Global Citizenship: My Personal Philosophy Replaces Religion

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I identify as being a human being and part of a group I'm calling "the global community."

So do I.

And I agree with just about your entire position.

One consequence of your (and my) attitude is that labels like American become much less meaningful. Earthling is the group I identify with.

Why would I care more about the people of Rhode Island than those of Beliz, for example? I don't know anybody in either place.

One consequence of this is that when I hear of jobs disappearing from a well off part of the world and being outsourced to developing nations where workers are forced to take less, I am happy for them. I live in such a lesser country now, and recently, an American studio relocated a post-production facility to our neighborhood. If you're not familiar with the term, post-production refers to the work done after shooting - editing, voice overs, credits, etc..

This creates an excellent opportunity for people here that had never had such an opportunity before. It means more indoor jobs in air conditioned spaces and an incentive for locals to learn new skills.

I hope that the trend continues and that economic opportunity becomes more equitably distributed throughout the globe.

 

[joe1776]

My apologies... I was writing a more substantive response but it was not coming out in a way that was savory. Let me see if I can distill my thoughts this time.

I think the first thing to consider is the human organism, and in particular, its capacity for awareness. Like other mammals, humans have a limited frame of awareness. We only perceive with our senses what is in our immediate area - this is a very localized focus. Research has also demonstrated that humans are terrible at multitasking, or splitting their awareness in many directions. This isn't a bad thing, really. Our attention and focus is telescopic, which was (and is) important for survival and day-to-day tasks.

What happens when a human with limited sensory capabilities attempts to process something bigger than itself? Ultimately, it can't; it doesn't have the capacity to do so. Humans can't grasp what "global community" really is. Alas, humans are hubristic animals and will tell themselves they can grasp things beyond their station. They'll then make statements about this thing they can't really comprehend using their own local awareness as the inevitable reference point. The result is an ethnocentric construct that, at best, underwrites cultural diversity.

What happens when you start prioritizing an ethnocentric construct like "global community?" We get someone handing out a bunch of square pegs when some folks have round holes. Or we get someone passing out the dairy products when some folks have lactose intolerance. In some cases we might even get a book printed in Braille that only a fraction of the population can interpret. In any case, some folks will get a bit upset and want to be left alone to their own personal and cultural needs. That's the crux of the problem with attempting to universalize, I think - attempting to one-size-fits-all. Putting some abstract (and ethnocentric) idea of "global community" first inevitably means failing to accommodate diversity in favor of more totalitarian policies. If you do it right, anyway.

This is probably a terrible post. I got interrupted mid-stream for a couple hours, lost my train of thought, and may have not found it again. But at least it's not an irate rant like my first one was... haha!

I think you're exaggerating the problem of people grasping the concept of "global community."

Is the possibility that some people will be upset if changes are made, something we should worry about? We have been upgrading human societies for centuries despite people like that.

I don't know how you jumped to the notion of totalitarian policies as a potential problem. Maybe you can explain.

The only impact on diversity that I foresee is that the attitude that "my group is superior to yours" would disappear with equality being the emphasis of human societies.

 

[joe1776]

A pointless pipedream that can never be realiatically achieved. There will always be someone out there who will reject the idea. Because they will try to take advantage of it for their own gain, or they value personal freedom more. So long as anyone rejects the idea, it can never be attainable.

Once a better model for governing is in place, there will be nothing to stop it.

 

[joe1776]

BTW, what do you mean when you wrote "science is confirming [your] opinion"?

The New Science of Morality | Edge.org

Not really. Ultimately, you are responsible to you, and the church recognizes that. IOW, the churches position is as long as you're in their "boat", you're safe if you follow the basic teachings, but if you leave the boat, you're on your own.

Yes, I understand that. But, their boat (conscience) is built on reason not intuition. It leaks.

 

[joe1776]

So do I.

And I agree with just about your entire position.

One consequence of your (and my) attitude is that labels like American become much less meaningful. Earthling is the group I identify with.

Why would I care more about the people of Rhode Island than those of Beliz, for example? I don't know anybody in either place.

One consequence of this is that when I hear of jobs disappearing from a well off part of the world and being outsourced to developing nations where workers are forced to take less, I am happy for them. I live in such a lesser country now, and recently, an American studio relocated a post-production facility to our neighborhood. If you're not familiar with the term, post-production refers to the work done after shooting - editing, voice overs, credits, etc..

This creates an excellent opportunity for people here that had never had such an opportunity before. It means more indoor jobs in air conditioned spaces and an incentive for locals to learn new skills.

I hope that the trend continues and that economic opportunity becomes more equitably distributed throughout the globe.

Agreed. On all of it.

 

[Enoch07]

Once a better model for governing is in place, there will be nothing to stop it.

Yes there will be. It's called people. There will always be people that reject it. Once anyone rejects it's, in order to maintain the system, it will have to be enforced by an authority. Once it is enforced by an authority it is no longer a Utopia, it is a Dystopia. Because you have an authority either forcing people to accept it or executing dissenters.

There will always be rebel rousers. Your system is a house of cards, that will undo itself.

 

[74x12]

I was born with a mind incapable of faith. Consequently, early in life, I rejected the Catholic faith that was a tradition in my family. That put me on my own to find a direction for my life. Here's a sample of what I came up with:

Global citizenship is a very old idea. Diogenes (400–325 BC) said: "I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world." When the leaders of our social groups, our nations and our religions, advise selfish behavior that will conflict with the welfare of the global community, a global citizen will ignore them.

The goal is global harmony. We humans are at our best when we cooperate in a worthy cause. And there is no cause more worthy than global harmony. When we think of ourselves, first and foremost, as global citizens, we give our lives meaning beyond survival and our own interests.

Global citizenship eliminates group pride. Most people mistakenly think of group pride as a virtue. Yet we know intuitively that a man very proud of being Irish and Catholic would be just as proud if, by some twist of fate, he had been raised to think of himself as German and Lutheran. He thinks of his groups as superior because he is superior and they are his groups. Group pride is disguised arrogance. Moreover, group pride and group prejudice are simply opposite sides of the same coin. (Our group is superior to their group!)

"All for one, one for all" A global citizen will take for granted that the global community has, since the origin of our species, been involved a cooperative endeavor. The motto "all for one and one for all" efficiently and effectively describes the essential nature of any worthwhile cooperation. Cooperative people give their fair share to the group effort and have a right to expect a fair share of the benefits in return.

A global citizen will support the idea that every child in the global community should be born with rights that are actually equal. The right to own private property is not actually an equal right, for example. People born genetically predisposed to high arrogance, high intelligence, greed, and to wealthy parents, can hoard community resources far beyond their fair share. Consequently, the unfairness of property rights undermines the effectiveness of a system built on cooperation for why should people born without those advantages cooperate?

The Selfishness Paradox applies: When our selfish interests cause harm to others, our brains punish us with the pain of guilt. When we treat others with kindness, our brains make us feel good about it. In this way a paradox is created. The Selfishness Paradox can be expressed this way: We serve ourselves best when we act with the welfare of others in mind.

Comments? I have thick skin so please feel free to criticize.

It won't work. It is idealistic and unrealistic. My point is you're not going to make a perfect world. The best you can do is minimize the downsides ...

Maybe the best argument against a one world government is Hitler! All it takes is one Hitler to rise to power in your one world government and there will be no one else strong enough to stop him.

 

[joe1776]

Yes there will be. It's called people. There will always be people that reject it. Once anyone rejects it's, in order to maintain the system, it will have to be enforced by an authority. Once it is enforced by an authority it is no longer a Utopia, it is a Dystopia. Because you have an authority either forcing people to accept it or executing dissenters.

There will all be rebel rousers. Your system is a house of cards, that will undo itself.

1. most people will trust the new government as they did when the USA was formed;
2. Yes, people who object would have to be dealt with according to the kind of threat they pose;
3. There's no problem that would be insurmountable once the public majority is on board.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Global citizenship as an idea is very favorable to many Buddhists. I think a lot of modern Japanese Buddhists especially aspire to it. The Buddha didn't think nationalism was virtuous in any sense, and he acknowledged our common humanity.

What a shame that up to the present day, humans have persisted in killing and tormenting one another. What a true shame...

Fundamentally and in the ways that count, humans are no different to one another. We all flinch from suffering. We all want happiness.

 

[joe1776]

It won't work. It is idealistic and unrealistic. My point is you're not going to make a perfect world. The best you can do is minimize the downsides ...

Maybe the best argument against a one world government is Hitler! All it takes is one Hitler to rise to power in your one world government and there will be no one else strong enough to stop him.

I haven't proposed a one world government; nor have a proposed a perfect world.

 

[joe1776]

Global citizenship as an idea is very favorable to many Buddhists. I think a lot of modern Japanese Buddhists especially aspire to it. The Buddha didn't think nationalism was virtuous in any sense, and he acknowledged our common humanity.

What a shame that up to the present day, humans have persisted in killing and tormenting one another. What a true shame...

Well then, the feeling's mutual. I like many of the Buddhist ideas as well.

 

[Quintessence]

I think you're exaggerating the problem of people grasping the concept of "global community."

Presuming by "people" you mean humans, I don't believe limited awareness in mammals (including humans) is a "problem" and explicitly stated as such in the prior response. It is, however, a fact. I don't think I was exaggerating the limitations of human awareness. I do think that many humans like to exaggerate their own abilities. They believe they can know things that they can't, and that is where some problems arise. Does this clarify?

Is the possibility that some people will be upset if changes are made, something we should worry about? We have been upgrading human societies for centuries despite people like that.

Upgrading? Consider a moment the implications of what that word choice there. Then consider again if I jumped to fearing totalitarian policies or hostility towards cultural diversity. The idea of "upgrading" is a perpetuation of what is mentioned here, rather than an elimination of it:

The only impact on diversity that I foresee is that the attitude that "my group is superior to yours" would disappear with equality being the emphasis of human societies.

Except that it doesn't, because ideas of "global community" are invariably ethnocentric and favor particular cultural ideals/norms over others. Maybe an illustrative example would help? To use something you wrote in the OP, you tell us "most people mistakenly think of group pride as a virtue." Is this not essentially a declaration of "my group is superior to yours?" It presumes that taking pride in one's local communities and groups is a mistake. Why is this mistaken? What happens to the cultures and individuals who don't agree with this virtue of yours?

Nah, I don't see the "my group is superior to yours" disappearing at all with the advocates of "global community." It's another form of it. Social posturing, far as I can tell, is an inevitable component of the human animal.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I was born with a mind incapable of faith. Consequently, early in life, I rejected the Catholic faith that was a tradition in my family. That put me on my own to find a direction for my life. Here's a sample of what I came up with:

Global citizenship is a very old idea. Diogenes (400–325 BC) said: "I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world." When the leaders of our social groups, our nations and our religions, advise selfish behavior that will conflict with the welfare of the global community, a global citizen will ignore them.

The goal is global harmony. We humans are at our best when we cooperate in a worthy cause. And there is no cause more worthy than global harmony. When we think of ourselves, first and foremost, as global citizens, we give our lives meaning beyond survival and our own interests.

Global citizenship eliminates group pride. Most people mistakenly think of group pride as a virtue. Yet we know intuitively that a man very proud of being Irish and Catholic would be just as proud if, by some twist of fate, he had been raised to think of himself as German and Lutheran. He thinks of his groups as superior because he is superior and they are his groups. Group pride is disguised arrogance. Moreover, group pride and group prejudice are simply opposite sides of the same coin. (Our group is superior to their group!)

"All for one, one for all" A global citizen will take for granted that the global community has, since the origin of our species, been involved a cooperative endeavor. The motto "all for one and one for all" efficiently and effectively describes the essential nature of any worthwhile cooperation. Cooperative people give their fair share to the group effort and have a right to expect a fair share of the benefits in return.

A global citizen will support the idea that every child in the global community should be born with rights that are actually equal. The right to own private property is not actually an equal right, for example. People born genetically predisposed to high arrogance, high intelligence, greed, and to wealthy parents, can hoard community resources far beyond their fair share. Consequently, the unfairness of property rights undermines the effectiveness of a system built on cooperation for why should people born without those advantages cooperate?

The Selfishness Paradox applies: When our selfish interests cause harm to others, our brains punish us with the pain of guilt. When we treat others with kindness, our brains make us feel good about it. In this way a paradox is created. The Selfishness Paradox can be expressed this way: We serve ourselves best when we act with the welfare of others in mind.

Comments? I have thick skin so please feel free to criticize.

I like the idea of a borderless world, but I don't think it will ever be feasible.

 

[Enoch07]

1. most people will trust the new government as they did when the USA was formed;

People don't trust the USA. Dissenters are everywhere here. They are allowed to dissent. Thats one of the great things about the USA.

2. Yes, people who object would have to be dealt with according to the kind of threat they pose;

And the ramifications of how those dissenters are dealt with is what begins to unravel the system.

3. There's no problem that would be insurmountable once the public majority is on board.

Forcing the public to be on board is the insurmountable problem. Without full 100% acceptance of the population, the system breaks down. Basically all it takes is a single person to start a chain of events that will bring the system it's knees.

 

[joe1776]

Presuming by "people" you mean humans, I don't believe limited awareness in mammals (including humans) is a "problem" and explicitly stated as such in the prior response. It is, however, a fact. I don't think I was exaggerating the limitations of human awareness. I do think that many humans like to exaggerate their own abilities. They believe they can know things that they can't, and that is where some problems arise. Does this clarify?

I don't think the concept of a global community is a difficult one to grasp but, since this is a subjective opinion, I'll acknowledge that you disagree.

Upgrading? Consider a moment the implications of what that word choice there. Then consider again if I jumped to fearing totalitarian policies or hostility towards cultural diversity. The idea of "upgrading" is a perpetuation of what is mentioned here, rather than an elimination of it:

When we get to the implementation phase, with a new form of government in place that would have to meet the approval of a public majority, there would be trust, the way citizens trusted the new government in the USA of 1778, I can't imagine fears of totalitarian policies of hostility toward cultural diversity being a significant problem if there was public trust.

Except that it doesn't, because ideas of "global community" are invariably ethnocentric and favor particular cultural ideals/norms over others. Maybe an illustrative example would help? To use something you wrote in the OP, you tell us "most people mistakenly think of group pride as a virtue." Is this not essentially a declaration of "my group is superior to yours?" It presumes that taking pride in one's local communities and groups is a mistake. Why is this mistaken? What happens to the cultures and individuals who don't agree with this virtue of yours?

I showed that group pride is disguised arrogance. I didn't go on to argue here that the consequence of "My group is superior to your group!" can be linked to the aggressor of nearly every war ever fought, genocide, gang violence, etc. But that shouldn't be tough to sell.

Nah, I don't see the "my group is superior to yours" disappearing at all with the advocates of "global community." It's another form of it. Social posturing, far as I can tell, is an inevitable component of the human animal.

That problem has been losing ground for decades. Christians don't burn heretics at the stake anymore. Nor do they attack other religions as they did during the Crusades. Christian and Protestant aren't killing each other as they once did.

 

[joe1776]

People don't trust the USA. Dissenters are everywhere here. They are allowed to dissent. Thats one of the great things about the USA.

Why do you think the new government I foresee would not allow dissent? I see less dissent in a new nation because many in the USA are disenchanted with the existing system.

And the ramifications of how those dissenters are dealt with is what begins to unravel the system.

Only if you imagine the worst -- which seems to be what you want to do.

Forcing the public to be on board is the insurmountable problem. Without full 100% acceptance of the population, the system breaks down. Basically all it takes is a single person to start a chain of events that will bring the system it's knees.

Only stupid people would have to be forced to shift to a better system of government. I don't think most people are stupid.

 

[pearl]

So, when you say that the Church wants me to be guided by conscience. They have a different idea of what that means.

Pope Pius XII on conscience;
Conscience is the innermost secret nucleus in man. It is there that he takes refuge with his spiritual faculties in absolute solitude alone with himself and his God. Conscience is a sanctuary on the threshold of which all must halt, even in the case of a child, his father and mother.
It is correctly argued, that the true meaning of adult independence is not to be led like a little Child.

 

[pearl]

Being based on the Golden Rule doesn't make it Catholic.

I didn't say it did.

 

[Enoch07]

Why do you think the new government I foresee would not allow dissent? I see less dissent in a new nation because many in the USA are disenchanted with the existing system.

Because there is always dissent. It's human nature to be rebellious.

Only if you imagine the worst -- which seems to be what you want to do.

This is kid of a best case scenario tbh.

Only stupid people would have to be forced to shift to a better system of government. I don't think most people are stupid.

And you wonder why people would resist the idea. This is why people reject intellectuals ideas of Utopia.

 

[Augustus]

Are you saying that my ideas are conditioned by the American culture I live in?

Of course. We are all products of our environment and find it very hard/impossible to think from outwith our cultural frame of reference.

Had you been born in an Amazonian tribal environment you would have absolutely no concept of a global citizenry, it would make no sense whatsoever. Just as something like 'honour killing' make no sense to you or I.

I don't foresee one global government. That isn't required. All that's required is an upgrade in the decision-making model for governing. When governments make the right decisions, they will see the advantages of acting with the benefit of the global community in mind.

We do that at times already, it's enlightened self-interest with occasional altruism.

To be a truly global citizen though you have to say a child on the other side of the world is just as important as a child in your own neighbourhood and act accordingly. This means sending you resources to help this child to the same degree you help the one in your own neighbourhood.

This is utopian and no one will accept it. You basically would have to downgrade your quality of life and opportunity to subsidise those in foreign cultures.