Weighing Jeremy Rifkin's Empathic Civilization

Recently I posted this video in the Philosophy of Mind community on Google+, and it sparked a bit of a discussion:

Jeremy Rifkin argues that our brains are soft-wired not for aggression or self-interest but for sociability and attachment (i.e. empathy).

I agree with the ideas presented in the video. However, the reason why many species have empathy for others in their group is because the probability of survival is increased by orders of magnitude by forming a well organized team. Consider that insects such as bees and ants are very successful because they form strong teams. Therefore, many species, including humans, undergo natural selection and adaptation to being good team members. But if this is so, then why are people not concentrating on building strong teams? Well, unfortunately, currently humans do not always make very good team members and many of the teams that are formed do more damage than good. This often gives team membership a bad name. Humans need more adaptation and understanding about how to build strong teams.

You make a very good point: Empathy may be the drive to form teams and civilizations, because it helps to ensure survival.

Your second point about more destructive teams is definitely a curious one. In another interview, Rifkin responds to question about why, in the very process of creating an empathic civilization, we also have world wars, genocide, and other mass destruction. Rifkin attributed these simply to "blowback moments, implosions and collapses." In other words, there are glitches or short circuits to our empathic wiring.

I'd like to invoke Sigmund Freud, however, and argue that, yes, we human have empathic wiring, but that we are also wired for aggression. Freud posited that there were both life (eros) and death (thanatos) drives. So the destruction we have inflicted on each other aren't just glitches in the empathic wiring, as Rifkin argues, but are fundamental aspects of our nature, too, that is, destructive wiring.*

Here's that interview: Jeremy Rifkin: The Empathic Civilization.

There were two other, relatively lengthy comments, acknowledging more competitive teams and conflictual events and also emphasizing the sharing of positive experiences. 

*The more I think about it, the more I believe that Rifkin's notion of empathy, and the mirror neurons in particular, is actually synonymous with sympathy or compassion, that is, feeling with or for others.  My unconscious must've picked up on this particular notion, so I felt compelled to invoke the dual drives of Freud: That is, not just sympathy, but also aggression.  Instead, the definition of empathy as putting oneself in others' shoes or seats means it's fundamentally neutral; it is first and foremost a vehicle for understanding.  Once we have that deeper understanding of others, we can act positively (e.g. sympathetically) or negatively (e.g. hostilely).