It is maybe too strongly phrased and not universally applicable (where would sports be without competition?). But it is an interesting idea nonetheless. In general we are so deeply instilled with the notion that we should be competitive at all things. Our whole society is based on hyper competitiveness. And look where that gets us. We say that competition is a law of nature, survival of the fittest, etc. But there are a lot of synergetic, collaborative processes in nature. And, while there's competition on micro scales, don't ecosystems find their balance in what species leave for others to thrive on?

Is competition the best way, in all those cases we think it is? Or is it just the easiest, low-friction way for an individual to gain advantage? And not so much benefiting the collective. Are coopetition, collaboration, cross-pollination more advanced and sophisticated mechanisms of evolution? Maybe requiring higher levels of civilization than mankind can bring to the table right now.

I've alway shied away from sort of personal competition.

On the other hand, I have tried to "play to win" with stuff I do, which is giving it everything to succeed. Just not with the intent to make someone else lose. I've never really enjoyed pvp games.

Can someone explain healthy competition in their words?

I wonder if it's the Peter Thiel meaning of the phrase. His entire book Zero to One is about how one should strive to do things no one else has done, for true capturing of the market. Of course, that's much easier said than done.

There's still competition your just playing with a stacked deck.

the world is full of competition. write the article is a competition against other articles.