[idiotsecant]

Parent post is right, we are inherantly tribal creature capable of really empathizing and aligning ourselves with maybe 7-10 people. We can find a tribal identity with maybe 30 people. We can productively coordinate with groups of as many as 50-75 people. Any more than that, and we simply can't hold those relationships in our monkey brains and default to 'stranger bad'.

Fortunately, at some point we gained an abstraction layer on top of our monkey brains, capable of empathizing with abstract characteristics such as nation, race, religion, etc. These abstractions are socketed right into our monkey layer and are a hack that can simulate the 50-75 people type relationship for billions of people. Unfortunately that layer needs to be trained, and it's even more unfortunately very easy and quite profitable to train in the wrong ways.

[jrochkind1]

I suppose we can all keep posting "I'm right", "No, I'm right"!

I believe people have in fact been routinely living in groups of far more than 30 people for tens of thousands of years (in some but not all places/times over that span, sure), it's a misconception to think this is new or unusual for humans.

We have not only done fine with it, we have thrived with it.

(Also having relationships over distance too, for a long long time).

[lm28469]

> I believe people have in fact been routinely living in groups of far more than 30 people for tens of thousands of years

Ok but could they follow 500 influencers, watch people die everyday, get the ever up to date flow of new disease, earthquakes, terrorists attack fed 24/7, compare themselves to the best of the best, see the worst of the worst, &c. ?

For people who lived/grew up before the 90s/2000s it is very obvious that things changed in a massive way extremely quickly, a lot due to internet but eve more due to pocket computers.

I think you're massively underestimating the scale of the issue. People don't thrive on social medias interactions, they're addicted to them, depending on the survey/study you look at it's anywhere from 4 to 9 hours per day on average.

[ameister14]

>watch people die everyday

Maybe not every day, but death was a lot closer to people for everything up to the last hundred years or so.

Look at child and maternal death rates.

[oblio]

Even so, you're talking about 1 tragic event every 6 months at most, on average (except for wartime).

Not a slew of garbage about 10000 tragic events happening each day.

[throwaway2037]

"People don't thrive on social medias interactions, they're addicted to them." This is a choice phrase. Well said.

[ye-olde-sysrq]

Have we thrived, though? If we're talking about monkey brains and evolution, we need to keep in mind that all of the stuff we're talking about is even only a tiny fraction of the time that humans have been anatomically modern (300000 to 100000 years ago depending on exactly how modern you mean, with the 100k years ago mark being where an autopsy wouldn't be able to tell the difference unless it were specifically trying to date the corpse based on things like carbon13 or noting the dental care etc).

So all things considered, I don't think we can really say that we've proved out that the stuff we've been up to since the dawn of agriculture (10k years ago) is going to stand the test of time. Maybe let's at least see where global warming goes over the next 100-200 years before we start throwing around words like "thrive".

[idiotsecant]

I think if you re-read my post we're saying the same thing.

[forgottheoldone]

I agree that it doesn't come by itself, it takes will and dedication and work... I don't think we can take for granted that everything will go by itself. I'm quite pessimistic as to the actual outcomes, to be honest -- but not because I think it's impossible, but I think we're in the process of kinda failing at it. We're certainly not excelling.

> As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races. If, indeed, such men are separated from him by great differences in appearance or habits, experience unfortunately shews us how long it is, before we look at them as our fellow-creatures. [...] This virtue, one of the noblest with which man is endowed, seems to arise incidentally from our sympathies becoming more tender and more widely diffused, until they are extended to all sentient beings. As soon as this virtue is honoured and practised by some few men, it spreads through instruction and example to the young, and eventually becomes incorporated in public opinion.

-- Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man" (1871)