[nologic01]

We are all related to each other. A pandemic can wipe us out. A major climate event or a nuclear accident can wreak havoc, increasingly high tech wars can eliminate billions.

We choose to downplay our common dependencies and exaggerate the differences. Its a social game we have learned to play when the stakes for our collective survival were lower.

[varjag]

This is an improperly low level of abstraction to the problem, akin to "we're all made of atoms". True and useless.

[em-bee]

on the contrary, everyone of us needs to realize that we are part of a global community and that all of our actions accumulate to have an effect across the world. so instead of saying that this will never work because we are to diverse, instead we need to strive and MAKE IT WORK! put aside our differences, find common ground and build a global cooperative community that includes every human being on this planet.

[its_ethan]

Did a milquetoast motivation speaker write this? "Everyone just needs to realize that we all have to be nice to each other and we all succeed" rarely even works in a kindergarten classroom of 15 students, there's not really even a system for scaling that up to a city of a million people.

Imo it's naive to think that this is ever achievable given how powerful the human nature to find an in-group is.

[nologic01]

> given how powerful the human nature to find an in-group is

this is true as a general behavior, but its practical relevance is highly variable and culture dependend. For the longest span of our existence tribes routinely attacked eachother, decapitating for fun, enslaving for profit, and it was deemed ok.

by and large we dont do that anymore, though this is the instictual behavior being tapped to support, e.g., organized large scale war.

anything as large scale as organized war, any form of economic and political organisation might be building on primal behaviors but is not equivalent to them. a lot of cold calculation, ideology and even trial-and-error is involved and the end result is highly variable.

education, factual information and candid discussions between people is what will help us ensure in and out-groups are confined to sports and games and do not put our collective welfare at risk

[em-bee]

education, factual information and candid discussions between people is what will help us ensure in and out-groups are confined to sports and games and do not put our collective welfare at risk

exactly that. but also, finding an in-group really just means that we want to have a social environment where we are recognized and supported. there need not be any out-group. the goal here is to develop relationships such that neighbors and the local community become that group (or one of them), which again, as the article suggests, can be achieved by helping each other out.

[em-bee]

i didn't say "just", because it's not that simple. it obviously takes effort and rethinking of our life and our purpose. but doing that, and showing others how and why to do that is how i live my life. and i am not the only one. slowly more people are picking up and are spreading the idea. it may take a few generations before a critical mass is reached, but i am confident that we can convince the world that global cooperation and unity is necessary for our future.

[nologic01]

I believe the reason many people refuse to recognize the evident reality of our interdependence is an implied "all or nothing" simple mindedness that dismisses the required changes as unachievable.

We clearly cant be "best buddies" across all 7bln x 7bln pairs sharing the planet at any given time. Nor is it needed.

The minimum common ground needed for long term sustainable survival is just that. A minimum. But it has not been reached and time is running out. Our numbers and techological progress are outgrowing our social adaptations for containing conflict at the fastest pace ever. Unless we address this imbalance things will not end well.

[em-bee]

right, i am more confident that we will succeed but otherwise i agree. people see the big change they must go through to achieve the end result, not realizing that even small steps will get us there. look at how far we have gotten in the last 50 years. how much poverty has been reduced across the world. we are not there yet, and there are bumps and setbacks, but this is not all or nothing, black or white, but it's a long road, and as long as we are walking it we can reach our goals. maybe not in one generation, but in a few generations if we all make an effort and teach our children to do the same. but even with less effort it is still possible, it just may take a few centuries longer.

[nologic01]

What would be the proper level of abstraction according to your view?

[varjag]

Acknowledging and operating with the group dynamics. Expecting consensus among billions is just as futile as waiting the entropy of a gas to spontaneously decrease.

[em-bee]

we only need consensus on the big issues, like pollution and things like human rights. and we should agree to solve conflicts peacefully. trying to achieve consensus on everything would not just be futile but counterproductive. consensus is only needed by those that are affected by a decision. anyone not affected should not even get a say.