On balance, Collectivism is preferable to Individualism

Tank yoo, 18Karl. I vill hab lots of fun.I will be using rationality as the main criterion for evaluating which philosophy is preferable, so the resolution can basically be re-stated as "belief in collectivism is more rational than belief in individualism". My case revolves around 3 independently functioning reasons for why this resolution is true.Collectivism increases the chances of individual successThe logic underlying this is simple. A society, by definition, is a group of individuals. So when we "value the interests of society", we are really just valuing the interests of the largest possible number of individuals within that society-- we are valuing the interests of the majority. And since an individual is statistically more likely to part of the majority than the minority, collectivism ensures that any given individual is more likely to have their interests protected than not. Thus, theoretically, collectivism increases the probability of individual prosperity.However, this is not only demonstrable in theory; we can see empirical examples of this holding true in practice as well. Just take a look at nature -- we can easily observe a large variety of species that instinctively live in large, interactive groups in which collective welfare is valued over individual welfare -- wolves, elephants, lions, chimpanzees, meerkats, bison, sheep, antelopes, ants, bees, ducks, small fish, and many more fall into this category. There is a reason why such a behavior has become so widely adapted: living in such 'societies', where the group as a whole is valued over each individual animal, has proven to be an evolutionary advantage to the individual animals themselves, as it ensures them a greater chance of their survival and thus gives them more time to pass on their genes. Moreover, these collectivist species tend to be far, far more abundant and prosperous than solitary ones. Thus, the completely selfishness-oriented mechanism of evolution by natural selection clearly indicates that the collectivist lifestyle is beneficial to individuals.For humans specifically, this is all the more true because we are fundamentally social animals. According to anthropologist Paula Grey: "Human beings are social animals. Our lives depend on other humans... We develop and learn about the world around us through the filter of other people. Our connections to others are key to not only our survival, but also to our happiness and the success of our careers... our social networks have [an enormous impact] on our lives. The bottom line is that we are influenced by, and we are able to influence, people up to three degrees removed from us." [1]. In other words, we derive happiness and personal fulfillment from other people, and our social structures require us to directly and indirectly interact with thousands of other people every day in order to prosper. As the socially complex and emotional beings that we are, we *need* to value the welfare of those around us -- the welfare of our society. From all this, we conclude that even under individualism we have to prefer collectivism, essentially making the resolution impossible to negate. Individualism has negative social repercussions in practiceWhenever we observe an increase in individualistic values in society, we always see it accompanied with an increase in destructive societal tendencies. The first time we can see this happening in human history is right at its dawn, with the Neolithic Revolution. Prior to it, human societies were largely egalitarian, with the social bonds between family members holding together large clans in which every individual was cared for and provided with a roughly equal distribution of resources; conflict between clans was also minimal by virtue of social bonds between clans developed through inter-marriage and trade [2]. But with the advent of the Neolithic Revolution and its associated innovations, this collectivist way of life was greatly diminished, and individualistic social phenomena such as private property ownership, social stratification, and wealth inequality became the centerpieces of human societies [3]. From that point onwards, human history has been notably more violent, with wars, slavery, tension between classes, and crime becoming commonplace.This trend has continued throughout history, with events motivated by the pursuit of individual interests always resulting in a society which is worse off than before. This is most notably evident in the French Revolution, with the bourgeoisie and their desire for greater personal liberties coming at the grave expense of social stability. Even today in Western countries, we witness that trend manifest itself in the contrast between urban centers (the hubs of modern ideals such as individuality) and rural areas (where collectivist communities as described previously still exist to some extent). Signs of social decay are far more prevalent in urban centers than rural areas, with rates of violent crime and poverty levels being 3 to 4 times higher in cities than in the countryside [4]. Individualism simply does not work out in practice, as it attempts to simultaneously promote everyone's conflicting self-interests at once, which inevitably leads to tension, violence, and the degeneration of the social fabric that bonds people together. In this way, Individualism (ironically) tends to hurt the average individual's chance of success, thus rendering it to be self-refuting.Collectivism is an ethically sounder version of IndividualismIndividualism posits that everyone should place paramount ethical value on their own interests. However, this only takes into account the subjective viewpoint of each individual. From an objective point of view, all humans beings are fundamentally the same (from an ethical viewpoint), and no one person is inherently superior to another. Therefore, *every* individual's interests have equal value, objectively; intellectual honesty requires that if I value my own interests, then I also have to value everyone else's just as much -- it is this concept which forms the basis for collectivism. In other words, Collectivism is essentially just an objective version of Individualism, effectively rendering it to be the more rational philosophy.Three independently functioning reasons to prefer collectivism over individualism have been presented.The resolution is affirmed!And with that, I eagerly await Con's constructive case :D[1] http://www.aipmm.com...[2] http://www.cavemenworld.com...[3] http://www.d.umn.edu...[4] http://law.jrank.org...