The way I see it that instinct is the cause behind so much suffering and injustice in the world.

  • TauZero@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Many of us have already overcome it! All of them are holding us back though.

  • laylawashere44@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    All the Great Apes (probably, definitely), including us, have an instinct and built in skill at identifying snakes.

    Researchers did experiments with both humans and other apes where they were shown progressively less obscured images of different predators and without fault we and our relatives were able to identify the snakes faster than any other creature.

    This means that the instinct to find, and kill snakes goes back millions of years. Yet now when I encounter a snake my instinct is to move it to a safer spot so it doesn’t get hurt or hurt me.

    I think that if we can get over such a deep rooted instinct, we can get over the ‘Us Vs Them’ instinct too.

    • abbadon420@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wow, good argument. But did you really overcome the instinctual fear for snakes, or do you winch first, before rational takes over to tell you to move the snake to a safer place?

      • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If wincing is all that happens before treating others with respect and rationality, then I’d call that a success.

  • Auli@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    No because there is no natural selection happening for that trait. But in once case aliens. If there where aliens discovered and they where hostile maybe even not I could see humans banding together as a group but it would still be an us vs them situation.

  • samus12345@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I don’t think so. I think the universe is too harsh for a complex, truly altruistic species to survive. But it is possible for us to get to a point where socially we’re better than our base instincts. We’re partway there, although we’ve been backsliding lately.

    • grabyourmotherskeys@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      So you think if we all cooperated, made sure everyone was safe and healthy, ended war, and devoted all our time to ensuring each person reached their potential (whether that be scientific, artistic, etc) it would make us less likely to survive?

      • JungleJim@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think they’re saying if you start out that way naturally (like a peaceful sapient race on a peaceful planet) they’d be an easy resource for something less peaceful (it would just take one aggressive race to extinguish them). If peacefulness and powerfulness scale together during a species’s development, they may learn to learn strategies for peaceful coexistence before the stakes are too high for screwups.

      • samus12345@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No. The very tribalism that has allowed us to survive now works against us because we were too successful at survival. The solution is to be aware of and constantly fight against our base selfish instincts through things like what you said. The problem is that we seem to always go back to “fuck you, got mine” as a species. Perhaps the great filter is that a species that’s successful enough at survival to get to the point where space travel is possible will always be betrayed by the tribalistic behavior they needed to survive the harshness of life.

  • ricecake@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Follow up question, is it possible to decentralize or balance power so that no one group can cause too much harm?

      • ricecake@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I like bitcoin. It has problem that coins have a 90/10 distribution - 10 percent of people own 90 percent of coins - but it is decentralized, you can keep your coins in offline wallets and maybe the 90/10 distribution can be fixed because it’s just code.

  • plactagonic@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    As long as power hungry people exist. It is basically easiest thing to implement in your politics and get people behind you.

  • Black_Gulaman@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    it’s what kept us alive during our early days as a specie. I think is it baked into our essence as a human. but if it can be controlled or diverted then yeah. fund us an alien and we’ll be an earth tribe against aliens.

    Ozymandias was correct

  • orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Humans are reactionary and emotionally driven. Thats why empty hot button issues are such a trigger for people. We need to learn to ignore those things and work together, but the pessimist in me doesn’t see it happening. Thats a massive shift and based on what I’ve observed in the US, that divide is doing nothing but widening.

    All we can do is be aware of it, not get roped into manufactured propaganda, and unionize.

    • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      empty hot button issues

      Agree for the most part but this here is also part of the issue. What one considers an “empty hot button topic” tends to be based on what directly affects them. I’ve routinely seen people on both sides use this exact same label to dismiss things like LGBT rights or abortion access. To the individuals that actually suffer, those are not “empty hot button topics”.

      Like I very distinctly remember a time when the debate around gay marriage was called a distraction from Iraq. It was a frequent applause line in many, many straight cis comedian’s sets. It may have been convenient in that way, but to the LGBT community, it was real oppression and a real fight for equality. It also wasn’t some facade that was being put on by the right, they were genuine about it. That fight needed to be fought at the same time as the fight to end the war in Iraq, or the recession, or any of the “bigger” issues of the 2000s.

      • notacat@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hopefully the poster is referring more to topics like Hunter Biden’s laptop that take up a significant amount of time on the most watched cable news channel. Or when Hillary Clinton was investigated eleven times with nothing to show for it simply to keep her in the news.

        • orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, this is what I was referring to. Things that can’t be directly attached to a person’s experiences or well being. I’d never willingly dismiss a person’s struggle or needs. Thanks for summarizing better than I did.

  • Kempeth@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Remove? No. Overcome? We’re already doing it.

    Our society is far more accomodating than it has ever been. Different sexes, ethnicities, skin colors, religions, sexual orientations, gender identities and whatnot enjoy more acceptance and equality now than ever before. Something like the EU - a voluntary alliance of this size - would have been unthinkable probably just 100-200 years ago. And for all its flaws the participating nations have grown closer through it.

    We still got ways to go particularly internationally and we must be ever vigilat against those that want to drag us backward but the progress is undeniable.

    • madcow@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      But how would you define the point at which our material needs are met? It feels like it’s an intrinsic desire for humans to gain an advantage over other people. Or at least we want the illusion of being able to gain an advantage through either hard work or gaming the system. For me it seems like capitalism lies in our nature and it requires a complete change of our societal values to move to a different system. Not saying that I think capitalism is a good thing.

  • MummifiedClient5000@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The “Us vs. Them” mentality is also called the “in-group bias”, in which you tend to align with other members of a perceived group (with little to no logical reason, it can be as simple as belts vs. suspenders). Like many other fallacies or biases, it is a built-in feature of our caveman-brains that no longer benefits us. When used in propaganda, it is often paired with the “strawman fallacy” to build the perception of an enemy that is barely even human.

    You can learn to recognize these biases in yourself and in others - This is called critical thinking. I recommend the podcast “You Are Not So Smart” to everyone to get more insight on this subject.

  • MonkderZweite@feddit.ch
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I hope so. Knowledge and curiousity feed intelligence feed knowledge feed curiousity. A highly educated society with healthy education sytem and good working socioeconomy (concurency in news coverage) can theoretically get over “us vs. them”. Until we someday maybe lose it as evolutionary trait.