> >Yes. I think people are good overall.

> Until a certain amount of sacrifices have to be made.

I remember some political philosophy online course from some reasonably reputable American college that was quite nicely set up - it had a lecturer and two token students (a man and a woman). At some point the lecturer asked the students (IIRC the topic was anarchism) if they thought that people were fundamentally basically good - the man was like "yeah I think people are basically good", the woman said something along the lines of "Well, I grew up in Yugoslavia, so not really..."

Tribes are actually very benevolent and certainly helpful to many strangers that in their eyes seek help. There have been numerous incidents all around the world where poor tribals have come and nurture a sick stranger back to life. It is basic human nature.

I am using a more generalized definition of tribe, to mean any group you belong or you categorize others to belong to. For example, my first priority tribe is my kids. Second priority tribe is probably kids and spouse. Then kids, spouse and myself. Then my siblings, and parents, and then maybe friends/extended family/members of my parents’ immigrant diaspora/my college class/neighbors/political allies/business partners/countrymen/etc.

It is a poor choice of words then if you have to disregard the actual tribes in the world.

I have found otherwise good people are capable of intentionally doing awful things to another human, even if you have known someone almost your entire life, a switch flips and it is like a full psychopath is unlocked. Many only need the moral cover, certain they are right, to say and do awful things to another.

This was always true but it seems to me that social media, in all its forms, not only takes your privacy, it also takes your empathy. At the root of many mental health disorders exists narcissism and for the past few decades an increasing number of people have been added to the empathy erasing internet hate machine.

Just look around, the proof is everywhere.

The proof of kindness is everywhere, too. Just look around.

In most cases people see what they prefer to see. Their response to such impossible questions tells you more about them - how they see the world, their sense of life - than it does humanity at large.

I agree, this is a hard subject, whether people are good or not. I've always believed we're all capable of doing good under certain conditions, but let most get out of their comfort zone and they'll turn on you like a mad dog. (sorry) Proof? just look at our political scene the last 5 plus years. I won't debate any thing ideologically anymore with co-workers, they simply default to anger when you press them to explain how they feel and why about any difficult ideas.

speak for yourself

Retake political science please.

The advent of the agricultural revolution, the telegraph, and the teletype each resulted in massive increases in "tribal size". To the point that after the teletype, it was a bipolar cold war.

So I don't think you have any qualifications to say a single word in this matter.

Your comment has broken the site guidelines badly. We ban accounts that do that, so could you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here? We definitely don't want swipes or flamebait in HN comments.

I don't see how his comment justifies yours-- either your reading of it (I don't see any claims about "tribal size" in his comment, and I'm sure we're all aware that there's a whole range of affiliations we have from large-- 'Murica-- to small-- HN fans) or the vitriol.

Be kind, please.

I have no idea what your comment is trying to convey, but to help clarify my comment, this might help:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lbj-convince-the-lowest-wh...

I posit that at the root of all societal friction is the widening income/wealth gap within the US, along with shifting socioeconomic statuses with some losing ground and some gaining ground.

Note that people are in many tribes of many sizes simultaneously, and constantly shifting priorities and allegiances as it suits them, and trying to figure out others’ priorities and allegiances.

> I posit that at the root of all societal friction is the widening income/wealth gap within the US,

Why would you think this when there is little meaningful difference income-wise between Democrats and Republicans?

A significant chunk of the US votes on single issue matters that have nothing to do with economic status (abortion, gun rights).

I don't agree that the root is the income/wealth gap, but it certainly is playing a big role in the divide.

> little meaningful difference income-wise between Democrats and Republicans?

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-stu... is striking-- and when you look into the sub-demographics of the lowest and highest band it gets more interesting still-- e.g. that 27% in the lowest income band is shockingly rural.

>certainly is playing a big role in the divide.

The only divide is in whether it’s something that is even a problem that needs to be addressed. Income inequality doesn’t divide people itself, just the focus on it does.

> Income inequality doesn’t divide people itself

I don't agree. We're increasingly divided along lines that are very well correlated with demographic factors. Like, age, sure, but also income, religion, race, etc.

And the link makes it pretty clear income is a pretty strong predictor of political leanings. (And when you combine income + rural/urban split, it's a very strong one).

In other nations (e.g. Mexico, Peru, Ghana, Thailand, etc.) health care is provided to all. In USA lots of people can't afford any sort of health care. The family left behind by someone who dies at 48 because he couldn't afford e.g. blood pressure medication doesn't need any sort of "focus" to see the divide.

Health care is just the starkest illustration of this. One sees the same phenomenon with any other necessity: housing, food, transportation, etc.

What is shocking about it? Rural is by nature less efficient than high-density urban. Less productive. Everything costs more and pays less because rural living isn’t as “good” (in the ways that relate to income/velocity of money) as high density living.

You trade off dollar wealth green wealth: more trees, bigger land, less crowding, cleaner air, quieter environment, private living. The costs are in Longer drives, higher prices, less selection, lower pay, greater energy use, potentially far fewer cultural/educational/social opportunities.

I don't understand how what you said here relates to what I said. I didn't say that lower income people are more rural; I said that if you look at the left leaning subset of the lowest income people, they are very urban, and the right leaning subset of the lowest income people, they are very rural.

> A significant chunk of the US votes on single issue matters that have nothing to do with economic status (abortion, gun rights).

I wonder if the design of our so-called democracy has something to do with it. It's funny how this major foundation of our society escapes scrutiny, and it is mostly only the players within it who get any attention.