Instincts and Evolution
"(T)o fuse together the human multitude without crushing it, it seems essential that there should be a field of attraction at once powerful and irreversible."Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
All these cohesive emotions that maintain our human sub-groups require an 'other' for us to stand over and above, and in contrast to. By their very nature, they're impossible to universalize and apply to all. For example, how can one feel 'patriotic' if there's no 'other' sub-group (nation) to stand in contrast against? If our notions of bravery and honor are reactionary only; and restricted largely to behaviors in resistance against 'others' - how can one ever feel 'brave' and 'honorable' in a world where there are no longer 'others' to fight against? Feelings of 'national pride' also necessitate some 'other' nation to stand in contrast to, and over against. If we're all united at the planetary, species level; would this same instinct cause us to feel a 'species pride' over and against animals..? Or can we finally mature and evolve beyond this instinctive need to feel pride only in our sub-group's distinction and superiority over and against 'others'?
(T)he totality which is divined and desired no longer appears so much as a shapeless ocean in which we are to be dissolved, but rather as a powerful focus in which we are to meet as one, to fulfill and concentrate ourselves."
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
Human Sub-Groups
This instinct is no longer helping to ensure our survival, but is now actually threatening our survival, as any recent headline from the Middle East will show. But one of the difficulties we encounter in attempting to rid ourselves of this instinct, is the tangle of conflicted emotions it stirs up in us. As stated above, this instinct arouses our idealism and feelings of patriotism, loyalty, bravery, pride, sacrifice, 'love of country' etc., for whatever Motherland, Fatherland, or Homeland we identify with. Precisely because our sub-group affiliations have become so enmeshed with these more noble feelings, rather than necessarily antagonistic feelings toward 'others' (although they can also be deliberately manipulated by our leaders), it seems somehow wrong to even question this instinctual template. We don't readily see the need to loosen its hold over us for the higher good and nobler cause of creating a world of peace for everyone - those within our sub-group - and those outside of it.
It even feels risky, at first; to contemplate our lives without it. The possibility of living outside our sub-group evokes in us the same anxiety that an antelope straggling along on the edge of the herd feels when it's not within the safety of the herd. We fear that consciously rejecting this instinct will somehow make us equally vulnerable to packs of dangerous and aggressive 'others' lurking in the wild. Our 'leaders' constantly remind us of these 'evildoers', 'enemies' and 'bad people' out to hurt us, ready to pounce unless we give up more and more of our civil liberties, continue to squander our national wealth on WMDs, and agree to endless pre-emptive wars 'Not to end in our lifetime" as we've already been told.
"The great majority of all governmental expenditures are devoted to paying for the cost of past wars and for preparations for future wars. There is but a slight margin left for civilized cultural purposes or for social betterment."
Sir John Hammerton & Dr. Harry E. Barnes, (editors)
The Illustrated World History
Achieving Real Security
But just the opposite is true. Ridding ourselves of this instinct will make us less vulnerable to attack. Through the higher order unity of Planetization, no citizenry of any one particular country will extinguish this instinct - but humankind as a whole will begin to evolve en masse, and withdraw its energies from this archaic pattern of structuring our human presence over our Earth. Doing so will make us safer because wars can only continue to be fought if we continue to let this instinct bind us together into separate sub-groups. No war can be fought unless the citizenry of an aggressor country still feels an unquestioned loyalty to their war-making sub-group, more than they feel an allegiance to the 'other' innocents who are going to be killed, maimed and terrorized... Every war of aggression needs 'boots on the ground'.... And without a compliant civilian population willing to fill them, no war-planning can ever get off the think tank drawing boards.
To create a more peaceful world, we primarily need is to keep a watchful eye on our own sub-group leaders, and resist getting sucked into, or emotionally seduced into their war-making geo/political machinations. As we begin to actualize the higher order unity of Planetization, there will eventually be no 'outside aggressors' for us to worry about. We're already seeing the emergence of this coming together in the interests of planetary peace in the global peace movement, and in the growing number of grassroots activist groups now forming bonds of friendship, solidarity and a commitment to peace across entrenched sub-group divides.
"Union can only increase through an increase in consciousness,
that is to say, in vision."
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin