Tribalism has no place in a modern society

Humans were never meant to civilise. Prove me wrong

>>2158726
No, but fortunately or unfortunately, we have(to an extent). If we can eliminate the animalistic aspect from humanity, there's no limit to what we can achieve.

>>2158721
>being civilised means abandoning these savage, primal desires to focus on improvement of self and society.
We can't abandon shit.
We are wired that way.
We can only try to keep it in check and find a deeper version of "tribe" to be a part of.
>When you get in an altercation with someone, you try to resolve your differences through words, because fighting is uncivilised.
No, you do it because it's messy and a headache in the long run.
If punching him in the face would be an easier way to resolve a dispute, it would be done.
If murdering people and taking their stuff would be an easier way to get stuff done, people will and have done it countless times through history.
>If you aren't a libertarian, you are no better than a wild animal.
So the entire post was you jerking you and your political ideology off, i see.

>>2158738
You have no foundation to this statement. You have no idea what limits may or may not be enacted. Fucking enlightenment fags.
All about muh peace, love and nature but you cannot even handle the fact that life is essentially and inherently violent. Even a successful sperm kills its competition by proxy. If you won't fight for your existance when required, please give up on it.

>>2158721
Tribalism is the origin of a society as a society is just a more organized larger tribe you RETARDED FUCK.

>>2158721
>You need to leave sex behind and evolve. If you aren't celibate, you are no better than a wild animal.

Xenophobia is animalistic, yes. It is also unavoidable. Only a fedora would think he can escape his own nature.

>>2158818
No you should only fuck for reproductive reasons and not animalistic pleasure, if you removed pleasure from sex women would kill themselves over night as thats the only reason they want to live.

>being civilised means abandoning culture

>>2158829
Your baiting strategy needs more time in the oven, come back later once you improve.

>>2158829
>implying being doted upon and having nice shit isn't a good reason
Women and NEET are alike

>>2158721
>Prove me wrong.
You take an arbitrary definition of being "civilized", and you derive unrealistic normative conclusions from it. It's either a bait, or you're too stupid to argue with.

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, woman nor man; all are one in Christ Jesus."

>>2158832
What exactly does culture achieve?
I mean, I understand that some cultures are better at advancing than others, but none of them is perfect. All cultures bog down progress and oppose new ideas.
The reason why USA is the most successful at the moment is because it doesn't have much of a cultural baggage. The people respond positively to change.

>>2158840
>>2158838
>>2158721
All this is insanity and arbitrary madness. Civilization is founded on tribalism.

>[Abolition of Man intensifies]

>>2158851
The USA is successful at the moment because of its economy and military might, and both of those are propped up by the petrodollar and faith in Uncle Sam.

A swift kick to the shins and the entire country would balkanize. The average mid-western American has more in common with a citizen of Russia or Poland then he does with a coastal liberal, and both hate each other deeply. They are already practically different nations, only the facade of normalcy keeps them together.

Tribalism will take hold in America as soon as the food supply slows and the powder gets wet.

>>2158721
Give me one reason why I should want enlightment?

>>2158721

Yes, tribalism is animalistic. Therefore tribalism is natural.

Yes, physical conflict is animalistic. Therefore physical conflict is natural.

All you have stated is that these qualities occur in nature and in animal species. You have yet to explain why that makes them somehow undesirable.

>>2158864
Can't rise above if you're shackled by a primitive mindset. The more people act/ think like animals, the less advanced they will be.

>>2158878
What is 「advanced」

>>2158878
You've yet to provide any evidence that tribalism and nationalism is primitive, other then the fact that some animals exhibit similar behavior.

Given animals also piss, shit, eat, and sleep, that isn't an argument for [or against] your position.

>>2158878
>think like animals
dividing by zero here, pal

Also dat arrogance. Until you can somehow exist without your body, you're a slave to it, one way or another.

>>2158885
I suppose the definition can vary from person to person, but let's take technological and scientific advancement.
Many famous scientists and inventors have been described as being 'eccentric' and shut off from the rest of the society. You can't keep living life in the same manner as everyone else and expect change.

>>2158900
True, but lunatics have also been described as being "eccentric". The idea that living radically different from past precedent is NECESSARILY an improvement is insane.

You have to look at actual data, and not just say "Its progress because I say its progress"

>>2158899
I am not being arrogant. My comments are based on what I have observed after living in a third world nation for more than a decade. I have seen with my own eyes how a regressive culture can hamper progress and blind people.

>>2158900
Who are the best 「scientists」? Are you sure they were eccentric? Perhaps you hear more about those that are eccentiric than you do those that were not.
As 「science」 is simply a method of parsing data isn't any furthering of accurate discernment 「advanced」? Why must 「advancement」 be quantified as divergence from a natural state? What warrants have you based this argument off?

>>2158908
> The idea that living radically different from past precedent is NECESSARILY an improvement is insane.

Of course, it can go both ways. There are examples of changes making things worse too. But whether it's progress or regress, it's change. The trappings of a tribe or culture create an inertia that prevents this.

>>2158916
> Why must 「advancement」 be quantified as divergence from a natural state?
Would you deny that we are more advanced than cavemen?

>>2158726
If we weren't meant to colonise we would have been prevented from doing so through a whole myriad of potential obstacles, mainly something would kill us off or make the concept seem undesirable, or we'd not develop the intelligence needed to pursue colonisation.

>>2158927
Is that true? What examples of this 「intertia」 do you have? Wouldn't it be more accurate to suggest that tribal cultures possess a momentum that leads to societies as almost all of them have and that those whom you have modeled this 「intertia」 from, are abberant?

>>2158930
In what aspects?

File: phOKuFh.png (270KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 500x375px

>>2158927
>>2158930
1. Society is based on reciprocity, trust, loyalty, and in-group/out-group mentality to properly evaluate threats to the society by attack or subversion. All of these things require similar values, and thus a certain degree of homogeneity. You literally cannot have civilization without some form of tribalism, whether ethnic or cultural.

2. The "trappings of a tribe or culture" also includes all the thoughts, behaviors, and technologies you associate with civilization. There was an experiment done awhile back where scientists would drop potatoes into the sand, where monkeys could get them. Some eventually learned to wash their potatoes in the water, which eventually spread so far monkeys who had never seen the original practiced the behavior generations later.

This is an example of culture developing and evolving. What you dismiss as tradition and primitive is actually the empirical collection of past precedent learned by previous generations, the gradual accumulation of which is how we became "civilized' and "advanced". SOME of this information is nonsense, and should be improved, corrected, and passed on to the next generation, but the person who ignores "tradition" is just as ignorant as the person who is beholden to it. The same force that creates inertia also drives progress, namely, the tendency of future generations to learn from the actions and mistakes of past generations.

>>2158930
I would question the mechanics and warrants behind the 「reasoning」, yes.
For example let us suppose that in all of our technological deviation we have introduced otherwise avoidable genetic repercussions. From that perspective would we not have 「regressed」? Should the potential for that technology to fix the problem come into consideration even if it isn't effective? Does ones ability to address a problem with a thing negate its role in the causation?

>>2158934
Well, consider the laws of religion. Let's take Islam as an example. The tenets written down in the Quran are followed without actually putting any thought into the reasoning behind them. There have been cases of violence against people who dared to go against the norms.

Obviously, that's a rather extreme example, but there are others too. How about circumcision in USA or open defecation in India? Both practices are still common because they are the norm in their respective nations.

>>2158953
Meanwhile, wearing clothes, shitting in toilets, and using technology are all ALSO behaviors that are followed by most without considerable understanding of the reasoning behind them.

The accumulation of behaviors via osmosis from past generations works both ways.

>>2158953
What of the collective 「knowledge」? What of the monkey and ladder experiement? Does the 「knowledge」 and reason of an individual dictate the machinations of a society which by it's inherent nature should be a system creates to dictate upon individuals? In such circumstances knowledge is learned reasonably and held appropriately beyond the reasoning of any one individual. Why then should we seek civility if society can provide an individual with nothing but confirmation of prior 「knowledge」?

>>2158878
>tribalistic societies can't be advanced.
What is China, France, Nazi Germany, etc.

>>2158965
>>2158958
Collective knowledge is good, but people should be encouraged to revise it with the passage of time to weed out archaic or useless practices.

The revision process will be useless if the population only seeks to confirm the beliefs that were shaped by this knowledge.

>>2158987
The communists pretty much killed Chinese culture. China was an irrelevant shithole before that.

>>2158990
Revision occurs natural if the 「archaic」 nature of a society is no longer meeting the needs of that society.

Any more of a involved revision implies that the 「knowledge」is a measure of information held collectively and thus individually revised as opposed to a collective holding a measure of information. Read the 「experiment」 if you have not.

>>2158990
Obviously, but tribalism and nationalism are not inherently barriers to the correction and improvement of tradition, moreover the benefits of tribalism far outweigh the costs.

>>2158721
Tribalism is ingrained in human nature. You feel more comfortable around people who share your ethnicity and cultural background.

Instinct is stronger than reason. The idea that you could 'train' people to not care about these aspects is modern foolishness.

>>2159006
human nature and instincts change over time just like anything biological.
eventually we will come up with some sort of eugenics like program where we try to alter human nature across the board to end up with what those in power consider better
you know it's coming

>>2158995
>The communists pretty much killed Chinese culture.
And also promoted a long-standing process of sinicization.
And the guys that didn't kill chinese culture fled to Taiwan and formed a military dictatorship.
Both countries are now pretty advanced tech-wise, so they are both proof tribalism has jack shit to do with advancement.
The nazis were also super-advanced tech-wise and from other POV's modern countries aspire to, from animal rights, to anti-smoking, to enviromentalism and other stuff, and you can't get any more tribalistic than nazi ideology.
So your entire thesis, that tribalism is bad because it nebulously keeps us unadvanced, is a steaming pile of shit.

>China was an irrelevant shithole before that.
Ayy lmao.

>>2159018
While this is 「right」it is not true. Reason will never out strip instinct. Instinct is the foundation of life, much like the programing of any AI will underscore their own 「existence」. A rational actor will not exist for upon existing it will find no further reason to 「exist」. Life and purpose are, by their natures, irrational and it is upon these intrinsic drives that we can rationally relate to our world.

To divorce ourselves of instinct would either introduce a new set of implicit motivations to somewhat rationally pursue or end our 「existence」entirely

>>2159018
>human nature and instincts change over time just like anything biological.
They don't change that fast and they change through natural selection.

>eventually we will come up with some sort of eugenics like program where we try to alter human nature across the board
You can't really do that sort of thing reliably through eugenics. Selective breeding generally doesn't produce particularly great results. It's "functional" to the degree where certain dog breeds or plants fulfil a certain purpose but in pretty much all cases the results come with substantial detriments in other regards. And when it comes to achieving this sort of thing through genetic engineering we're still far, far away from anything like that given the fact that we don't even properly understand how something like tribal awareness would manifest inside the brain, let alone specifically affect it.

>>2159035
>Reason will never out strip instinct. Instinct is the foundation of life
reason can become instinct
>Instinct is the foundation of life, much like the programing of any AI will underscore their own 「existence」.
you're once again not realizing that reason can become instinct
>A rational actor will not exist for upon existing it will find no further reason to 「exist」.
If your instinct is rational then acting rational will be your reason to exist.
>Life and purpose are, by their natures, irrational and it is upon these intrinsic drives that we can rationally relate to our world.
you're describing current people not people who have rational instincts

>>2159050
>They don't change that fast and they change through natural selection.
Do you have any support for the claim that instincts do not change through natural selection?
>You can't really do that sort of thing reliably through eugenics. Selective breeding generally doesn't produce particularly great results. It's "functional" to the degree where certain dog breeds or plants fulfil a certain purpose but in pretty much all cases the results come with substantial detriments in other regards. And when it comes to achieving this sort of thing through genetic engineering we're still far, far away from anything like that given the fact that we don't even properly understand how something like tribal awareness would manifest inside the brain, let alone specifically affect it.
all you're describing is the present situation
major breakthroughs will come like they always do and changing human nature will be possible

>>2159080
>If your instinct is rational then acting rational will be your reason to exist.
Existence is not 「rational」. I would challenge you to explain how it is.
I would challenge you to tell me what intrinsic 「rationalism」 would manifest itself as.

「reason」, like logic is a means, not an ends. I would appreciate evidence to the contrary.

>>2158721

>CULTURE AND NATIONALITY ARE BAD!

>BUT BE CIVILIZED!

wow, really made me think. Im sure your sociology professor will grant you cuck points for this post

>>2159080
>Do you have any support for the claim that instincts do not change through natural selection?
I think you misread what I wrote there.

>all you're describing is the present situation
Which is what we're dealing with.

Under the premise of "major breakthroughs will come" we might as well continue burning fossil fuels with no filters, use carcinogenic substances, etc. because at some point someone will show up and fix things through 'science'.

Currently, there is no such breakthrough in sight.

>>2159099
>>2159099
>Existence is not 「rational」. I would challenge you to explain how it is.
Define existence because I don't believe I claimed existence is rational.
>I would challenge you to tell me what intrinsic 「rationalism」 would manifest itself as.
I would just like to point out that my original post made no mention of being "rational" as I was just pointing out that eventually we will be able to shape human nature to our whims. I should have pointed this out in my last post.

I said that what those in power consider "better" will be what our nature is shaped into, so they would decide what "rational" is. Right now that eugenics tech is beyond our tech, so maybe describing rational is beyond our capabilities right now as well.

>「reason」, like logic is a means, not an ends. I would appreciate evidence to the contrary.
It would be if the society made it a necessity to act rationally (again, I'm talking about their definition of rationally)

>>2159120
>I think you misread what I wrote there.
I did. I don't have any objections to that statement then other than the fact that you're looking at it through the lens of the present situation. It only changes slowly in the present and it only changes by natural selection in the present, that doesn't it will always be like that.

>>2159120
>Under the premise of "major breakthroughs will come" we might as well continue burning fossil fuels with no filters, use carcinogenic substances, etc. because at some point someone will show up and fix things through 'science'.
>>all you're describing is the present situation
The fact that there's no "breakthrough in sight" does not take away any reason to believe in technological progress in different areas. And I don't even agree that there is no breakthrough in sight in both your fossil fuels example or this eugenics example. Our tech has been advancing at a rapid rate in both areas and breakthroughs were never predictable. The fact that you can't predict one now means nothing.

>>2159153
me again correcting something
>It would be if the society made it a necessity to act rationally (again, I'm talking about their definition of rationally)
I was giving a reason to believe it's a means even though you claimed it wasn't an ends, I misread your post
what is an "ends" cannot be objectively defined, that's my new reply to your post

>>2159153
>The fact that there's no "breakthrough in sight" does not take away any reason to believe in technological progress in different areas.
There is a difference between 'believing' in a religious sense and making an informed prediction based on specific progress that has been made.

>And I don't even agree that there is no breakthrough in sight in both your fossil fuels example or this eugenics example.
Is that so? Can you link me to a paper published on human eugenics dealing with altering behavioural patterns through selective breeding? I'd be very interested in this sort of thing. Where it was published and by whom in particular.

>>2159178
>There is a difference between 'believing' in a religious sense and making an informed prediction based on specific progress that has been made.
my post was about how making an informed prediction about technological breakthroughs is impossible
>Is that so? Can you link me to a paper published on human eugenics dealing with altering behavioural patterns through selective breeding? I'd be very interested in this sort of thing. Where it was published and by whom in particular.
I meant that it's not possible to say that there's no breakthrough in sight. I wasn't claiming there is one in sight

>>2158855
>and both hate each other deeply.
This is the level of American rage and it's why America is so great
You can say that people who wouldn't slaughter and bomb each other, merely want to keep to themselves "hate each other deeply" and both sides would agree.
Meanwhile outside of the States "hate" means actual genocide and war.
It's pretty wonderful when you think about it.

>>2159166
Means as defined by something that is transitory or used as a tool upon something. Reason and logic are 「tools」and frames of references. They cannot exist in a vaccum or as absolutes. Nothing can be entirely logical without a warrant to neccesitate the use of logic.

>>2159189
stop hiding behind an oblique screen of philosophical babble and explain yourself properly

>>2158721
I sort of agree, early medieval Europe was exactly this, butchering pagans and tribals in order to spread high Christian civilization. The Stephen vs Koppanyi conflict in Hungary is a fantastic example.

My problem with modern society isn't that we're not tribal enough, but the fact we're so cucked and emasculated and sissified and that we abandoned God. There would be no islamic invasion or a SJW takeover if we were a strong, godly society adhering to tradition.

>>2159184
>my post was about how making an informed prediction about technological breakthroughs is impossible
And I would argue that this stems from ignorance. You can very well predict technological progress if you keep yourself informed on technological progress because technological progress doesn't just happen out of random but it is well embedded within an academic context, featuring countless publications on each and every subject matter where progress is made.

>I meant that it's not possible to say that there's no breakthrough in sight. I wasn't claiming there is one in sight
So what you're trying to say is that you don't have any progress in sight but you're hoping that progress will come? To me this sounds a lot like religion.

>>2159199
>And I would argue that this stems from ignorance. You can very well predict technological progress if you keep yourself informed on technological progress because technological progress doesn't just happen out of random but it is well embedded within an academic context, featuring countless publications on each and every subject matter where progress is made.
we probably have something different in mind when we say "predict a technological breakthrough" and whether or not it's "in sight". I'm talking about predictions in the sense of we know when it will happen and what will happen. all predictions are never that precise and are left to the realm of "we can imagine it happening eventually and there's no reason to believe otherwise"

>So what you're trying to say is that you don't have any progress in sight but you're hoping that progress will come? To me this sounds a lot like religion.
I already said that whether or not something is in sight doesn't mean anything because saying something is in sight is meaningless since we can't predict where exactly tech will go and when exactly it will come. I am not "hoping" tech progress will come, it will come. Sure you can say it's an inference and you can't know something from that but it's been a true constant that has been happening throughout history so I don't think I believe this on shaky ground. Right now biological tech and fossil fuel tech are two areas that have been advancing very quickly. I'm saying that breakthroughs will come in those areas and I'm saying that we don't know when they will come or how they will manifest themselves as.

>>2159193
They are literaly for frames of 「reference」. You cannot build something to the right unless you are building something to the right of something else. You cannot be reasonable unless you are operating upon a「warrant」 that is implicit.
Remove philosophy from the equation and ask yourself 「rationaly」 why should you continue to live or perhaps why should you procreate? There is ultimately no rationale that you can produce that isn't inherently based on a desire, goal or virtue that exists as an extension of instinct
Without「inherent」drive there is no rational reason to be driven
These things are 「tools」 You cannot be in principle rational. You can be optimistic poorly or well. Can you be a person poorly or well? No. First you would need a reference to make sense of those two referential descriptions. You can be analytical rationally or irrationally. It is simple a transitory description of the organisation and comprehension of 「information」and as such holds no content of itself

>>2159226
>They are literaly for frames of 「reference」. You cannot build something to the right unless you are building something to the right of something else. You cannot be reasonable unless you are operating upon a「warrant」 that is implicit.
which is why I said rationality would be defined as what the people in power define it as.
also this is not addressing my central point about how tech will allow us to change human nature in the future, changing it to be "rational" was something you brought up, by the way.
>Remove philosophy from the equation and ask yourself 「rationaly」 why should you continue to live or perhaps why should you procreate? There is ultimately no rationale that you can produce that isn't inherently based on a desire, goal or virtue that exists as an extension of instinct
that's according to your definition of rational. also, as I said defining rational may be beyond our capabilities at the moment. you think that living and procreation are irrational, they might be, and they might not. I don't see how that matters. Who says future societies will have a use for living or procreation in the traditional sense. That is yet to be determined.

The rest of your post is more philosophical babble.

>>2159224
>I'm talking about predictions in the sense of we know when it will happen and what will happen.
And my point remains that certain predictions can well be made. Certainly you can impossibly predict what things will be like in fifty to hundred years, or even further ahead. But we can well estimate what things will be like within the next ten to twenty years with reasonable accuracy.

>I already said that whether or not something is in sight doesn't mean anything because saying something is in sight is meaningless since we can't predict where exactly tech will go and when exactly it will come.
Yes, we can. If something is in sight, then we can make reasonable estimations. If there's nothing in sight then we can't. Then we might 'hope' for things to come, but we can't foretell anything.

And I'm telling you that 'eugenics' of that kind are not being practised. Nobody researches in that regard so it's rather unlikely for things to come any time soon. Even genetic engineering is considered highly questionable, and not without great hurdles you'd see any kind of engineering for the purpose of altering human nature. Especially given the fact that these instincts heavily shape our consciousness and whether getting rid of them would even classify as human in the same sense is rather questionable.

>>2158721
I think we need to abandon them eventually. But so long as the rest of the world isn't united around certain baseline values then not having any tribalism is suicide. The principles that will supposedly unite us like secularism, human rights, democracy are fragile and weak, always vulnerable for attack against more hardhitting forces. Until you can safely say that the rest of the planet shares these values then you must fight tooth and nail to keep them.

>>2159254
>And my point remains that certain predictions can well be made. Certainly you can impossibly predict what things will be like in fifty to hundred years, or even further ahead. But we can well estimate what things will be like within the next ten to twenty years with reasonable accuracy.
"estimating what things will be like within a certain time period" is not what I think of as "predicting a technological breakthrough" and saying whether or not its "in sight". I already said what my definition of that was, for you give me your own definition does not show that you're right about this. It just shows that we're talking about different things.
>Yes, we can. If something is in sight, then we can make reasonable estimations. If there's nothing in sight then we can't. Then we might 'hope' for things to come, but we can't foretell anything.
this is all based on your own definitions and not mine, we're talking about two different things. but I'll respond to this as if you used my definitions: you just said that we can make predictions if something is in sight, but how do you determine if something is in sight? and how does something being in sigh mean you can predict it.
>And I'm telling you that 'eugenics' of that kind are not being practised. Nobody researches in that regard so it's rather unlikely for things to come any time soon. Even genetic engineering is considered highly questionable, and not without great hurdles you'd see any kind of engineering for the purpose of altering human nature. Especially given the fact that these instincts heavily shape our consciousness and whether getting rid of them would even classify as human in the same sense is rather questionable.
nothing has stood in the way of technological progress for long. I don't think this will either.

>>2159255
I firmly believe that secularism, human rights, democracy and other abstracts of that kind will never have a comparable cohesive power as tribal structures for the very reason that they only resonate with the intellect rather than the far older instinct.
I hold the opinion that all attempts to 'educate' mankind and turn man into a 'reasonable' creature are an effort in futility, because we cannot strip ourselves from our primordial selves, which shape how we perceive the world to a far greater extent than we'd like to admit and which ironically are what makes us human.
The only way to further 'civilise' mankind is to come up with structures which counter-act these instincts, fool them or harness them. Arguably nationalism is something akin to a harness around that tribal instinct, giving that macrocosmic abstract that is the nation a graspable, microcosmic, tribal dimension.

>>2159277
>how do you determine if something is in sight? and how does something being in sigh mean you can predict it.
You determine it based on publications in the specific fields (assuming you're interested and/or professionally involved in the field) as well as the media which cover it.

>nothing has stood in the way of technological progress for long. I don't think this will either.
It depends on how useful things are. I've already told you that nobody researches in this direction and I don't see anyone researching in this direction in the future. People are perfectly fine with their current selves, there is no imperative to rid them of their sense of tribalism - especially not if it involves questionable research practices.

>>2159320
>You determine it based on publications in the specific fields (assuming you're interested and/or professionally involved in the field) as well as the media which cover it.
you're answering the question using your definitions. I already made it clear we're talking about different things. I never agreed or disagreed with what you're claiming using your definitions because that's not what I care about
>It depends on how useful things are. I've already told you that nobody researches in this direction and I don't see anyone researching in this direction in the future. People are perfectly fine with their current selves, there is no imperative to rid them of their sense of tribalism - especially not if it involves questionable research practices.
whether or not research is currently ongoing in a certain area does not mean anything. breakthroughs happen in other ways

>>2158721

>if you aren't a libertarian, you are no better than a wild animal.

Well I was gonna give your thread an actual response, but instead, get off your high horse and fuck yourself.

>OP a fag as always.

>>2159333
>libertarian is a 「huffy」sook
What more telling a response could you have given

>>2159347

No it's just that you had to literally include your snide little opinion in. There's no point in discussing shit with you, because your the human equivalence of a dead end. Bye.

>>2159330
>whether or not research is currently ongoing in a certain area does not mean anything. breakthroughs happen in other ways
Breakthroughs don't happen randomly. You need people researching something and the field of humane eugenics has had a few publicity problems since 1945 so I doubt we'll be seeing a lot from them in the near future.

>>2159293
>The only way to further 'civilise' mankind is to come up with structures which counter-act these instincts, fool them or harness them.
I think this is why restrained capitalism is so great.
You wanna be greedy, competitive cut-throats?
You have our blessing. It will make it greater for everyone, and at the far-end of such a market, it will actually result in cooperative solutions becoming the norm(modern software being open-source, and companies asking and providing for devs to play with their free stuff, while charging for services)

>>2159360
penicillin would like to have a word with you

>>2159368
We have come a long way since then.

>>2159363
Capitalism doesn't work out for everyone though, which is why we're seeing a return to nationalisms. Trump and the majority of right-wing populists in Europe are - at least in his rhetoric - fairly opposed to Capitalist mantras such as free trade and globalism making things better for everyone. They promise protectionism to their people.

>>2159374
you said breakthroughs don't happen randomly so I showed how they do. Are you saying they can't happen randomly/accidentally anymore? I don't see any reason to believe that.

>>2158721
Modern society is a machine. Humans don't change, but it does, creating the illusion that we've somehow "evolved" with it. We've only adapted to the new way of life that's been thrust upon us in a short time. We're still biologically hardwired to have tribal instincts.

>tendency of animals to stick together with others of the same kind.
Yep, just look at all the racial tensions worldwide, and the failures of "multiculturalism" wherever you look.
>abandoning these savage, primal desires to focus on improvement of self and society
>resolve your differences through words, because fighting is uncivilised
How many people do you think up and say "No, you know what, I don't like sex anymore. I don't enjoy the thought of violence."

And as for "improvement of society" - society trains people to be mindless, with just enough autonomy to be useful. For most people, "evolving" as you suggest is not only useless to them, but frightening too. Anything that deviates from the norm is shunned, so you can't preserve society as it is and expect people to evolve.

tl;dr society may be modern but humans aren't, and won't be any time soon because that's not how evolution works.

>>2159387
of course.
Which is why i said restrained capitalism, with varying doses of socialism, depending on the circumstances.

>>2159388
>Are you saying they can't happen randomly/accidentally anymore?
I've previously told you that progress is embedded within an academic framework. Lots of people are involved who frequently correspond and publish. If you don't see anyone researching something, chances are you're not going to see any progress in that area. And humane eugenics for the purpose of altering the human mindset and breeding the tribal instincts out of people are not an area where people research at the moment - and I don't see anyone researching it in the future because most people are perfectly fine with the way they are.

>>2159413
so you're not saying it can't happen. you're making a prediction because you don't see that sort of breakthrough in sight. got it, it's going back to the disagreement we had earlier

>>2159433
Yes, I'm saying that I'm making an informed prediction rather than religiously "believing" in the possibility of scientific progress in an area where nobody researches.

>>2159444
it takes faith to get rid of the possibility of progress in any area

>>2159454
Not if it's backed by evidence in the form of nobody researching in that particular area.

>>2158851
Have you seen christian fundamentalists? People are scared to death of change in the US. Hell even the word communism still spooks people. And people are attatched to racial ideas here so much it's infantile (which is ironic given that the US has always been a mixed land).

Tribalism has no place in modern society, however to assume modern society will last the rest of human history is silly.

I believe western society finally modernized after WWII, peaked at the fall of the Berlin Wall and now with the ideological split and migrant crisis flooding the west with Islam, we are seeing the fall of modern society.

Tribalism is the only thing that is going to save our civilization. Perhaps once the dust has settled we can attempt modern society once more. Maybe this time we can get it right.

>>2158721
My race and ethnicity are just as much a part of who I am as my abstract interest in history and humanities. To take that away from me and everyone else is essentially abolishing one of the most important parts of who we are. OP desires an abolishing of the self for the sake of ideology which no sane human being should support.

>>2158721
why would you be better than a wild animal when you can seize resources from other portions of mankind through imperialism? is there some special reward for virtue in libertarian afterlife?