does the depth of cultural self-loathing know no bound?
I'm puzzled by this (possibly rhetorical?) question. Which culture is supposed to be loathing itself here?
EDIT: the current framework of international order has roots in Westphalian notions of nation states, which is indeed christian and european.
(just because I didn't know that word) Mores: "The accepted traditional customs and usages of a particular social group."
> is rejecting tribalism in favor of the rule of law
Agreed. You just have to convince the other "tribes" to do that as well. And the more people are forced to accept other people from a more distant (not geographical distance) culture, the stronger the backlash is
> more egalitarian social relations and decisionmaking processes
How many forced marriages, FGMs and honour killings are happening now under the auspice of western secular governments/societies?
I’m not sure I understand your question. Are you talking about autocratic regimes propped up by western powers for short-sighted self-serving geopolitical reasons? Which western/secular governments and which honor killings are you talking about?
Agreed. When they have the chance
> Are you talking about autocratic regimes propped up by western powers for short-sighted self-serving geopolitical reasons?
While propped up regimes are often undemocratic, the anti-secularism (which is different from simply "religious aligned" - like most republicans, as an example) and other factors do not come from it.
Though I agree auspice is a bad word to describe it, as governments are indifferent rather than supportive
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shafia_family_murders
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41193899
https://www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/child-abuse-and-ne...
If we want to stop female genital mutilation in Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Somalia (where the women under discussion are migrating from), it seems to me – though I am certainly not an expert on the region – that the way forward is to stop flooding them with small arms, work on improving the local economy and its connections to the outside world, work on improving the political and economic power of local women, not turn a blind eye to ethnic violence, stop uncritically supporting the awful Saudi monarchy, work to empower respected people in the region to speak out against such practices, put pressure on local governments and courts to change their laws and enforcement, and so on.
Trying to impose cultural changes on people by external force is historically not a productive method.
Correct, but tolerating cultural practices incompatible with modern societies is causing local populations to feel frustrated (not to mention the imposition of guilt onto them).
Criticizing one practice does not mean other practices are acceptable. So yes, domestic violence is a cause of concern. But nice whataboutism.
It isn't really rejecting tribalism, it's something more akin to the 'FairBot' tribe from the article. It is a way of selecting members based on adherence to a very complex set of tendencies and behaviours; in other words, a Shibboleth. It's been more successful in the recent term because it has succeeded in identifying tribe members independent of ethnic origin. It absolutely does not shy away from rejecting people who fail at performing the Shibboleth and it doesn't care if those people are the direct descendents of tribe members. Exhibit A: the number of people in prison in the West.
I was going to say this exact same thing --- that, as far as the simulation understands, FairBot is just a more complicated Shibboleth.
To properly perform our Shibboleth is to have loved other people, then develop and understanding of murder/genocide and be given an opportunity to express your feeling about it. If these things don't bother you, then you've failed the Shibboleth and need to be killed (or imprisoned) so that you don't damage our society.
And, while our society certainly doesn't implement this perfectly, this is the best you can do. The shibboleth has worked so well because, unless you're a sociopath, it comes out of the root of your being. In my mind, the experience of transcendent love is so powerful that we are willing to reject ANY destruction of it, even if it doesn't directly affect us (i.e. I wouldn't kill a mother because, having a mother myself, I know it would destroy a very power human bond).
My take was that the article does not quite make these claims, but uses the simulations to model implications of them.
>we should despise tribalism for some reason that is frankly not exactly clear
We should move beyond tribalism because of it's inherence of prejudice.
>We should move beyond tribalism because of it's inherence of prejudice.
Considering an inherent property of a winning strategy evil means your code is non-optimal and is inevitably going to disappear.
Anyone who thinks tribalism can be eliminated lacks self awareness or a least a mirror.
Regarding your second point, it's not a matter of the level of tribalism staying the same vs completely eliminating it. I think the overall levels have been reduced over the centuries, and there are people out there that are pretty non-tribalistic in outlook.