3 ms·

I agree with your overarching point but I think the acknowledgement that it's all made up is more of an argument in favor of tribalism than against it. What's g

I agree with your overarching point but I think the acknowledgement that it's all made up is more of an argument in favor of tribalism than against it. What's good for America isn't necessarily good for the rest of the world. And yet, if America as a gestalt entity always persues the maximum benefit for its people in particular then the only reason this might be "bad" with scary quotes is because other countries aren't doing the same for their citizens for some reason.

allemagne 9y ago
Why not put the world under a United States of the World to maximize the number of people benefiting from tribalism then? Or else why keep California in the union if what's good for California isn't necessarily good for the rest of America?
- EggsOnToast 9y ago
  I'm a little late to reply but the blunt answer is "because it wouldn't be worth it." To clarify, the point I was making wasn't that tribalism is actually desirable, simply that if it's ethically agnostic then entrenched and powerul tribes benefit more from its perpetuation typically. For the thought experiment, creating a United States of the World would require either literally taking over the world or some amount of agentic sacrifice from every nation absorbed into the uber tribe. The case for California is similarly unrealistic but for different reasons, you can choose to occasionally give a member of a tribe lopsided benefits and deny them at other times. This is especially true when the alternative is compromising the perceived security of people who are already members of the tribe. Put more succinctly, the California idea is bad because it would lead to infighting and can be handled in a non-binary fashion.
ixtli 9y ago
Perhaps I don't understand what you mean but it occurs to me that what's best for America can often be achieved easily by exploiting other countries (their resources, their labor, etc.) so the two nations outcomes aren't aligned.

allemagne 9y ago

Why not put the world under a United States of the World to maximize the number of people benefiting from tribalism then? Or else why keep California in the union if what's good for California isn't necessarily good for the rest of America?

EggsOnToast 9y ago
I'm a little late to reply but the blunt answer is "because it wouldn't be worth it." To clarify, the point I was making wasn't that tribalism is actually desirable, simply that if it's ethically agnostic then entrenched and powerul tribes benefit more from its perpetuation typically. For the thought experiment, creating a United States of the World would require either literally taking over the world or some amount of agentic sacrifice from every nation absorbed into the uber tribe. The case for California is similarly unrealistic but for different reasons, you can choose to occasionally give a member of a tribe lopsided benefits and deny them at other times. This is especially true when the alternative is compromising the perceived security of people who are already members of the tribe. Put more succinctly, the California idea is bad because it would lead to infighting and can be handled in a non-binary fashion.

ixtli 9y ago

Perhaps I don't understand what you mean but it occurs to me that what's best for America can often be achieved easily by exploiting other countries (their resources, their labor, etc.) so the two nations outcomes aren't aligned.