[friendlybus]

The strength we need is not biological. We need the strength to pursue our individual roles in life. All the collective strengthening in the world cannot tell you which way to swim or do your life for you.

George Lucas got into film from cultural anthropology when it was near impossible to get a career in it. He then made a soap opera in space which you needed his background in anthropology to get what he was doing. The collective was against it or didn't understand. The film nearly didn't get made.

The NBA stars that make it have individual advantages that put them ahead of the pack. Wayne Gretzky was ahead of the game to the point where the collective had little to provide in direction or competition.

Independence is fundamental and countries have wars over it. Codependency is a psychological disorder that ruins lives. Strengthening people who are aiming at ruin breaks the virtuous loop, no matter how much collective support. It is a myth to think collective support is an easy task. Real support requires as much time, effort and skill as the individual puts into achievement. A married pair of doctors in the same field would know enough about each other and the task to support each other.

Falling into taking or giving the signalling cues of the collective and eating/massaging perks is a quick way to lose yourself. Meet each other's needs, yes. Collective strength as a replacement for the individual? No.

[pknight]

You've put unnecessary tension between the collective/society and individuality and individual achievement as if they are at odds here. Lucas didn't need the whole of the collective to believe in his vision from the start, he just needed some measure of support in his life coming from another person or people. This is especially true for someone making films, as that involves hundreds of people combining their individual talents to a project. (ps he's donated 6 Billion into helping people get good education, a support system for people to help get success)

Superstar athletes get to shine with their superior talents only because they had some measure of support in their life to encourage their career and open up the possibilities. This is especially true for countless NBA athletes, many of them having come from poor backgrounds. You won't find a single NBA star who doesn't acknowledge that their success was made possible through the sacrifices of others in their life. Their childhood peers who kept them away from gangs, a parent who drove them to games, a mentor who kept reinforcing their belief in their talent. Not to mention the infrastructure that was laid before them by the pioneers before they were even born.

[friendlybus]

The individual and collective is at odds. By fundamental design like the manager focusing for corporate profits over paying the employees a higher wage. By nature like the expression of one's own character in the face of collective difference. And arbitrarily too, between people who do not like each other or two lovers breaking the rules.

An NBA star sacrifices teamwork with others to focus on his career. His community gave to him in a way that he did not return. His amateur league teammates taught him things he didn't return. His professional teammates are ultimately left behind as he ascends up the hierarchy. He didn't focus on teamwork, he focused on getting as good at the game as he could and that put him in selection, on the advertisements, on the money.

The collective can kill the individual very easily. Falling into the collective trap of an empire builder frequently has the outcome of individual growth being limited for the sake of the team, the union, the standard. The mindless waves of reputation based attacks can take down in the individual regardless of fact or fiction.

Harmonious teams end in wars. You organize all the king's men into a tribe and see what happens when a tribe's Juliet marries the other tribe's Romeo. You pick your conflict, between individuals or collectives. The tension doesn't go away, it just gets shifted forward in the circle of life.

[AstralStorm]

You have a mistaken idea that community is about repaying.

We're not in a just world, the community is supposed to be about bettering everyone, but of course there are traps like sports or people who ignore it.

The honest rule is to pay back more as your ability to increases.

The teacher does not have to be directly paid back by his students, it is enough that some of them will produce a generalized return, trickling down and around.

However, we're all too local for that to really work. Hence witness flight from cheap or rural areas to cities, draining resources.

None of this requires conflict. It just requires pure indifference. Teams can cooperate too.