If some persons explicitly declare hatred in their agenda towards you, you do not seek to live ‘cooperatively’ with such persons. If you seek to live cooperatively, since the goal of their agenda is to hurt you, you in essence make it easier for their hatred to be successful. In respect of such persons, you seek to live ‘non-cooperatively’. The easiest way to live non-cooperatively with people who explicitly declare hatred for you is to distance yourself and your agenda for life.
Imagine then a world within which everyone is suspicious of everyone else. In presence of suspicion as ubiquitous sentiment in context of interactions with strangers, everyone lives non-cooperatively. In such a scenario, neighbors, coworkers, citizens of the same country etc. live non-cooperatively in relation to one another. Given everyone seeks to distance themselves from those with whom they seek to live non-cooperatively, society becomes fragmented. In attempts at grappling with all of the loneliness and artifice of the outcome, mindfulness is compromised. Enter smart phones, video games, recreation, sex, and drugs as substitutes.
Who needs companionship and friendship in presence of smart phones, video games, endless sources of recreation, sex, and drugs? If all you did for recreation starting today was watch television series that have been canceled, you could keep busy the rest of life.
The truth of the matter? A society within which everyone lives non-cooperatively in relation to everyone else is dysfunctional. In this respect, consider the following.
Suppose mankind only can create life through natural means, which is, sex between a male ‘man’ and female ‘man’ (woman), the term ‘man’ here generic for mankind, as such denoting equality of essence. Absent heterosexual sex, mankind goes extinct. In presence of this fact, and for self preservation, survival dictates importance of heterosexual sex. We have then that creation of new life requires two persons, male and female.
If the man and woman do not plan to live cooperatively in relation to one another, and do not plan to live cooperatively in relation to the new life they bring into the world, they live irrationally. If the new life created does not appreciate all of the care and nurture it took in order for he or she to arrive at maturity and independence, with outcome there is desire for living cooperatively with parents, the new life is irrational. In aggregate, we conclude that there exists at least two persons with whom people ought to attempt to live cooperatively, meaning either of parents, or combination of a spouse and child.
Nature dictates there exist at the very least two persons with whom you ought to be able to live cooperatively. This is the reason parents upon death typically will their wealth to their children.
Now suppose rather than just one male and female, there exist two males and two females who pair together for producing of new life.
Assume each married pair live cooperatively in relation to each other, but one couple decides for whatever reason not to live cooperatively in relation to their baby. Well then, the child grows up, is treated non-cooperatively, as such cannot rationally choose to live cooperatively in relation to his or her parents. He or she then has a choice.
Either marry and love a man or woman supernaturally provided by God, and live non-cooperatively with everyone else, or live non-cooperatively in relation to biological parents, and cooperatively in relation to everyone else. Since God only supplies spouses for procreation, with goal of avoidance of imbalance in aggregate numbers of males and females, heterosexual sex remains foundational for maintenance of human existence. In the decision of one couple not to live cooperatively in relation to their child, however, non-cooperative living is introduced into the world, and Utopia of cooperative living is disturbed, is no longer ‘perfect’.
It takes just one couple who refuse to live cooperatively in relation to their child for non-cooperative living to be introduced into Utopia.
Suppose on the contrary, it is the child raised by one of the couples who decides not to appreciate love showered by his or her parents, who chooses to live non-cooperatively in relation to biological parents.
If this child lives cooperatively in relation to the other couple who are not his or her biological parents, this is evidence of irrationality. It is irrational to desire to live cooperatively with the other couple who have not benefited him or her in any way, and live non-cooperatively with biological parents. The only rational course of action is, with exception of the supernaturally provided spouse, to live non-cooperatively in relation to everyone else.
If a child refuses to appreciate nurture provided by parents in context of cooperative living, with exception of their spouse, the only rational course of action is non-cooperative living in relation to everyone else.
The foregoing illustrates how actual source of non-cooperative living can be difficult to deduce.
A child can be induced to live non-cooperatively with biological parents either because he was not loved, with outcome non-cooperative living is rational response, or because he or she chooses not to appreciate love showered by parents.
Regardless of confusion of source of non-cooperative living in society, one thing stands out, which is, it takes only one person not loved, or one person who chooses to not appreciate love, for non-cooperative living to emerge in Utopia.
Well then, now imagine millions or billions of people not feeling loved.
If society is to take a step back from precipice of preponderance of non-cooperative living, it only can happen two persons at a time.
The steps back will occur because one person chose to love, and the person loved chose to appreciate love. As this action spills over from person to person, the desire to live non-cooperatively is mitigated, and people are able to seek others out for cooperative living.
Cooperative living grows in society in multiples of two persons.
A society that functions in entirety on non-cooperative living never can be healthy. Life is designed such that we are supposed to be in cooperative living with at the very least two other persons.
There once was a man who decided, consistent with ancient customs, that upon his death, all of his wealth would go to one of his children, who decided to live cooperatively with this child.
In order to demonstrate care for all of his other children, while he remained alive, this man bestowed wealth on each and every child that was not his heir, then advised them to relocate to a region devoid of any others of his children. Each of this children had to leave his estate, leave that region. While the bulk of his wealth would go to one child, by introduction of distance between each child, this man ensured each child would by default live cooperatively in relation with all other children.
Regardless of designation of only one child as heir, this man lived cooperatively with all of his other children, yet ensured none of the children could live non-cooperatively in relation to others.
Some men just are endowed with sage endless wisdom.
The reality in the world today is sad, rather unfortunately tends to be far from sage endless wisdom illustrated above.
Sometimes even married folks with children cannot count two persons with whom they are engaged in cooperative living. Marriage is an endless tussle for control, for who takes out the garbage, for who gives up time for the children, for who manages finances.
The children, who are caught up in competition in school way before they are mature enough to handle it, throw tantrums for attention, engage in manipulation of parents. Attempts at manipulation of parents turn parents into competitors with one another, and on and on goes cycle of non-cooperative living.
The cycle of non-cooperative living in today’s world might be more dependable than the water cycle.
A society within which married people cannot confidently name two persons with whom they live cooperatively stands on precipice of relationship catastrophe.