Respectfully, your opinion is naive in that it ignores the impact of economics. Follow the money, you know why something works. What we call civilization began as humans began to acquire surplus, ie crops. Nations formed because Lords and city-states were no longer able to gather enough resources to fight wars, which are always about money. Yes there is a lot of noise and complication, but understand the first-principle root cause.

Individualism

For most of human history this was a evolutionary advantage

At this point, willfully ignoring the needs of the community,with 7 fucking billion people, is cutting off your nose to spite your face

I agree with much of what you stated, however, that we should do anything about it, I tend to disagree with. The species isn’t worth it. Can’t we all just stop reproducing and let the problem solve itself?

Pretty sure the worship of the second god (money) in the good book may be the root of most of the problems.

When you have leaders that exploit the them v us position how is the leap to be made? A leader that would be so inclusion would be wonderful. How do we make the leap? In America the idea of immigrants assimilating works for the most part but in Europe assimilating is not desired, hundreds of years with generation after generation of barbers, butchers, bakers, tailors, etc. and the immigrant is not welcome.
Each group, religion, 'clan', etc. needs to find the leader that teaches inclusion of all peoples. Hate is a learned condition but as resources become scarce conflict may be inevitable.
Good post.

Accurate depiction of where we're from, where we are, and what we need to become if we really want to continue the human journey and actually evolve into an advanced specie. The key phrase in all of this for me was "We need to make that leap from small group thinking to species wide thinking. To accept all as members of the same group."

What i don't understand is the apparent contradiction represented by the last sentence, "To understand that the most detrimental thing to our advancement and ultimate survival is us as a collective."

Since collective is generally defined as 1. done by people acting as a group. and 2. a cooperative enterprise.

The rest of the opinion piece seems to support a wholistic, collaborative, and cooperative approach, yet the last sentence says that collectivity, or collaboration is the most "detrimental thing" to what the author wants for our future.

I am confused about the apparent contradiction, so can anyone explain that to me?

And then what? Kumbaya through eternity? There's still no ultimate point to any of it.

What kind of dude lets his woman throw the rocks? (-;

I have seen a good deal of fatalism expressed here. The old, "That's the way it is." It doesn't take much thought to realize how faulty that notion is.

Skepticism I'll go along with. It just means one is taking a cautious stance on the issue. Pessimism is often mistaken for skepticism, but they are not necessarily the same. A person can be skeptical about something, but remain hopeful, positive, and strive for the ideal. The pessimist takes a negative position with little energy available to put into making something work. They might just as well be in the fatalist camp.

I've been on this planet a long time now and one would think I should at least be pessimistic, but I'm not. In spite of humanity's inhumanity and short sighted thinking, I think we are worth preserving as an intelligence in this Universe. I also maintain that we can do things, no matter how impossible they may seem, to make our civilization over into an overall constructive thing. We will always have our problems and our problem people, but we can solve the problems we can manipulate.

None before its time.

@mattersauce -- I have not ignored the progress we've been making, I just didn't mention it. Perhaps I should have. However, the progress we've been making is just using the same paradigm with twists. Each nation state is still going in with their prime goal being to protect their 'sovereignty' rather than establish a mutual working agreement that takes into account the entire world.

As for avoiding world wars, so far, so good. However, in that same period of time you mentioned (1945 going forward), there have been continuous states of war on the local and regional level, but the trend seems to be steadily moving toward a time when there may be extended periods of peace enjoyed in the world, but using the same thinking as before (business as usual), we will not eliminate the strife and tension among rivals. They will continue to be rivals and the potential for armed conflict will remain in place.

The point I am trying to make here is that we need to transcend the 'mine/yours' mentality. It is narrow thinking. It is limited thinking. It is self defeating. It is very much like that oft repeated saying, "Using the same thinking that created the problem will not solve the problem." We all live on a ball of dirt hurtling through space at incredible speed with a thin layer of life giving atmosphere that we appear bent on destroying. We have limited resources that we are apparently in a big hurry to use up. We have also established a have and have not system that is certainly not good for the have nots and will eventually be the downfall of the haves. I think it is time we realized that we are essentially the crew of a fragile spaceship traveling in dangerous territory and we should understand that each of us is a fellow human being and that we are no longer competing groups hunting for scarce game on the African savanna anymore.

It is easy when standing on the inside of the paradigm to say this is impossible, but one need not step too far outside of it to see that it is indeed possible.

All it would take is for the Earth to be attacked by aliens.

Very well stated, and I have no argument with it, but I have serious doubts as to whether it will or can be done.

Have you ever considered the case of Chimpanzee compared to Bonobo?
They both originated in exactly the same part of Africa, but became separated by geological upheaval into two territories, one in an area with ample resources and little danger, the other into a dangerous area with fewer resources. Chimps behave much as humans, divided into competing clans, the Bonobos instead became peaceful, and lovers of their fellow Bonobos, (especially where sex is concerned!)
So here is your answer in a nutshell.
Until resources, especially food, energy and non-saline water, are plentiful and available to all, man will never be peaceful. Nuclear fusion would certainly be a boon in that direction, as access to virtually infinite energy would allow reclamation of sea water and with it adequate water. However, there-in also lies a further problem. Populations would increase until availability of physical space would become the reason for strife.
Bonobos, although extremely active sexually at all times, are biologically infertile for long periods. Man would need mandatory contraception to avoid a population explosion.

Ha.
Good luck.
All DARPA studies indicate "Tribe" is the optimal size of a group for anything. Tribal size, based on extended family membership, is usually maxed out at about 300 (4 platoons which equal a company).
Artifical groups larger than this tend to fragment over time, and are less efficent.

You seem to have ignored the fact that we are doing that. The progress may not be to your liking but we are and have been making progress all throughout history up through today. The United Nations is a great example founded in 1945 in aim to prevent another World War after the second, and we haven't had another. These days there are international summits like never before in history where multiple nations are trying to address global threats as a united community rather than single entities. Nations routinely provide aid to other nations on a regular basis and more during times of struggle such as natural disasters.

You're looking at your lifetime and making a summary judgment on all of humanity without even addressing in the slightest our list of successes. Again it may not be at the pace you want or deem necessary by an unknown end date, but ignoring that progress simply makes me read your piece and give it the same due I do a man with a sandwich board on the corner.

I agree with what you have stated, but my opinion is, this vicious paradigm will never be broken.