A World Without Differences

This thread has been created after an off-topic moment in one of this sub-forum's threads, in which there was a brief discussion of the following premise:

Can there be a world without differences? A world with no nations, no religions, or, to be more precise and realistic, a world where the group mentalities of various ingroups and outgroups being formed, either by their own self-interest and/or their desire to dominate others, becomes outdated or archaic?

Can such a world be possible? Is it feasible, or is it just an idealistic utopia? ''Is it possible for group mentalities/names/categorizations based on identities to stop existing or at least to stop being so pervasive?

Could the very idea of 'cultural identity' or 'political identity' no longer be valid in this world, since it fosters divisions and rivalries?

Or are these divisions the products of our instinctual categorization, of pushing others towards labels that they may not be related to, but which we want to see them adjusting themselves to said labels?

With this in mind, let's consider some of the various prisms of the world from where group mentalities and categorizations would have to cease, be diminished or rendered non-invasive if such a world came to fruition:

• Nations (which would lead to: a One world order? Internationalism^note which is also considered to be a bit limitative? Outer space explorations as a United Earth?);
• Religions (or lack of them - the Atheist group would have to refrain from causing these sort of divisions and agressive categorizations);
• Colour of the skin (no white supremacists, no black pride, nothing - perhaps even, if we go to the extreme, stopping using terms such as 'white', 'black', 'mestiço/mestizo', and so forth, altogether);
• Gender-based groups and politics (no Feminism, no MRA's, no LGBTQ parades of affirmation and pride - total and complete equality);
• Categorization of people based on wealth, income, money, possessions (e.g. class system, 1% vs. 99%);
• Political and social ideologies;
• Fandoms (sports, music, etc.) - in the pathological, obsessive, exclusive, antagonistic sense, that leads to noob-hazing, bullying of fandom rivals, imposition of heresies and so forth);
• General tribalisms and ethno-[insert whatever];
• Etc, etc. ...

I'm sure we have lots of things to talk about...

EDIT: In light of how chaotic the discussion was going for the majority of the first three pages, the OP has now been reedited to focus on group mentalities and characteristics, instead of the groups themselves. Newcomers should consider going straight to page 3 of this thread.

edited 14th Mar '15 8:14:17 AM by Quag15

You would have to destroy literally everything that matters to people, going by this list. I mean really, no fandoms? People like stories in whatever media they can get them. They like discussing those things with people who also like those things. And this is literally the most trivial of things on your list. Are you even familiar with the term subculture? A culture within a culture based quite frequently on relatively niche interests, like metal or the goth scene.

You literally cannot have a world with more than one person in which people AREN'T different from each other. And quite frankly, a world with no differences isn't a utopia. A world that can't tolerate differences (and this doesn't include hate groups, btw, just people who think differently and believe in different things. Hate groups can go {explicative deleted}.) is a dystopia.

So yeah, utopia shouldn't be about destroying identities. And you'd have to destroy so much to make that possible.

Is it possible? Probably. Is it desirable? I would say no. To destroy all identity would be to destroy a great part of our humanity.

I do not think such a thing would be an idealistic utopia at all.

We'd be robots, living in such a world. Sad as it is, and cliche as it sounds, its our differences that shape us for good and for ill.

The goal should be to eradicate intolerance of differences not the differences themselves. Eradicating all differences would just be championing intolerance.

The reason I opened this thread came during a discussion on the Israel and Palestine thread, about how national and ethnic identities generate(d) divisions, with-us-or-against-us mentalities, exclusion, separatisms, and so forth. This leads to killings, abuse, exploitation, bullying and stuff.

The premise of this thread can be interpreted as: a) literally destroying these concepts, which is not the best thing to do, indeed; b) rendering them meaningless, or harmless enough, so that people wouldn't engage into abuse and other kinds of negative behaviour/actions, systemic or otherwise.

This also ties in with discussions on equality, the viability of nation-states, feminist (and post-feminist) discourse, and so on and so forth.

In short, I (and others) want to hear anyone's opinions on this incredibly diverse matter. Thank you for the answers so far.

I also wonder if I should've narrowed the premise down a bit/a lot.

edited 11th Mar '15 2:27:15 PM by Quag15

I am not sure the fault lies within those identifications, however. I think the fault lies more with tolerance of diversity and order.

I do not think there is a problem if Group A (Lemonade fans) live next to Group B (Milkshake fans). I think it is a problem if either a member of group A or B arbitrarily decide only their prefered bevrage is consumed. This is different to, for example, a Group that is defined on the fact of harming another (For example, the Marlboro Baptist Church, whose belief is that they must smoke everywhere and whoever refuses to smoke is a sinner).

The concept of a group is a pretty natural one. Humans group together, as do animals, be it in clanlike organizations, hives, packs, schools, murders or families, etc. it is the situation around that can lead a group into violence. Scarcity of resources the most common situation of say, war, or direct conflict.

In the case of the groups whose conflict created this conversation I believe there are more elements at play than mere group identification.

So long as at least two people exist, somebody is going to disagree on something with somebody else.

I disagree with that

... I'm going to have a lot of work clarifying and reformulating things. Not possible to phone post. Tomorrow. Please wait for me.

Sorry if I misunderstood your original point. Take your time.

Just about all of our differences, and the issues derived from them, are derived from our wants and needs. Sufficing them would probably destroy everything you listed, or make them irrelevant.

To achieve this, we'd likely become post-humans that would be completely self-sufficient both physically and mentally. There'd be no such thing as a group, or anything derived from groups, because people wouldn't need others anymore (which kind of sucks for sci-fi writers who like future conflict, but hey, there's always buggy hyper-intelligent A.I. that try to turn everything into cheese). We'd probably all just faff about, contemplating reality and whatnot for the rest of existence.

Or, at least we would if we were alone in existence, but I doubt that. I'd probably try to find every being I could find and give them the same self-sufficiency and ability I have, and I'm guessing the majority of people would do the same. It's a kind of never-ending quest I could see myself doing forever really.

edited 11th Mar '15 3:32:39 PM by Ekuran

Becoming the Borg Collective is not the ideal solution to intolerance and conflict.

Borg are not self sufficient. They are pure identity, pure community, pure group.

This thread's title seems liek something you'd find on a dystopian short story. Or like something Lelouch would be fighting against.

We need a collective hivemind where only MY identity exists!

This is quite a consideration.

No I do not think it is possible to create such a society at all. You would have to fundamentally alter humanity as a collective whole and frankly bend or break the laws of the universe to achieve it. They are partly tied to things like environment, differing experiences, or simply being around different people. Just by existing unless you can control everything right down to what we all experience on a daily basis it would simply be impossible. Differing experiences generate different groups. Another catch is the human psyche. Cracked had a nice simple article discussing it. I think the article was called "The Monkey Sphere".

The differences in experiences alone would create groups that differ and see the world differently. We have several living examples in many modern societies today. For example the difference in opinion and outlook on the world between civilians vs Military. That is only one level of difference. The next level is what service branch. Then where you trained for boot. Then what your MOS/Job in the military was. And other differences like where you were stationed.

For a more civilian example where you grew up, what neighborhoods, what schools, and what colleges you wind up in. All of them can create unique and differing experiences and outlooks on life.

This is very simplified because there are so many factors that go into everything from your mental state, environment, and even your genetics can play a role in it.

Even if we were all nearly identical and lived in the same general conditions, variations in our environment and daily experiences would cause differences to arise.

A couple works of fiction have touched on this. Two come to mind. The Giver and The Latheof Heaven for example.

edited 11th Mar '15 6:32:21 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Looking at the list again, I'm still really confused why FANDOMS is on the list. It really is trivial compared to the other things on it, as while creeps quite often get involved it's not on the same level as say, racism or classism and ethnocentric supremecism in terms of long term damage. Getting rid of fandoms means you'd have to destroy the fact that people tend to LIKE things and enjoy hanging out with people who share their interests. And this sort of thing tends not to be a terrible thing at all. Not like racism or ethnocentrism.

I mean, really, what kind of utopia can you get from getting rid of the idea that people like things? And how would making it not mean anything make a utopia? I'm pretty sure that most people don't care that I like anime and comics. Hobbies, by and large, are not divisive the way the rest of the things on this list tend to be.

We do not need equality. We need equivalence.

Keep in mind that I put things on the list through the criteria of 'it can generate divisions, tribalism, abuse, and so forth'. Within the fandoms, you can find some nasty people as well, not to mention the spirit of tribalism and superiority, the divisions within fandoms, and so forth.

And, everyone: I reaffirm that I, personally wouldn't like to see these things wiped out (after all, I'm a bit of a nationalist^note positive nationalist, to be more precise).

This is very much about what is feasible, and what is not, what aspects are feasible and what aspects are not. And, more importantly, a discussion me and others (namely, you)are very much interested in.

I've heard of equality and equity, but not of equivalence. Can you elaborate for me, please?

Interesting. I'll check those things you've mentioned.

I'm thinking of a question which is related to this, and it's about words/labels. I'll ask it later.

edited 11th Mar '15 7:05:10 PM by Quag15

First, let's define terms.

"Identity" is the story we tell ourselves about who we are, where we come from, and, occasionally, what our destiny is.

It's distinct from the history, the succession of events that resulted in the particular experience each one of us has had of their life.

The latter is descriptive, the former is often interpreted to be prescriptive. "We are the X, we've been through harrowing events Y, and we do arbitrary things Z, which are 'our things'."

Personally, I have nothing about spontaneous differenciation. What I find outrageous are things like:

• the deliberate process of creating and or maintaining behaviours that are either arbitrary in the first place or have lost their reason to exist and have become obsolete, specifically as a group marker
• the prioritizing of the group's continued existence and its own welfare against the welfare of its individuals, or, worse yet, at the expense of outsiders

I have a dream.

Of a world where one may like individual players in a sports team, or how a specific set of players plays together at a specific time, without switching their love to the abstract concept of the Team itself, apart from who mans it. Where they wouldn't automatically hate, insult, and sometimes beat on, other people just for liking another set of players.

I dream of a world where there's no such thing as a black or white or gay person, but only people who happen, individually, to have different skin tones, or bone structures, or like to romance or make love to one gender or another or maybe all of them. Individuals with different origins and different tastes and different ways of being, but without the labels dictating what's expected of one, and pressuring one to meet or defy those expectations instead of just being oneself.

I dream of a world where no one individual feels proud about their heritage, the past of the country they were born in, the conditions of their birth, or, in general, about things they did not participate in, things they did not achieve.

I dream of a world where "the land you were born in" is just that, "the land you were born in". Where you are not compelled to identify with the State that governs it and the other people that live or have lived in it. Where you don't feel pride for things you didn't do, or shame for things that weren't your fault.

I dream of a world where traditions are perpetuated when they remain useful and relevant, and otherwise archived as curiosities. Where "it's a thing they do, therefore we shouldn't do it" isn't a common reasoning, and neither is "they're doing our thing, they're stealing our culture".

I dream of a world where competition is limited strictly to when it's useful in itself. It makes sense to make a race to select the fastest five people in your country for some role where running very fast is the biggest factor in success (though I cannot imagine what that might be). It makes no sense to treat the race as an end in itself, and turn it into a huge, expensive event. In general, if a competition can fairly be called a "pissing contest" or a "dick-waving contest", it shouldn't be done.

I dream of a world where, instead, cooperation and win-win efforts are emphasized and preferred. Where status isn't a zero-sum game. Where we all pull each other up, instead of playing Bucket Of Crabs.

I dream of a world where people don't follow groups, but where groups follow people, and people follow themselves, and live out their own tastes and values, instead of feeling constrained to follow those of others.

I dream of a world of individuals, who happen to freely join up in teams to achieve their own purposes, who happen to have lived through the same X, Y, Z things as other individuals at a given time and place. A world where loyalties are chosen instead of being thrust upon one, and where one's first loyalty is to oneself and one's principles.

I believe we are progressing towards such a world of freely-associating individuals. I'm very much looking forward to it, and hope we don't get sidetracked.

edited 12th Mar '15 3:15:29 AM by TheHandle

I'm not really sure why "I like individual players" is a more valid reason to support a given team than "they're my local team". Certainly, Barcelona the club has done more for Barcelona the city than, say, Lionel Messi the individual. Celtic the club have done more for Glasgow than Henrik Larsson the individual, or even the famous "Lisbon Lions" team that won the European Cup in 1967.

edited 12th Mar '15 4:36:48 AM by Achaemenid

The Barcelona FC has done little for Barcelona. Its existence attracts attention and tourists, and costs a boatload of money and resources in return. It would be complicated to make a full cost-benefit analysis, but my bet is that it's a losing investment. The Barça unto itself is in perpetual financial precarity, so I fear it doesn't even benefit its shareholders much. But all that is beside the point; the Barça is not some kind of moral entity that we should feel grateful or resentful towards for the fallout that comes from its existing.

I tried to get into football, once. Went to a Barça match and all. Desisted from the whole thing after hearing entire crowds calling the other team and their supporters "sons of whores" and other such things, just because they happen to exist, and compete with them. If people were content with liking their own team (as opposed to a particular set of players, trainers, managers and so on at any given time), I'd find it absurd, but acceptable. But they also seem to need to hate the other teams, and their fans. They derive pride from the team's successes even if they never paid for it or contributed to it in any significant way, which is again silly, but otherwise fine. But they also get extremely frustrated with their failures, and spread their anger around them and let it affect their behaviour outside of that context. They also get happy at the rival team's failures against third parties. I find both these things hard to like. And that's not fine, I think.

Support your local team? Why in the world should I support any group or organization just because they happen to be based close to where I live at the moment?

edited 12th Mar '15 5:25:02 AM by TheHandle

Most of which is paid voluntarily by Barcelona's socis out of their own pocket.

Couldn't find stats for Barcelona, but this paper on the contribution of football to Greater Manchester suggests that between them City and United add £330 million to the local economy each year.

All that glisters is not gold. You can't buy shares in Barca, only membership, and the members are the fans of the club. They are not concerned with getting a dividend as much as they are concerned with Barca winning trophies, and in that regard Barcelona is extremely "profitable".

Why not? If it contributes to the local economy and makes its 170,000 members and the 26% of Spanish population who support it happy, why shouldn't one be grateful for it? I'm grateful for it for improving football and providing a model for other fans to take control of their clubs. Presumably its fans are grateful to it for making their Saturday evenings more exciting.

They do pay for it by buying merchandise, tickets, paying TV subscriptions, or, in some lucky fans' cases, by contributing directly to the club, like at Barca. Fans paying for stuff is literally exactly how football clubs make money.

How terrible.

Most of them probably keep what goes on in the stadium separate from what goes on outside of it. The actions of a minority are hardly relevant to the standing of the sport, any more than the fact that some religious believers choose to murder makes those religious beliefs murderous.

Football is played in leagues. Other teams' results affect your team's place. Let's say you're two points ahead of your rivals - if they win their next game and you lose yours, they'll overtake you, but if the opposite happens, you go five points ahead.

Of course fans care about other teams' results.

Can't answer for anything else, but with football it is so that, er, you can go and watch it? I mean sure, Barca fans might - might - see a better game of football if they went to the Bernabeu, the Allianz, or the Westfalenstadion, but then they'd have to journey hundreds miles to watch top-flight football. So why not support and nurture the one they have right there, in Barcelona?

I mean, I like that Lionel Messi is a great player, but I like more the fact that I can walk down to Tynecastle on Saturdays and watch professional football in a stadium with 17000 other fans. So I support Hearts, and not Barcelona.

EDIT: Ironically, given how much disdain you seem to have for it, football is one of the most uniting pastimes humans have. People have literally stopped wars to watch great players. The EPL has a potential TV audience of 4.7 billion people, for instance. Man U claims a support of over 600 million people.

edited 12th Mar '15 6:45:06 AM by Achaemenid