This is related to the difference between the morality of government and politics, as opposed to the morality of a person. A person can keep their hands clean - any evil others commit, it is on them, and anything we do personally is on us.

The government however has a different kind of thinking, as it is responsible for events under it's jurisdiction, while a person doesn't have such responsibility. Thus, governmental "ethics" aren't ethics at all - the government uses the rule of law to strike the hammer, not morality. It can be thus seen that utilitarianism is closer to how the governments thinks, while deontology is more of a personal ethic. It is only the government that has to choose the lesser evil to keep a modicum of order, not the citizen.

Of course, there are exceptions to this, for example when so many people's lives depend on a personal choice, that someone is pushed to choose the lesser evil. However, I would argue that at these times, that person acts as a representative of a governement, or humanity, and not as a person.

[removed]

I completely agree. Even just the profit motive is a more definable, more accurate, and more broadly applicable problem than “tribalism.” Native Americans weren’t harmed by tribalism, they were harmed by bourgeoise property owners who employed racism/colonialism to secure wealth and political power. The systems of capitalism, colonialism and racism that Are the modern state are what’s to blame here.

[removed]

I guess where I sort of have issues with isn’t that someone’s doing something selfless. I think that’s great it’s more that I don’t believe in a mindset that means trying to never think of yourself. It goes back to the individual being part of a group part I mentioned earlier. If you never learn what you want and what makes you motivated I think you will fail at being someone that has the foundation and confidence to succeed within a group. I don’t think the self is evil. I think most of us are born good and with good intentions for our community. We are instead taught how to act and feel. In saying we need to forget ourselves we’re implying that we are somehow bad or wrong. That is not true. We are good and if we are believed in by ourselves we can arguably accomplish more altruistic things then someone who thinks it’s necessary to forget oneself. Why can’t we be both caring about others and ourselves? Why do we have to distinguish one as being more worthy of our love and attention?

[removed]

Then the tribe wars have begun

Citation needed?

I presume you're aware that not everyone will agree with you on this.

Single most important issue is energy production. We need more powa and we need to not kill what's left of the natural world.

With boundless energy, you could do silly shit, like farm underground with temperature and humidity control

They might give more away if it didn't entail giving away control of their company.

>They know very well they're better off with lots of starving people around.

How, precisely, is this the case?

[removed]

[removed]

We haven't done that in our entire existence. It's not going to suddenly happen in my lifetime.

[removed]

As a mankind we always had only two main goal to which we should always focus on. To improve and survive improvement. We weren't born to send rockets to each other's but to send 'em all together in the abyss of cosmic void. If we couldn't been able to manage that thought we'd never be able to reach for the stars

That's literally the opposite of the truth. Starving people I'm just gonna say Africa for ease of analogy would be a huge market. Provide them with food and you're several billions of dollars per year richer. The problem is to provide them with food you have to make the nation's they're in safe enough, and stop the corruption to allow it to work. Which would require military intervention or insane politicking. You'd also have to make them wealthy enough to buy the food because otherwise it's just slave labor because someone has to be paid for all the work producing it which would also require dealing with the local corruption and violence.

Bottom line corporations would LOVE if everyone was well fed, well off and could buy whatever they wanted. Because it all goes into their pockets. But local govts make that practically impossible. Govts like people hungry, poor and unsecured. Because those people rely on the govts kindness and help just to survive which gives them power. Politicians are the enemy of progress, not business owners.

[removed]

> It’s the same dynamic at play.

talk about reductive nonsense

[removed]

It is impossible to live in a post scarcity society with capitalism, because it requires growth.

We could have had a fully post scarcity society in the 1880s.

[removed]

[removed]

The characterization of “tribal instincts” as being antisocial is an extremely biased starting point. Hundreds of thousands of native tribes all over the earth lived just fine with each for most of human history. Human beings with different social grouping of a wide diversity can live just fine with each other. The social and economic constructs that portray “tribalism” as strictly antisocial are also the main causes behind the major problems we want to overcome. To put it clearly, the issue is not tribalism; it’s capitalism, colonialism, and the state.