IMO this is short term thinking. What happens to the planet when you are gone? If all the like minded individuals who cared about the climate opt to not have kids, then those who inherit the earth will keep polluting.
Well-led projects tend to create new spin-offs rather than overextend their original idea. The former is riskier and more liable to fail, whereas the latter chases diminishing returns and undermines the conceptual integrity of the system.
Microsoft forcing Windows on mobile devices in the 2000s is an easy example of that kind of failed leadership.
It is way more nuanced than that. For example if you never redistribute your work that was a fork from GPL code, then GPL states it's ok to never give back the source.
What we both said is compatible and consistent. The derived work is restricted by the GPL's provisions. Those restrictions just don't require you to distribute the source on demand unless and until you distribute derivative works to other users.
> In that regard, humanism is essentially nothing else than treating all humans as a single tribe, and it is an extension of the same trend and practice; we know that dissolving the smaller tribes in order the larger tribe stronger works and is possible as we have done that before; though, often the unification was facilitated and driven by external threats.
Sure, but it always comes at the expense of "smaller" tribes. Either in the form of losing their language and culture, or their economic independence. Even within countries you get tribalism in many forms, whether it be accents/dialects or their morality that varies state to state. So making people to conform to a single ideology [in public] only works with tyranny. Of course secretly they resent it.
While it comes at the expense of the "smaller tribes", IMHO it's better for the individuals at these smaller tribes, as it frees them from the limitations and even tyranny of these smaller tribes - e.g. an extreme case is the "honor killing" culture, or LGBT people who happen to be born in a "strong small tribe" and need the wider society to protect them from their local community.
Looking at the contrast between different societies, it often seems that the fragmented tribalism is actively harmful to how pleasant it is to live in that society. For example, in places where "clan identity" matters, that clan mentality is a direct driver for nepotism and corruption which makes life worse for the larger community; countries where different ethnic groups have a strong "tribal" behavior tend to have a lot of inter-community conflict, discriminatory behavior and sometimes even violence up to the point of genocide; and I'd argue that it is better for individuals to live in a more integrated larger tribe without that inter-community conflict even if it does make these smaller tribes weaker or perhaps irrelevant.
> So how we perceive morality is something we can learn, and we can pass onto generations, basically recreating the concept of evolution through culture, at a much faster pace.
That does not really work since nothing would stop people from changing their minds years later, especially when it feeds into the human instinct of tribalism. See WW1, WW2, how the nazi party rose, etc.
> We've evolved, and still evolving.
Only if those with non-tribalistic tendencies outbreed the rest of the population.
There’s a distinction in the article, I think, in that tribalism is rooted in anti-egalitarianism that your comment doesn’t address. You can go to different restaurants without thinking less of another person.
Differing tastes/hobbies/actions is not enough to meet the criteria of tribalism, less we fracture into “pineapple on pizza vs no pineapple” tribes.
So this is a study about political diversity where it's specifically relevant to the organization's work. In this case, Wikipedia. I'll admit that political diversity is necessary when the "product" is unbiased articles written on politically controversial topics. But how would this affect how a software company develops products, how a car manufacturer develops cars, etc, where political diversity is not relevant?
Well, if one accepts the argument that identity-based diversity among the workforce is important to more fully represent the perspectives of everyone in society... then that logic extends to political diversity and other kinds of viewpoint/idea diversity as well.
Seems those decrying the article are often aligned with the one diversity assumption... curious why they seem to be rejecting the others.
IMO this is short term thinking. What happens to the planet when you are gone? If all the like minded individuals who cared about the climate opt to not have kids, then those who inherit the earth will keep polluting.