How do we overcome tribalism?

[Stevicus]

You commented on the fact that the chart titled "Real commodity price index" did not include oil and gas. That may be where we went wrong. This topic is becoming tedious. Let's end it.

The topic of the thread is about how to overcome tribalism. I don't recall how it got onto this tangent anyway.

 

[Heyo]

The topic of the thread is about how to overcome tribalism. I don't recall how it got onto this tangent anyway.

We are now in the disputed territory between the "overpopulation is real" and the "don't worry, nothing to fix here" tribes.

 

[Vouthon]

To answer the OP, by following the ethics illustrated in Jesus's Parable of the Good Samaritan and conversation in John chapter 4 with the Samaritan woman at the well.

I would say that these two ancient narratives are the "gold standard" on overcoming a tribalist mindset.

And any other tolerant and universalist ethical philosophies similar to the code outlined by Jesus in these two stories.

Parable of the Good Samaritan - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The parable of the Good Samaritan is told by Jesus in the Gospel of Luke.[1] It is about a traveler (implicitly understood to be Jewish) who is stripped of clothing, beaten, and left half dead alongside the road. First, a Jewish priest and then a Levite come by, but both avoid the man. Finally, a Samaritan happens upon the traveler. Although Samaritans and Jews were generally antagonistic towards each other, the Samaritan helps the injured man. Jesus is described as telling the parable in response to a provocative question from a lawyer, "And who is my neighbor?", in the context of the Great Commandment. The conclusion is that the neighbor figure in the parable is the one who shows mercy to their fellow man.​

​

Samaritan woman at the well - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The Samaritan woman at the well is a figure from the Gospel of John. John 4:4–42 relates her conversation with Jesus at Jacob's Well near the city of Sychar.​

​

This episode takes place before the return of Jesus to Galilee.[1] Some Jews regarded the Samaritans as foreigners and their attitude was often hostile, although they shared most beliefs... The two communities seem to have drifted apart in the post-exilic period.[5] Both communities share the Pentateuch, although crucially the Samaritan Pentateuch locates the holy mountain at Mount Gerizim rather than at Mount Zion, as this incident acknowledges in John 4:20.​

 

[Heyo]

sure, it can mean that, and it can also mean an increase in resources. Remember that in the past oxygen was a pollutant that some plants emitted and at the time it was caustic to the rest of the environment. What happened next was that life on the planet adapted to increased oxygen and now life has come to depend on a lot of oxygen in the atmosphere.

That was 2.4 billion years ago and it killed over 80% of life then.

That's your opinion. There are about 6 billion people in the world who might disagree.

It's not only my opinion but also that of better informed people than you and me. Cut world population and redistribute resources, expert urges

Like, are you aware that the total biomass of life on earth is over 500 Gigatonnes while the biomass of humans is just 0.06Gt? Let's get a grip here. Humans are about one ten thousandth of the mass of life on the planet and you're saying there's too many of us?

Please.

You realise that there are somewhere in the ballpark of 10 million species on earth? By comprising 1/10,000th of the biomass we are already well over represented. And the other 99.999% of the biomass doesn't burn fossil fuel.

 

[Valjean]

To answer the OP, by following the ethics illustrated in Jesus's Parable of the Good Samaritan and conversation in John chapter 4 with the Samaritan woman at the well.

I would say that these two ancient narratives are the "gold standard" on overcoming a tribalist mindset.

And any other tolerant and universalist ethical philosophies similar to the code outlined by Jesus in these two stories.

Tribes aren't necessarily based on different narratives or philosophies, Humans will tribalize for no reason at all, just to be part of an in-group with an opposing "other."

 

[LuisDantas]

For me, one of the biggest challenges today is how everybody lives in their own little prison cell, echo chamber, whatever... incels vs feminists, men vs women, white vs non-white, etc.

I loathe this kind of groupthink.

But of course, I understand that there are actual grievances, actual double-standards and power imbalances, which need to be addressed.

Then again, on the other hand, I don't believe that these will ever go away completely, and what's more, I don't believe that this tribalistic mindset, in which my group is always the victim and society, "the system", "everybody else" has it in for us, is very helpful.

If the issue is based on putting one's own group above all others, then I don't see another, diametrically opposed group-based approach overcoming the problem.

IOW, I think that group identities are a necessary evil, a construct that we pragmatically need for political achievement, but that can also be a huge mental trap and ultimately don't achieve their goal.

How can we get past this? (Or am I simply wrong in my assessment?)

(The simple answer that comes to mind, is, of course, empathy and compassion, plus rationality. Sure, but that seems a bit shallow and too abstract, and it begs the question of how we can further those in today's world.)

The way I see it, there are two main, complementary and perhaps somewhat opposite approaches that must be used.

The first is to widen the reach of our perception of tribe. That means, essentially, improving ourselves on an individual level by achieving better scientific education, more profficiency in languages other than our native ones, better ethical ambition, better awareness of sociology and anthropology.

The second is to weaken the reliance on tribal thinking, which can be done mainly and most pragmatically by teaching ourselves to belong to as many tribes as possible and play the conflicting attachments against each other with gusto and abandon.

That means weaking nationalism to the point of its well deserved demise, along with "religious" chauvinism and other similar maladies.

That also means valuing adopted children at least as much as those of one's own genes; learning and using other languages; learning of and considering the premises, merits, limitations and flaws of as many ideologies, creeds and religions as possible, with an emphasis on those currently living and influential.

IMO it also means learning and using a few much necessary but little discussed abilities that are necessary to keep individuals and communities healthy. Those include deciding how and when to end and openly reject traditions and other expectations, knowing full well that there are consequences both for attachment and for disregard. A related skill is that of acceptance of mortality and of human limitations. Which itself connects to ecological awareness, which has been shown in recent years to be a surprising challenge for whole ideologies.

 

[Pete in Panama]

You did mention those things in your former post when you reported what is going on Panama (the cooper mine closure).

oh yeah, when I responded to the query about extracting minerals I did mention unemployment (sort of "jobs") but I didn't see the parts about--

• economic stability
• the continuing access to resources by the rich nations of the world
• people and the life I'm familiar with

--because my focus was on environmental impact from mineral extraction. The old switcheroo I guess.

Nobody wants to talk about resource scarcity any more, but be that resources are simply not scarce.

 

[Heyo]

(The simple answer that comes to mind, is, of course, empathy and compassion, plus rationality. Sure, but that seems a bit shallow and too abstract, and it begs the question of how we can further those in today's world.)

Maybe we should start teaching game theory much earlier and much more often. Empathy and compassion are rational, it's a winning strategy.

 

[Pete in Panama]

That was 2.4 billion years ago and it killed over 80% of life then.


It's not only my opinion but also that of better informed people than you and me. Cut world population and redistribute resources, expert urges

You realise that there are somewhere in the ballpark of 10 million species on earth? By comprising 1/10,000th of the biomass we are already well over represented. And the other 99.999% of the biomass doesn't burn fossil fuel.

This is exactly the tribalism that the thread had set out to examine. The problem here is that there is no conversing w/ someone who wants to eliminate most of humankind. To paraphrase Thomas Paine:

To argue with someone who has renounced the use of and authority reason and whose philosophy consists of holding humanity in contempt is like giving medicine to the dead.​

 

[Heyo]

To argue with someone who has renounced the use of and authority reason and whose philosophy consists of holding humanity in contempt is like giving medicine to the dead.

I agree and that is why I think we can stop here and now.

 

[vijeno]

Maybe we should start teaching game theory much earlier and much more often.

I tend to agree, but then again, if I ruled the world we woud teach peoople formal logic, breathing techniques, Latin and Greek, stoicism and all major religions at an early age - and we just don't have enough time for all that. Well, and I don't rule the world. ;-)

Empathy and compassion are rational, it's a winning strategy.

Eh. Not to be all subtle semantics here, but if I calculate my own winning chances and act accordingly, that's not compassion, that's collaboration at best. Which arguably might be better than compassion - but in both cases the major issue remains: People are not rational, and our emotions are often based on hate, greed, anger - ultimately, on fear. I don't see anything to help with that, apart from the tiny tiny changes I can accomplish by trying to improve myself. And that is rather frustrating.

 

[vijeno]

The first is to widen the reach of our perception of tribe. That means, essentially, improving ourselves on an individual level by achieving better scientific education, more profficiency in languages other than our native ones, better ethical ambition, better awareness of sociology and anthropology.

The second is to weaken the reliance on tribal thinking, which can be done mainly and most pragmatically by teaching ourselves to belong to as many tribes as possible and play the conflicting attachments against each other with gusto and abandon.

I like it! It aligns with my moral predilections.

The only downside is, it all amounts to "change yourself to change the planet". Which is true enough, of course, and of course I try to implement that... but is there anything beyond that? Anything positive one can do to improve the tribal state of the world?

FWIW, one thing I'll put on my todo-list is to get into some group activity. More human connection is always a good thing.

 

[Stevicus]

We are now in the disputed territory between the "overpopulation is real" and the "don't worry, nothing to fix here" tribes.

Usually, whenever I encounter those who display the "all-is-right-with-the-world" attitude, it generally means that all is right in their world, while seemingly oblivious or indifferent to problems that exist for others in this world.

 

[vijeno]

Usually, whenever I encounter those who display the "all-is-right-with-the-world" attitude, it generally means that all is right in their world, while seemingly oblivious or indifferent to problems that exist for others in this world.

I have had sentiments like this in my head, in some form or another, on many occasions, about different groups of people. We all have, I guess. That is kind of the point of this thread.

We think about large groups of people and their supposed motivations. Usually negative motivations. Often it's "privilege". IOW, a "tribe".

If we rephrased it to be about thought-forms, psychology, ideas and actions instead... do you think that that might possibly change the direction?

 

[Heyo]

I like it! It aligns with my moral predilections.

The only downside is, it all amounts to "change yourself to change the planet". Which is true enough, of course, and of course I try to implement that... but is there anything beyond that? Anything positive one can do to improve the tribal state of the world?

You are doing it right now. You are learning from and teaching people from all over the world and a lot of "tribes".

FWIW, one thing I'll put on my todo-list is to get into some group activity. More human connection is always a good thing.

It is.

 

[Pete in Panama]

...We think about large groups of people and their supposed motivations. Usually negative motivations. Often it's "privilege". IOW, a "tribe"...

People are good and humanity is good. Lots of folks around here hate humankind & I find that unhealthy.

People are individuals and part of our makeup is we join together in families. Families are good. Families join together in clans/tribes/communities and those are good too. Sure u can point to a few bad individuals, families, and tribes but the vast majority do good things: they look after their own, they pool ideas they give comfort.

Tribes join to make nations and we're now in an age where nations join together in a world of humankind. Just like a good healthy family is made up of good healthy individuals, our world is better off if the nations are better off. It's what is happening, we are created to carry forward an ever-advancing civilization and this is good.