The critique of narcissism between animal rights and human politics (Response to philosopher Martha Nussbaum)

Comment published on New York Times online blog in reply to op-ed piece by University of Chicago philosopher Martha Nussbaum, "What does it mean to be a human?" 8/20/18:

Is narcissism the greatest moral problem? A plausible claim, with support in Greek and Christian ideas of sinful pride. Narcissism responds to the failure to be loved by asserting power and importance rather than loving others.  The narcissist fails to see that we flourish together with others.  

There is also collective narcissism, which is what much of our identity politics and new tribalisms are. This may require little more than valuing one's own community more than others that threaten it or simply are outside it. Perhaps a "we" must be bounded by some "they" to have the particularity it has. One moves away and not towards the other outside us, as it seems to threaten security. One decides which others do not count. Or reflexively blames. 

Perhaps curiosity is what a scientific understanding rightly calls love, which is care for the other, whether sustained by desire or an ethical decision. We should be curious about animals partly to learn more about ourselves.  

Societies that put animals in miserable cages and kill them insouciantly when it serves their wants will very likely also do this to other humans, for it has chosen to be blind to suffering, or to decide on which kinds of beings may be subjected to suffering of any given degree.  

The unsaid here is the extent to which these are also social problems. When will such cruelties not make sense to anyone? Will love alone save us from technological capitalism? How? That is the question.