Sure there is still mentality and to a large degree it holds water that in order to help another we need to help ourselves. Ensure our own survival.

Great well now that majority of jsp and certainly here in pard is mostly privileged few who are better off. We can discuss and begin a dialogue relating to global stewardship.
It basically means instead of thinking individually, a family unit, a left/right party or even a national, we embrace the idea that I am here now as a global citizen and my actions are to be if it the earth and the species as a whole not a minority.
The next thought might be to adopt a view that we are part of a galactic circle and many stars and possibly other entities but we are not there yet.

So with a base line of a larger view I hope it transcends the antagoistical elements that plague the individualistic thinking.
I think alot people are ready to adopt this view but the barrier I see is the leadership or structure that is run by these outdated highly coveted, greedy, power tripping people that have been exploiting the masses

This post was edited by addone on Apr 22 2021 01:56pm

my bonespur hurts

Interesting view.
It seems that in the western countries we are experiencing alot of division and identity politics.
Sexuality. Gender. Religion. Race. Generation.
I've thought that the divided nature if society serves the existing power structure.
Divide and conquer.

I also find myself in the paradoxical position of believing in outward internationalism. While supporting the scottish national party in their aim of Scotland becoming and independent country.

Ironically it's by supporting nationalism in my country, that we could secure and outward looking future. Separating Scotland from the protectionist ideologies of the UK government

In order for that to occur, we'd first need to encounter a non-Earthly threat so that they could become "the others" and Earthlings could band together against them. Unless we are presented with a large threat that forces us to band together and overcome all the smaller divisions, then the smaller divisions will define us. Example: Britain and France were rivals for a long time, but eventually they had to overcome their division so they could group up against the external threat of Germans. That rivalry continued for a bit, but eventually Western Europe had to band together to counter the threat from Arabs. And so it continues, with each tier of rivalry being solved when a new, broader threat is introduced.

The Dunbar number ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number ) gives us a baseline for divisions to begin. We will always treat people we know differently than people we don't know. It's just a limit of our biology. To avoid this trap, we'd need to give the reins of the society over to non-humans. This could mean genetically engineering our descendants into a form that is not human. It could mean allowing ourselves to be taken over by superior AI.

This post was edited by Kayeto on Apr 22 2021 03:56pm

That is too simplistic take isn't it? If your proposition that human biology responds to threat then maybe we need to better define a new and more carefully calculated one. I think that being on guard has helped us survive but as we evolve more trust can be placed in the survival of a larger family

This post was edited by addone on Apr 22 2021 04:00pm

You mean like the creature that Veidt dropped down in Watchmen?

never seen it

I vote with the sole intention of everything falling apart, amidoinitrite?

This post was edited by Jupe on Apr 22 2021 07:54pm

Individualism is part of human nature. So is hierarchy, at least to some extent. Many other animals follow some hierarchical structure monkeys, lions, whatever. IMO this won’t change.