3 ms·
This is saying people are loyal to their tribes, and view the government's interests as unaligned with those of their tribe, presumably giving rise to a lack of
by thisiscorrect 6y ago
This is saying people are loyal to their tribes, and view the government's interests as unaligned with those of their tribe, presumably giving rise to a lack of common cause in something that a government might foster like scientific development. But if "tribe" were synonymous with "ethnic group" then you'd actually be saying that multiple ethnic groups sharing a government are a cause (not necessarily the only one) of scientific stagnation. But it sounds like you're not. So what defines these tribes if not ethnic group?
- qppo 6y agoI think it may be more useful to think of "tribe" or "clan" as a political organizations that form the base of decentralized governments than ethnic groups, since many tribes can exist within any given ethnic group, and many ethnic groups can exist within geographic areas governed by decentralized bodies.
- aaronblohowiak 6y agoI think implicit in your argument is a belief that utility ("interests") trumps identity ("who we are") in loyalty dynamics. I think that belief is.. not universal.. I believe the OP was suggesting that externally-imposed boundaries can hold areas in an unstable state for long periods of time, but when they are gone there is unrest that takes time to achieve a stable society and that scientific progress is best achieved when people arent worried aobut their food/safety/corrupt warlord.
- rsynnott 6y agoSo, 'tribe' here doesn't necessarily mean an ethnic group. Depending on scenario, it might really just mean 'village'; in some sense, large regions of some countries never _really_ became part of the nation at all.