Indeed. How about it? Has naive adoption of such ever been achieved, without being ultimately detrimental to the host? There is nuance, of course. Paying my

Indeed. How about it? Has naive adoption of such ever been achieved, without being ultimately detrimental to the host? There is nuance, of course. Paying my taxes and helping my neighbor doesn't preclude sending aid to Africa. But nuance is precisely what the title (article is behind a paywall, so I can't read it) dispenses with. There is no balancing of obligations between self, kin, kith, town, state, nation, and humanity as a whole. "Just drop that whole 'national' thing, post-haste." The reality is: humans are social animals. Groups will form identities, or be dissolved and split into groups that do. And as long as the prisoner's dilemma and tragedy of the commons are things, there will be multiple competing groups, rather than one big one. This doesn't mean "therefore, genocide." Quite the opposite: good fences make good neighbors. I wonder if those who are so free with their ingroup designations exercise the same fast-and-loose mentality when writing put options. Just as hedges allow investors to take on more risk (because they can take only the risks they want to), fences allow neighbors to share vegetables over the side wall without worrying about finding Fido in the petunias or whatever. It's sad to see the perfect made the enemy of the good, especially when the good is really good.