[stcredzero]

this tribalism is what makes human beings human.

It's perfectly reasonable to construct a tribalism which aids in discovering the truth. Science itself is an example.

The best we can do is tell people "Prefer doing things that make you happy" and hope they don't commit their lives, careers, families, etc. to things that don't make them happy.

One of the best things we can do, is to have many non-exceptional role models, on which younger generations can make incremental improvements. What's needed isn't a whole-cloth re-imagining of the entire social reality. We need a kind of progressive traditionalism, where people can try and evolve towards a better society without dropping complex cultural systems which create value and human well-being.

Perhaps also it would help to give people an easy way out of things they don't enjoy doing? Kinda hard if those "things" are marriages or children, so I'm not sure how feasible it is.

I think it's far better to make people aware of the "price" up front, so such deep commitments are made by people who are ready.

[fapjacks]

I think people underestimate the inherent conflict that arises from the complex cultural systems you're talking about. I mean, obviously there is conflict, but I think it's way more intrinsic to our species than most people believe. And the conflict reinforces existing belief structures, stereotypes about outgroup members, and is then used to justify proliferating or escalating the conflict further. I agree with you that tribal constructs like science are a positive social development. And for example Stoicism and Taoism seem to be aimed squarely at reducing the inherent conflict of tribalism. I like the idea of making the costs more visible up front, and would definitely make that a part of the "happiness discovery" process of education.

With respect to creating positive and beneficial social systems, however, I'm personally of the opinion that the basics of social development are already nearly fully enumerated, and I think we're not going to stumble across something new which would do a better job than the things that we already know about. I'd love to be wrong, though. And so if what I'm saying is true, then it would seem to point back to education.

I also have a personal saying that "shared hardship is the key to utopia" but certainly it would seem that education is equally key. Like Will Durant said: "Education is the transmission of civilization". That being said, "One test is worth a thousand expert opinions" and nothing is better at teaching the lesson that war is hell and should not be undertaken lightly than a good old fashioned war (e.g. the Long Peace). Ah, but now here is the main reason I think a human hivemind would truly bring us into a kind of shining Star Trek utopia: I could just share my wartime memories and combat experiences with people that haven't been to war. That would certainly work to turn people off of it. I really kinda went off on a tangent here, sorry!

[stcredzero]

However, I'm personally of the opinion that the basics of social development are already nearly fully enumerated, and I think we're not going to stumble across something new which would do a better job than the things that we already know about.

Why would you say that? Other than broad outlines, there are not so many constants in ways of life across history and around the world. Or, are you talking about broad outlines?

I also have a personal saying that "shared hardship is the key to utopia" but certainly it would seem that education is equally key.

My take is that Utopia == Neverland. It's like infinity. It's a useful concept, but you'll never have it physically realized within your grasp.

[fapjacks]

So, I'm not going to get too much into semantics because it's not interesting, and we could grind on it forever. But the essence of social interaction and group dynamics has hundreds of thousands of years of permutation behind it, and I'm pretty confident that human beings aren't going to come up with a new way of reducing friction at the interfaces of its tribalism without changing the definition of human being. The definition which includes what it means to be a human individual or a group, or what it means to communicate between human individuals and groups.

[stcredzero]

I'm pretty confident that human beings aren't going to come up with a new way of reducing friction at the interfaces of its tribalism without changing the definition of human being.

This is manifestly false. We went from murdering all out-group, to cultures of hospitality to strangers. We went from killing all members of defeated groups to enslaving them, then eventually went on to abolish slavery. We went from unfettered squabbles and mob violence to having the guilty hold bars of iron to prove their innocence before a deity to due process and trials.

History has clear examples of human beings "reducing friction at the interfaces of its tribalism." Human beings have, in fact, done this by changing the philosophical understanding of what constitutes a human being, so not far off from, "changing the definition of human being." This conception used to just mean a body. Then it came to incorporate a "soul." In many cultures, the person was equivalent with their "honor," which kind of amounted to their public image and reputation. (It was so in the early days of the USA, in fact.) Now we have a much more sophisticated notion of humanity and the self, which is evolving still.

The definition which includes what it means to be a human individual or a group, or what it means to communicate between human individuals and groups.

Clearly this is changing and evolving. Much of the time, it appears to be getting closer to some kind of objective truth.

[fapjacks]

Oh, you're one of those people that thinks we're exceptional from our historical counterparts. Or exceptional as Americans from the rest of the world. You would do well to read some of that history you're supposed to be pulling clear examples from. And you should really take a look at what our "much more sophisticated notion of humanity and the self" does every day in unfortunate shithole countries around the world. Or even what we do in nice countries.

What you think is an illusion. Add a layer of abstraction to get rid of implementation details, and we're the same animals the Romans were.

[voidmain]

"John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

[stcredzero]

Oh, you're one of those people that thinks we're exceptional from our historical counterparts. Or exceptional as Americans from the rest of the world.

Neither of those follows from the gp comment. (Careful, your biases are showing!)

And you should really take a look at what our "much more sophisticated notion of humanity and the self" does every day in unfortunate shithole countries around the world. Or even what we do in nice countries.

You make some good points. However, I didn't say we were done; Just that we've made undeniable progress.