Empire (which I’d put in the tribal side) brought international commerce, peace, standards, etc, I should think. You’re making many generalizations to rationali

Empire (which I’d put in the tribal side) brought international commerce, peace, standards, etc, I should think. You’re making many generalizations to rationalize a hopeful faith in globalization, and ignoring many profound negatives. Tribalism also has bad outcomes, but as others have said it wouldn’t be an inclination if it didn’t have evolutionary value. I’d go further and say that because it’s an evolved inclination, we’re far less immune to it than we’d like to think - that tribalism and globalization form a false dichotomy; you can have both. I.e. tribalism within a framework of international cooperation or a global empire as the will of a tribe (or alliance of a few tribes). The post-war global order is a very new thing, depends on a delicate power balance enforced by continual threat of war - buy in or die is hardly what you probably want to endorse when you champion globalization, but there’s a degree of that at work since the end of WWII. Growing up a Roman citizen makes you kinda partial to the global benefits of empire. If you disagree with Rome, you realize it’s not all peaches and cream. What’s different in the modern world we live in is more the scale of the tribes than a lack of tribes. But sitting in Rome, you think all the world is Rome.