Why do people choose division and conflict over unity and cooperation?

In Round 8, the winners were the responses provided by Verdader and arna
. After we all touched base on who should lead the next round, arna
will be the one posing our new question.

arna said:I’ve been thinking lately—why on earth did humanity decide that our way of life should be defined by division, constant conflict, and endless competition, rather than choosing a path rooted in unity, cooperation, and genuine community?

The thread is open for entries until Tuesday, August 17th, 2021, at 9 PM!

Topic for commenting

Every forum user gets just one shot per round, and you can only participate using a single profile.
If you feel like you can't quite find the right words to beat a powerful quote from an expert that resonates with you, feel free to use that quote as your own entry, just make sure you credit the source properly.
We’ll have a separate thread open specifically for discussing and debating the entries.
Once the deadline passes, the topic will close and we'll launch a poll that stays active for four days; please vote in good faith—we won't tolerate any foul play, and if anyone tries anything shady, the moderator will step in and handle it however they see fit.
The winner gets to set the next question.

voting system:

Multiple votes allowed

You can cast a vote for just one response or pick several if you're feeling inspired.

People have truly chosen the path of oneness, cooperation, and unity. Essentially, equals work together in harmony.

The issue—if you can even call it that—is my hope that we will never all be equal.

So, what happens now? Will the fear of those who aren't equal ever truly vanish?

Humanists across America are working tirelessly to build a bridge toward unity among the unequal. It is a long and grueling road. 🙂

The question assumes people consciously chose a path of division, conflict, and constant competition. I think that’s a flawed premise for at least two reasons. First off, maybe we didn't actually choose this. It might have been forced on us—either through raw biological drives or by being subtly manipulated by various political ideologies. Second, I see plenty of examples pointing in the opposite direction. There's a lot of unity, cooperation, and genuine community out there. It's definitely not as black and white as it looks.

People turn to competition, conflict, envy, and division because they feel threatened and inadequate—all because they lack any real awareness of who they truly are. Driven by an immature ego, people live in constant fear of missing out or losing ground. They fail to realize that, at our core, we are all essentially one. There is no actual threat. This leads to a terror of letting go, which is really just a fear of the unknown. The ego doesn't know what lies ahead, so it finds it easier to follow that primal instinct: fight, or be conquered.
Only when an individual becomes self-aware—when they awaken the part of themselves that transcends that immature ego and recognizes their true potential—can they finally find peace. Once you realize you aren't being threatened by anyone, the envy and defensiveness vanish. You start seeing others as fellow beings with the exact same potential. That’s when the drive toward unity, connection, and true community actually begins.

It wasn't like there was some single, dramatic moment where the human race was suddenly handed a choice between two paths. It’s not that simple. For most of history, people have just been driven by their biological urges and whatever threats nature decided to throw at them that day. We were basically on autopilot. Then modernization rolls around, and things get messy. Those old, destructive instincts don't just disappear; they just find new, much more devastating ways to manifest through ideological manipulation and mass hysteria. It’s that kind of widespread, collective stupidity—the kind Bonhoeffer talked about—that really changed the game. I guess we just traded primal fears for manufactured ones. I was watching this documentary recently—it’s one of those pieces that really gets under your skin—about how stupidity actually works in our society. It makes you wonder, I guess, if we aren't all just circling the drain in our own little ways. The film touches on some heavy stuff, looking at how collective ignorance isn't just about being uneducated. It's more complicated than that. It’s almost like a systemic failure. You see people following leaders who clearly have no clue what they're doing, yet everyone just nods along. Maybe it's because it's easier to be a sheep than to actually think for yourself? I don't know. It feels like we've lost that capacity for critical thought somewhere along the line. There's this idea mentioned that stupidity can be quite aggressive. It isn't passive. It's loud, it's obnoxious, and it tends to drown out anyone actually trying to make sense of things. It reminds me of certain political rallies you see on the news here in the States—just pure, unadulterated noise designed to shut down any real conversation. It's pretty cynical, I realize, but watching it left me feeling kind of exhausted. We talk so much about progress and intelligence, but then you look at the way people interact online or how certain laws get passed in D.C., and you start to question if we're actually moving forward at all. Or maybe we're just getting better at hiding how clueless we really are. Just my two cents, anyway. It’s a lot to chew on. I mean, sure, if you look back at history, there have always been those few outliers who pointed people toward... Unity, cooperation, teamwork... I guess that’s what everyone's always talking about. It sounds nice on paper, doesn't it? All that talk about pulling together and staying united. But honestly, I don't know. Maybe it's just one of those ideals people throw around when things get messy. It's easy to preach unity when everything is smooth, but once the friction starts, well... who knows. Just my two cents, I suppose. They definitely left their mark, I suppose. But let's be real—humans aren't exactly rational creatures. No matter how much someone might recognize the value in those kinds of messages, that irrational side eventually takes over, doesn't it? It just kind of hijacks the brain and turns reason into its servant whenever it feels like it. We’re this messy mix of logic and pure impulse. Honestly, we have this massive capacity for being cruel and destructive, too. It makes me wonder if a society built on actual unity, cooperation, and togetherness is even possible. Or maybe it’s just one of those ideals that some visionary points toward—something that might spark a movement once in a while, but never actually becomes a reality. And there’s another thing worth chewing on... even if we somehow managed to build that kind of perfect society, would it even satisfy us? Given how contradictory we are, I'm not so sure we could even handle it.

Competition and constant striving are what really drive progress forward, much like how evolution works through natural selection. In many ways, this core concept serves as the foundation for the capitalist economic model that currently dominates the global landscape.
However, if we were to let the economy run entirely on those principles without any government oversight or regulation, we'd quickly see massive amounts of wealth concentrating in the hands of just a tiny group of elites. On the flip side, if we push too far in the opposite direction toward total equality for everyone, we risk falling into collective stagnation and a lack of motivation.
That’s why I think the most effective approach for any political or economic system is some kind of balanced middle ground. It is vital to realize, though, that there isn't a one-size-fits-all answer; every nation has to figure out its own path based on its specific size, social structure, and the general mindset of its people.

Because division, conflict, and constant competition are actually the only ways we ever reach true unity, cooperation, and solidarity.

I suspect the human race hasn't quite committed to a new way of life just yet—we remain stubbornly tethered to a legacy of division, conflict, and constant competition. It’s simply what we were handed... On the other hand, the concepts of unity, cooperation, and true community have been championed by many visionary thinkers throughout history, yet their "proposition" is still waiting to be embraced on a global scale.

This shift will only occur when people finally grasp and truly feel that practicing these ideals—both personally and within a group—offers far greater rewards than the hollow victories found in struggle and rivalry. Those who already see this truth should be leading the way right now, setting the standard through their own actions.

If we look at our supposed evolutionary trajectory, we are still much closer to the dark realities of cannibalism, slavery, war, and killing—all justified as necessary for survival, for the lives of those we hold dear, or for tribal gain. The idea of collective unity is the destination that lies ahead of us... it is the choice we have yet to make.

Why on earth did the human race decide that a lifestyle defined by division, constant fighting, and cutthroat competition was better than a path of unity, cooperation, and true community?

»The Spirit, in its freedom, is the highest pinnacle of self-conscious mind, which takes itself seriously and produces itself as an existential world.« (G. W. F. Hegel)

------------------

Look, the simple truth is that we haven't actually become civilized citizens yet; we’re still acting like savages (complete primitives). If we ever want to reach a state of actual civilization, we have to—really, we *must*—uphold the rule of law, our rights, and our duties. To get there, we need to step up (or "take ourselves seriously," as Hegel would put it): we need cooperation and solidarity (and let's be honest, cooperation and solidarity are basically the core tenets of any marriage vow). Besides, Fichte laid it out perfectly in his famous maxim: "Every man chooses the philosophy that matches the kind of man he is" ( and that applies to practice just as much as it does to philosophy). Yet, there's always someone breaking themselves against this reality, hoping that "someone else" will eventually choose their version of justice, or that others will step up to defend their specific rights and duties. Meanwhile, they just keep trudging along the old way: nepotism, corruption, tyranny, and this sham "democracy" that serves nothing but the interests of capitalists and their precious "economy."

So, we just sit here discarding old values (mostly because we're terrified of new ones), while extremes clash and clash until a Revolution finally erupts—not just in people's minds, but in the streets. And don't you dare act afraid of Revolution. Do you honestly believe that those in power will just hand over their authority without being forced? Do you really think big-time capitalists are going to surrender their wealth for the sake of the people unless they're pressured? Do you truly believe landowners will just give away their property to an uneducated populace for free? Absolutely not. Nothing happens without force. After all, the first truly divine man on this entire planet said it best: "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." (Jesus).

The question doesn't really hold water because:

- this isn't just some specific human trait; it’s a fundamental characteristic of the entire living world—of life itself.
- it isn't a matter of choice. Given the above, it's simply an inherent part of existence.
- it’s never an either-or scenario. Social animals possess both competitive drives and cooperative impulses. That's probably why we even bother with these false dichotomies in the first place. Cooperation actually serves the purpose of competition; it's not an alternative to it.

Have they made their choice?
In his book *Humankind*, Rutger Bregman argues the exact opposite. He uses a ton of examples to show that unity, cooperation, and togetherness are actually second nature to us. Think about it—on a Navy destroyer, the captain isn't exactly "one" with the sailor at the bow (other than them both being in the Navy, obviously), but they have to work together perfectly just to keep the ship from sinking. If you’re talking about an aircraft carrier, you’re looking at 6,000 different individuals working in total sync. Six thousand! And for that kind of functional teamwork to happen—for everyone to actually nail their specific role—they had to compete and refine themselves first.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, civilization is basically a term for the various stages of material, intellectual, and social progress within a community; it's the whole toolkit of skills, knowledge, customs, and beliefs held by a society. The French Enlightenment added those "positive" vibes to the definition, too. It essentially represents the ability of individuals to live cooperatively as members of a society (*societas*), which leads us to the obvious conclusion: humans are social animals.
So, division, fighting, and competition—while they definitely exist—aren't baked into our DNA. I'd say it's actually the complete opposite.

Equality, if we take it as the direct opposite of diversity, is just plain impossible for the human race. We aren't all the same—not just when it comes to class, social status, or money, but cognitively, psychologically, physically, intellectually... you name it. Perfect equality is nothing more than a pretty illusion. We might hit that level of equality only in the eschaton, and even then, only through a very specific lens—certainly not here in the real world. Paul hits on this idea when he says, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female. You are all one in Christ." Beyond that, we can look at division, struggle, and competition as either healthy or toxic depending on the context. They can be within our control or forced upon us. Usually, when things feel forced, I'm talking about political and economic disparities. But if they're endogenous—meaning they're part of who we are as thinking beings and don't depend on outside forces—then they're just a given.
Bottom line: these concepts don't have absolute definitions.

My take on this: Why did people choose division, conflict, and competition over unity, cooperation, and togetherness?

First off, I think the question itself is flawed. I don't even think "oneness" is a standard term we use in American English. We talk about unity, sure, but oneness? What does that even mean? Is it even a real concept?

As for my answer: people didn't "choose" division. That’s not how it works. Instead, all this stuff is forced upon us through various social and systemic structures. It makes it look like we're making a conscious choice to pull apart, but we aren't. Look at the internet and social media. Divorce rates are climbing, people are more transient than ever, and a single click is all it takes to cheat on a spouse. In that sense, yeah, people end up divided—but they aren't choosing it. The system makes it easy. If society hadn't evolved this way through technology and constant connectivity, would we actually be choosing this kind of instability in our relationships? Probably not. This is just what happens when you make progress in one area of society while everything else falls apart.

So, my conclusion? I disagree with the premise that "people chose division, struggle, and competition over unity, cooperation, and togetherness." Just because the author says it, doesn't make it true. Based on what I've laid out, that claim is flat-out wrong.

Because they’re free.

I honestly think the whole issue stems from people completely losing sight of who they actually are... most folks are just walking around totally oblivious to the fact that they are the ones actively constructing their own reality. They don't bother questioning those inherited, autopilot beliefs we've all been fed—things like the idea that existence is just some cosmic accident; this pervasive notion that resources are finite and we all have to claw at each other just to grab our slice of the pie; the belief that there are certain needs we'll never satisfy unless we crush the competition; or the heavy, constant fear that failure is inevitable and that survival is nothing more than an endless, exhausting struggle.
It’s as if life is just something happening *to* people, rather than people being the active architects of it.
And that mindset... it just isolates us. It pulls a person away from everything and everyone, drifting them away from themselves and from life itself, until they become blind to the other side of the coin. Because the truth is, happiness is an inside job; failure isn't really a thing, and at our core, our spiritual essence, we are all fundamentally equal and worthy of respect; we find more through giving than through grasping, and there's really no need to compete with anyone for anything, because we are all One, deeply intertwined with the totality of Life... and that thing we're all chasing—to love and be loved—is achieved through connection and cooperation far more than through conflict and combat.
Humanity is just a collection of individuals, and there's this beautiful story, supposedly of Native American origin, that perfectly captures how much responsibility each of us carries in shaping our lives through the daily choices of our thoughts, our words, and our actions.

The Tale of Two Wolves
Once upon a time, an old Cherokee Indian told his grandson a story about life.
"Inside every person, there is a constant battle going on, like a fight between two wolves.
One wolf represents EVIL. It stands for anger, envy, jealousy, hatred, greed, arrogance, lies, guilt, inferiority, malice, false pride, self-pity, mockery, and egoism...
The other wolf represents GOOD. It stands for peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, generosity, courage, truth, compassion, joy, contentment, and faith..."
The grandson sat there for a moment, lost in thought. He took those words deep into his heart and then asked:
"Grandfather, which wolf wins in the end?"
The old Cherokee Indian looked at him and simply said:
"The one you feed."