I don't think human beings can live without group identity. I grew up in a DC suburb full of "open minded" cosmopolitan people. Group identity, along economic, political, and educational lines, was intense. People were vicious in demeaning "the dumb uneducated rednecks that live in flyover country." Group identity was asserted by having the right education, belonging to the right political party, having the right profession and aspirations.

Human beings are fundamentally social creatures. Consider the ritual of meeting someone for the first time. People grill each other trying to figure out what they have in common. "Oh, how do you know $PARTY_HOST?" Oh, are you from Chicago too? How about the Cubs this year, huh?"

That used to be a common argument against atheism but I think it's been largely debunked over time (e.g. people can live without religion and won't necessarily replace it with something worse). There's also a distinction to be made between voluntary association through shared interests (e.g. on Hacker News) versus a largely irrational allegiance towards a nation state (which is not usually a deliberate decision but a product of the birth lottery).

I do agree that the modern welfare state would likely be difficult to maintain without national identity.

A pretty big percentage of atheists have replaced religion with environmentalism. The narrative is basically the same:

We used to live in paradise but then man was corrupted and if we don't repent fast enough we'll be doomed to eternal damnation.

Arguments are easy when you can place whatever concepts you like in another's head, but we ask that comments stay civil and substantive on Hacker News.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Sorry, didn't mean to cross a line!

FWIW, I don't think your comment deserved to get killed and I don't entirely disagree with it but I'm skeptical that the percentage is as high as you imagine and it's not obvious to me that environmentalism is strictly worse than religion (the environmental extremists seem less dangerous than the religious ones for example).

Not my house, not my rules.

Given that, I'll leave the topic to rest.

And to extend the analogy, they're deeply offended at technological solutions to things that could be solved with self control.

"Birth control? Just stop having sex when you don't want a kid."

"Carbon sequestration? Just stop being so wasteful."

'Humans can live without a group identity or identify as living beings instead of being a "proud $skin_color $religion $nationality $gender".'

I think you may wish that was the case, but the evidence for this is rather lacking.

Even the people who think they identify that way actually identify as people who identify that way and freely indulge in "othering" the people who choose a different identity basis.