> It's little reason to justify such division today, and especially not to participate in mass murder to achieve it.

Not at all! To use my Bangladesh example. Bangladesh was founded in 1971 as a secular republic. Pakistan thereafter veered towards theocracy, e.g. adopting Sharia law for criminal proceedings in 1976. Subsequent events have slowly chipped away at Bangladeshi secularism over the years, but had they remained with Pakistan it would have been a lost hope. And as for tribalism being obsolete, I don't agree. There are hundreds of millions of people who think I should be executed for leaving the religion I was born into: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/01.... Do you want those folks voting on the laws that govern you? If not, you're not arguing against "tribalism," you're just arguing about where the tribal lines should be drawn.

I don't think so. Having the Bengali counterbalance would have significantly reduced Pakistan's veering towards theocracy, imo.

But that's speculation, neither here nor there. Who knows how it would have actually played out.

>Little reason to justify such division today

I would like to agree with you but there is not evidence that humans have not changed and that

>humans are inclined to form tribes and to fear the other

remains true.

Rather we should accept we are tribal and work to ensure our collaborations, alliances and policies have that in mind. To assume that we, by virtue of just living in the present day with more technology, are more advanced and that we have progressed is a big big error.

Progress is not something that just happens. Progress is not inevitable. Societies do not naturally become more civilised. People need to work to ensure civilisation doesn't fall apart. Progress was made by people, it is the result of actions made.

the whole point of delineating societal groups is to provide ring-fences for cultural groups that may otherwise be at each other's throats. Just look at the continuous fighting between Shi'ite and Sunni muslims that could arguably be traced back to the Sykes-Picot agreement drawing up borders that did not respect the locations of mutually-unfriendly groups.

Slight nitpick: The Shia-Sunni divide has plagued the Islamic world ever since the succession of Muhammad. Sure, Sykes-Picot aggravated it greatly, but it did not cause it.

Of course, but Sykes-Picot is a good demonstration of the importance of considerate borders.

Fortunately, while Brexit may be "forming tribes" and "creating division", it seems unlikely to involve participation in mass murder.