location. If the resources at the new location are scarce, they might compete violently for their individual survival. In that case, cooperation produced competition. You compete for the affections of a woman, but cooperate with her to produce ten children, who compete for your attention. So, competition results in cooperation, resulting in competition.
TSW: "Win, lose, or draw, the cessation of hostilities brings a new, more cooperative relationship between the contesting parties ..."
BW: ... by definition, not fighting is "more" peaceful than fighting. However, you can't build an ethics system around the relatively rare cases of all-out physical conflagrations. Ethics and social "guidelines" need to inform the normal person in everyday life.
Next: The Social Microcosm (Part 4 of 7)