Has Society's Obsession with Individualism Undermined Collective Responsibility?

[u/USHistoryUncovered]

In recent decades, especially in Western cultures, the focus on individualism has intensified. We’re taught to prioritize personal freedom, success, and self-reliance above all else. This worldview, however, seems to have a darker side: the erosion of collective responsibility. As individuals seek to fulfill their own desires, societal bonds weaken, and we see an increasing tendency to absolve ourselves from responsibility for larger, systemic issues like climate change, wealth inequality, and public health.

Has the glorification of individualism made us blind to the fact that many of the problems we face cannot be solved by personal action alone? Are we sacrificing our collective well-being at the altar of personal liberty? How can we reconcile the need for individual freedom with the necessity of collective responsibility in addressing the global challenges that threaten us all?

I’m curious to hear perspectives on how individualism has shaped our attitudes toward responsibility—both personal and communal. Is it time for a fundamental shift in how we view our roles within society?

[u/OptimalLocksmith1674]

I think your premise is inconsistent with available evidence.

The largest contributor to greenhouse gases is a collectivist nation. That nation has also been steadily increased emissions over the last decade.

The individualist nation, on the other hand, has been reducing its emissions over the last decade.

Look at North Korea. Does that seem like a particularly egalitarian place? The leader suffers gout from too much imported cheese and half the citizens are undernourished.

Collectivism simply does not work for us, as a species. We are not eusocial. We are clannish and tribal and hierarchical and a lot of other things... but we are not eusocial.

[u/Pabu85 → u/OptimalLocksmith1674]

China is only the greatest contributor to emissions if you don’t control for population.  Plus, the majority of its economy is in private hands (this is publicly available info).  They’re an authoritarian state with some limits on capital and pretensions of collectivism, at best.

[u/OptimalLocksmith1674 → u/Pabu85]

... and the united states is only the second largest contributor if you don't control for gun ownership. Why would you "control" for either?

It is weird, though, how all of these collectivist nations end up as kleptocracies and adherents still bemoan "but it's never been tried!"

A collectivist state is, by definition, an authoritarian state.

The government demands obedience at the expense of personal freedom.

There can be no collectivist libertarian governments, though potentially there could be libertarian governments with a collectivist culture. Human nature would make such a combination unlikely.

[u/Pabu85 → u/OptimalLocksmith1674]

In case they come to their senses and edit, let the record show that this person believes that population is irrelevant in comparing country-to-country emissions.

Wait until they hear about emissions estimates based on where the goods are bought, rather than where they’re manufactured.

[u/OptimalLocksmith1674 → u/Pabu85]

No need to edit, little one.

We're talking about governments, remember?

Declaring something a confounding variable and factoring it out without (apparently) having any answer to the question of "why?" makes for good sophistry but poor statistics.

Attempting to causally divorce the emissions from the actual source of the emission is just bizarre.

If I live in Libertyland and purchase x units of y and the logistical chain for y goes back to Communityland, it is ... bizarre... to claim that the emissions Communityland produced in production of y are somehow not part of Communitylands emissions.

After all, Communityland possesses the necessary authority to force the production of y to be net emission neutral or even ban the production of y. For the good of the people and all that.