>>12541703>>12541661>>12541697>>12541721>>12541754These criticisms make no sense and I get the impression you don't know math or game theory. By definition, that would not be a humanitarian strategy. If you choose to defect against people if and only if they have defected against you in the past, then you are not playing a humanitarian strategy. In that case you would be employing a tit-for-tat strategy, which is not humanitarian.
Tit-for-tat is arguably a kind of ethnocentrism. Nothing about ethnocentrism entails that you seek to mistreat or exploit other groups. An ethnocentric group strategy is simply to maximize the fitness of you group. That doesn't entail that you seek to minimize the fitness of other groups. Thus an ethnocentric population will employ a tit for tat strategy if and only if that strategy is optimal for the fitness of the group. If another group poses no threat to an ethnocentric group, then the ethnocentric group would have no incentive to defect against another population.
In fact, nationalism used to be considered a liberal or progressive ideology (and most leftist actually still support national sovereignty, just not for western/white nations). There's nothing about being ethnocentric that entail you hate other ethnicity or want them to make them suffer.
By definition an ethnocentric population is seeking to maximize its own fitness. They have no inherent reason to want to harm or oppress other groups. In fact, they will generally want to avoid harming other groups because (1) doing so is an unnecessary waste of resources, and (2) it can result in retaliation. On the other hand, if cooperating with other ethnicities will maximize their expected utility, then they will do so. By definition, an ethnocentric population will seek to maximize its own expected utility. A humanitarian population, on the other hand, is seeking to minimize harm done to other populations, and so they wouldn't engage in tit-for-tat.
