Determining the size and nature of the group to which one belongs, the group that will give one sustenance and protect one, the group to which one should be devoted to and make sacrifices for, is critical for improving one’s welfare. If the group is the entire human race, then there are dangers of insufficient group cohesion. If the group is less than that, conflict between groups becomes likely and possibly catastrophic. But given that all humans have so much in common, that virtually all of them can communicate with each other to a great degree, and that they are all ultimately related, the potential exists for forming strong agreement on common values and common goals in the creation of a harmonious and universally beneficial society.
Some would argue that the group should include more than the human race. The inherent difficulty with this position is that there is no natural place to make a boundary for the group. Does one cut it off at primates, at mammals, at vertebrates, at multi-celled creatures, or at animals? Since all animals are in constant competition with each other, humans have little in common with other animals compared to what they have in common with other humans, humans cannot communicate well with many other animals, and the number of other animals provides incredible information management issues, setting a boundary outside the human race is not justifiable. However, since humans do exist in an ecosystem that contains a myriad of other species, consideration of the impact of humans on those other species and on the ecosystem is essential regardless of where the group boundary is set.
Also note that every individual may, with some basis, be considered to belong to any number of groups (subgroups within the society). The group may be identified by nationality, gender, race, ethnicity, languages spoken, income level or wealth, professional degree, educational level, family status, health history, physical attractiveness, athleticism, height or weight, interests, etc… Individuals often tend to claim membership in groups which have high or ascending status or for which membership provides some likely or possibly future benefits.
Given the number of groups that any individual may belong to, it is virtually inevitable that any individual may be considered to simultaneously belong to groups which were historically discriminated against and to groups that were historically advantaged (which may or may not have had the tables turned in their favor in the last few years). And so each individual feels pressure to downplay membership in the groups that bring to the members added burdens and to highlight membership in the groups where membership provides benefits.
Note that such groupings often lead to divisive and self-contradictory Identity politics. Groupings based on nationality, i.e., citizenship based on residing within a particular nation’s borders, is the most traditional grouping, and probably the healthiest and most sustainable type, because nations are somewhat closed systems that can resemble a tribe, or they used to be and can be with functioning borders, where people can work together and provide positive and negative feedback to each other to improve the general welfare, including establishing a functional political system that responds to the needs of all the people. Other forms of Identity groups do not form closed systems at all, and cannot form proper tribes, and so there can be no healthy or functional feedback process to improve the group’s general welfare.
Also, note that a globalist system is too disconnected to provide any healthy or useful feedback from the common people or a functional political system that responds to their needs, and so just ends up being controlled by elites with the common people having no feedback and no influence, which over time enfeebles and impoverishes them and possibly even enslaves or eradicates them.