[rjf72]

It's a PR statement so I wouldn't read much into it. It's designed solely to yield the least negative response possible in a polarizing situation.

But if we ignore the meaningfulness or truthfulness of the statement, let's take two hypothetical societies. In one society people agree to cooperate and trade with others when there's a mutual self interest, even if they happen to despise their partner otherwise. In the other society, people engage in a substantial degree of scrutiny and only trade and cooperate with others whom they are meaningfully aligned with. Which society do you think would have the better outcomes for whichever metrics you might imagine? I'd start with economic/technological progress, war vs peace, tribal vs unified (not to say homogeneous) society, etc.

I think there is a clear answer to my hypothetical, but perhaps people see things differently. I'd be quite curious to know how.