I see robust communities as built upon “Common-Sense Morality”, with some limited amount of broader charity through the government and religious organizations. Local communities are suffering due to tech disruption, and these anti-social ideas from Parfit are like nails in the coffin (should they become part of received morality).
Larry Temkin did, when I took two of his ethics undergraduate courses in the 90s. It was a brief side point he was making, to contrast with arguments of the form "Do you believe you'd have an obligation to jump in a lake, and ruin your clothes, to save someone from drowning? If so, the same reasoning implies you have to give all your money to charity."
He described it as "participating in a morality" where one has a heightened sense of obligation to one's immediate community.
Temkin was a PhD student of Parfit, and is well known in his own right. We read Parfit's Reasons and Persons in his class, and he also invited Parfit to campus so we could hear him give a guest lecture. The questions afterwards, coming from Temkin's faculty colleagues, were quite feisty.
A wonderful and deeply memorable experience.
Good interview here:
https://www.thendobetter.com/arts/2022/7/24/larry-temkin-tra...
“Every particular society, when it is narrow and unified, is estranged from the all-encompassing society. Every patriot is harsh to foreigners. They arc only men. They arc nothing in his eyes - This is a drawback, inevitable but not compelling. The essential thing is to be good to the people with whom one lives. Abroad, the Spartan was ambitious, avaricious. iniquitous. But disinterestedness, equity, and concord reigned within his walls. Distrust those cosmopolitans who go to great length in their books to discover duties they do not deign to fulfill around them. A philosopher loves the Tartars so as to be spared having to love his neighbors.”