>>12558913Who's to say both ideas cannot compliment each other? One on the micro scale, the other on the macro.
If competition and tournaments are often used to determine the best at a thing. Without it the competitors would not grow at their game, for there would no need to develop strategies, tactics and other ways to get an advantage over your opponent. To say this say competitive idea doesn't apply to nations would be naive. Humanity is at their strongest despite centuries of war, suffering, and chaos. Having financial and energy reserves leverage over everyone else is a short term tactic on humanity's time scale. Could all of modern humanity benefit immediately if fusion tech were unleashed and given to everyone? Likely. Would it be the best possible move to strengthen humanity over a longer period of time? It's uncertain.
Depending on the game state of the world, revealing you have economically viable fusion would benefit and also ruin many countries. The status quo would be quickly thrown apart and those countries most devastated would have have nothing to lose. War would be an opened as an option for them. Perhaps the better move for humanity is to slowly change the status quo, playing their best possible moves, cautiously and saving your trump card for last.
What's certain is this, both ideas do improve the group's total betterment, but the outcome and overall strength of humanity of the two are different. Both would strengthen humanity, but which humanity would be stronger?
