Is anyone and everything a trade off relationship?

There are many situations where one trades off the other, and water and fire are incompatible, but nothing is absolute, and not everyone and everything follows this principle.

From a human point of view, this society is a society of social life, is a society where human beings live in harmony and progress together, although in the face of their competitors, either you die or I live, everyone must compete for superiority, ancient emperors are stepping on countless corpses to the throne, but there are many times when this is not the case, human cooperation will produce the effect of one plus one is greater than two, human beings help each other, each play their own strengths to help better complete the task, this society is not able to live alone, It takes a collective environment to realize one's own value.

From an international point of view, the previous view is that a country's exports increase national wealth, and a country's imports will lead to an outflow of capital, so for a country, it is necessary to try to ensure exports and reduce imports. So the problem comes, if every country is like this, it is zero, this is a similar view of the trade-off, and later, the absolute theory and the comparative theory prove that the ** between the two countries is helpful to both countries, in the division of labor and cooperation, each country completes its own good manufacturing, and then exchange, it will make both countries produce more output than before. This is an example of the opposite of what one or the other looks like.

The same is true for food, two ingredients put together to produce a very delicious dish, the flavors of the two ingredients blend with each other, so that the taste is better exuded, and the results are incredible, such as scrambled eggs with tomatoes, roasted pork with chestnuts, roasted chicken with potatoes, fried eggplant with chili, etc., these combinations are perfect, making the original ingredients make the dish more delicious. This also argues that not everything is a trade-off.

If we talk about the trade-offs of anything, I think there are many counter-examples. Maybe we've forgotten that there is a relationship called a lose-lose relationship, and that there is a relationship called a win-win relationship.

When it comes to people, the most complicated part of the relationship is still in the office war. One of the teams next to our department at the time was the real thing. To put it bluntly, it was the leader of their department who had an awkward quarrel with an employee underneath, and at that time, in fact, our company's management policy was very strict, and to put it bluntly, their team did do some illegal things.

Everyone wants to make money, and then the leader and the employee share part of the responsibility, but when the real head office wants to check, the two people are unwilling to take this responsibility, so they have a long conflict with each other.

Later, the employee went to accompany the boss and was completely enraged, and gave a ** to the company's global complaints. This time, the matter was completely made a big fuss. Because in most cases, once the company has some violations, it is a national discipline inspection department to do the inspection, once you get the money ball, it is basically a very serious violation of discipline, so that the company as a whole is thoroughly investigated.

Then it is not just the small boss who comes ahead, but the entire company, the boss and the director of the large region.

The starting point of this employee when he hit this ** was not to turn the company upside down, but just to say that in the event of a violation, the boss could help him share part of the economic losses. However, the boss's attitude at that time was relatively tough, and he was unwilling to help him bear any losses. Both of them were very tough, but it was actually very embarrassing at the time.

In the end, the final outcome was that the global complaint department came to China to investigate the beginning and end of the matter, and the small boss of this team was later directly fired by the company. I've forgotten about it, anyway it's gone quickly. This employee, at that time, the company's global department made it very clear that it would protect him, but let him take a leave of absence at home for nearly half a year, and after paying half a year's salary, the company's human resources department directly told him, we are no longer continuing to renew the contract with you.

At that time, the performance of this department in our company was very good, and the people under the boss of this team were very popular, but it was a pity that the whole team was dispersed because of this incident. He later went on to find a new position at another company, but the employee was largely scrapped. He later changed banks to get a job and didn't want to work in our industry.

I just want to use this example to briefly refute it, I think there are very few things that are one or the other, many times it is a general trend, the sandpiper and the clam fight, the fisherman wins, most of the time it is a lose-lose situation, or through good cooperation, both sides can win benefits.

No one or nothing is exactly one or the other. Although in some cases we can see a pattern of interdependence, in fact, the relationship between humans and things is very complex and diverse.

Let's look at this from the perspective of human relationships. In our society, the connections between people are interactive. We connect through communication, collaboration, and mutual support.

Sometimes, we find that the departure of certain people has an impact on us, but that does not mean that there is no one else to fill the void after they leave. New friends and colleagues come into our lives, bringing new opportunities and challenges. Therefore, people are not completely dependent on each other.

In the same way, there are examples in nature that are different from one to the other. There is a complex and subtle interrelationship between the various organisms in the ecosystem. While some species may be affected by the decline in the populations of others, nature has always found a balancing way to maintain the stability of ecosystems.

For example, in the food chain, a dynamic equilibrium is formed between predators and eaters. When the number of predators increases, the number of predators decreases, which in turn leads to a decrease in the number of predators. This mutual constraint allows biodiversity to be maintained, rather than simply trade-off.

The economic sector is no exception. Although some companies may fail or fail in the market competition, new businesses will also emerge. Innovation and change have made economic development uncertain, and old industrial methods may be obsolete, but new industries and jobs will also emerge.

Therefore, in the economic field, it is not entirely in line with the trade-off relationship.

No one or the other is just a trade-off. There are complex and diverse interactions in human society, nature and the economy. We should look at this from multiple perspectives and recognize that the connections between people and things are far richer and more varied than simply one or the other.

Everything has a law, and there is a law and the world is peaceful! It's about the relationship between nature and the relationship between people!

So the question you are asking can be said to be very general! It's hard to give you a standard answer! But you just have to remember that everything is related, and there are ups and downs, and there are ups and downs! Where there is a cause, there is an effect.

As a general philosophical category, connection usually refers to the interconnection, interdependence, mutual influence, interaction, and mutual transformation between things or phenomena and between the internal elements of things. In the infinite universe, connection is not a temporary, special relationship between individual things, but an objective, universal nature common to all things, phenomena, and processes; Nothing can exist in isolation, it is connected to everything else; The world is a unified whole in which everything is interconnected; Everything is a part, component, or link in a unified web of connections, and it embodies universal connections.

Contradictions exist both in the relationship between things and within physical objects. But contradiction is not a physical object, but only a characteristic of things. How can you see it?

Contradiction exists in the relative, and only the relative can have contradiction, so a thing must divide it into two opposite parts in order to see the contradiction. For example, a person can see the mind and the body as relative, and the masochistic person is the mind and the body are in contradiction.

You're really good at getting the horns!

You know: not everything is going to be a contradiction.

There must be a unity of contradictions before there can be contradictions!

Contradiction is an abstract thing

Because there is yin and yang, there is opposition, and because there is opposition, there is contradiction.

Everything that has a mind is contradictory, not just a human ok

People are always thinking nonsense. Hehe.

If a country can be truly strong, it must be the internal strength of the people who are prosperous in order to achieve long-term peace and stability.