So big groups join together to make something new again. The colonies that survive best are the ones that utilise or control its anarchic elements. So, highly conformist, cohered groups seem to be selected which, in intelligent critters like humans, results in tension between the group and the individual. Individuals suffer loss of freedom in a colony but gain security in exchange - always the tradeoff of freedom v security, which features in public policy debates everywhere where opinions are allowed.
However, more control and order do not necessarily mean more efficacy, despite what arch conservatives may tell you; nothing is more under control than a rock. So, while chaotic elements in society cannot be allowed to erode and destroy necessary order, they must not be eliminated either, rather utilised and controlled as per above.
Greta, so you were the one paying attention is Sociology 202!
If you look out the window and assume that the majority of the world has been like it is today, I believe this would be an erroneous view. Americans in the year 2017 [I assume most of us chatting are such] are very weak in almost every measure. If you believe that it is security that people seek in collective society, then you may be correct, but at what cost? This is the difficulty we face today.
The ruling elite have amassed so much wealth and power that they are willing to do every
thing to keep their golden goose a-laying no matter how dys-functional the system becomes. Playing upon this dys-function, they can really begin to exploit the fear that is always prevalent in weak individuals [people who can do zero for themselves]. This is what we face today, a society of adult children, incredibly ripe to latch onto any douche-bag willing to promise them a life of non-responsibility.
And as far as chaos is concerned, that would probably be defined by most of our countrymen and women as Costco running out of the 128 pack of Cheetos or the electricity going out for more then 5 minutes!
-- Updated August 13th, 2017, 12:46 pm to add the following --
It would be unreasonable to argue against anything that you mentioned. Given what Spectrum and I said, how would you proceed?
The answers are ALWAYS eminently simply.
What problem would you like to solve?
-- Updated August 13th, 2017, 12:54 pm to add the following --
Synthesis wrote:Collective authority, commonly referred to as, "a group," is/has been the source of nearly all dis-content in society. The reason for this is fairly straight-forward. If you can agree that compassion is that quality that makes us truly human [in the best sense of the word], then this manifestation can only arise in the individual, and never in the group. The group is simply a mechanism to collect power to be used over individuals, and little else.
I find the above sort of views very lacking, shallow and narrow.
Therefore we should strive for towards the ideal perfect collective group and not condemn the concept of groups [as in OP] and do nothing to improve the current situation for the future.
Lacking, shallow, AND narrow. That's quite an achievement, don't you think?
Spectrum, don't be so hard on me. It's only a friendly conversation [and its only words, after all].
Can you point out a group in history [that had significant power] that actually did anything useful for the majority of people?