In Molina’s Cooperation and Competition in Social Anthropology, anthropological evidences demonstrates that cooperation emerged not only because as a response to competition, but rather the two coexist in all societies. For example, foraging societies rely on generalized reciprocity as their mechanism, which aims to prevent competition and inequality by encouraging cooperation and sharing. Tribal societies stress hierarchy and prestige. But just as @vinitinandwani3427 pointed out, in spite of that, “the extent of competition within the society does not compromise trust, and in a way includes cooperation.” In peasant societies, moral economy demonstrates that even though people compete with each other in regular activities, but they cooperate in times of need.
Molina’s publication has formal structure. He first identified the three mechanisms for the evolution of cooperation, then used three types of societies to illustrate the mechanisms. As @selinae1 mentioned, Molina used many credible sources, which makes this publication sound more formal and scientific. Also, he sheds a much more positive light on competition. In contrast, Bateson’s commentary is more casual, the examples she provided are more informal and relatable. This difference exists because Bateson’s purpose is to call to action, where people should act as “parts of interdependent systems” instead of competing against each other. Molina’s purpose is not call to action, but instead shows a different angle to investigate competition and cooperation. In this case, Werron’s and Molina’s publications are more similar as they provide us a tool to look at the competition, while Bateson’s and Hutcheon’s publications are more similar as they both have a call of action to cooperate.
I agree that competition and cooperation coexist. Competition is what drives us to be our best, but by the end of the day, we are just making a bigger pie for everyone to share.