Global Citizenship = Moral Progress

[Augustus]

Nothing except the desire to leave the world a better place for their children than the one they were born into.

Brilliant. Will work like a dream.

Just tell folk they're all humans together and they'll get along swimmingly.

Only wish someone had thought of it sooner, could have saved a lot of trouble.

 

[joe1776]

One size fits all approaches will have the opposite effect as some groups will always feel they are getting cheated out of their fair share.

I'll grant that historically that's been true, but historically some groups have been cheated out of their fair share. However, the reason for the unfairness is that we humans have yet to invent a government that isn't both corrupt and ineffective. It's not because groups will always complain whether treated fairly or not.

The USA, with its mix of people from every culture in the world, is doomed if you're right. And, while we have a long way to go, there's evidence that, despite the current corrupt and ineffective governing system, we're doing as well as, or better than, most other nations in the world.

 

[joe1776]

Brilliant. Will work like a dream.

Just tell folk they're all humans together and they'll get along swimmingly.

Only wish someone had thought of it sooner, could have saved a lot of trouble.

Sarcasm in lieu of actual debate?

 

[Augustus]

I'll grant that historically that's been true, but historically some groups have been cheated out of their fair share. However, the reason for the unfairness is that we humans have yet to invent a government that isn't both corrupt and ineffective. It's not because groups will always complain whether treated fairly or not

Unless you can create perpetual improvement for all, some groups will always perceive they are not getting their full rewards.

Even if you could create a perfectly honest and efficient government at a global scale (which is near impossible), you would still get people who perceive they are being left behind as you can't get perpetual and equal improvement everywhere on a global scale.

The USA, with its mix of people from every culture in the world, is doomed if you're right. And, while we have a long way to go, there's evidence that, despite the current corrupt and ineffective governing system, we're doing as well as, or better than, most other nations in the world.

The US is relatively decentralised and comes with a strong dose of patriotism and state and national pride.

Sarcasm in lieu of actual debate?

Go to the Israelis and Palestinians and tell them to stop fighting "for the good of the children".

See how well it works.

What makes you think it will work on a massive scale?

 

[metis]

If you do a search for global citizenship, you'll find that the concept is now happening as a movement.

As a "work in progress", yes.

 

[joe1776]

Unless you can create perpetual improvement for all, some groups will always perceive they are not getting their full rewards.

An effective governing system will insure fairness and will give those who think they've been treated unfairly a fair hearing, one that everyone can read about online.

The US is relatively decentralised and comes with a strong dose of patriotism and state and national pride.

But these new connections had to be formed from the old world connections of a group of immigrants. Isn't that evidence that they are impermanent and might be reformed yet again as part of a global community?

Go to the Israelis and Palestinians and tell them to stop fighting "for the good of the children". See how well it works.

I gave you the motivation that would drive most people to want a better world. I didn't give you an argument that would solve all human problems.

 

[joe1776]

As a "work in progress", yes.

Sure -- and what's your opinion of it as a work in progress? If you don't like it's chances for success, why not?

 

[Augustus]

An effective governing system will insure fairness and will give those who think they've been treated unfairly a fair hearing, one that everyone can read about online.

Even if you invent your mythical system of perfect government, it still won't solve the problem.

Even a rudimentary familiarity with humans both individually and as groups will tell you that treating people fairly doesn't ensure they think they have been treated fairly.

But these new connections had to be formed from the old world connections of a group of immigrants. Isn't that evidence that they are impermanent and might be reformed yet again as part of a global community?

An identity that evolved over time, at multiple scales based on significant common interests and cultural commonalities mostly under a dominant British system and its successor.

How do you propose creating this united global community where people have to give up power to those of very different cultures and value systems?

I gave you the motivation that would drive most people to want a better world. I didn't give you an argument that would solve all human problems.

Most people want a better world as it is.

The problem is each group thinks the best way to achieve this is for everyone else to become more like them.

"think of the children" doesn't bridge these divides.

 

[epronovost]

Human society is intrinsically divisive.

A 7 billion person tribe with divergent cultures and competing interests have nothing tangible to bind them together.

If you live in the same community you have personal relationships and things that create clear mutual self-interest regarding things in your everyday environment. Decision makers are also part of the community which creates greater obligation, accountability and skin in the game.

Giant, abstract communities run by distant leaders are not stable and will inevitably fracture into smaller tribes.

Why do you ignore federative social structure. I live in a country composed of several nations and we live rather harmoniously together thanks to that federative structure all the while retaining a common sense of identity. I believe this is a case were national and global identity aren't mutually exclusive. You can have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Koldo]

You are *actually* arguing that it makes no sense that the chap who lived in a jar, shat in the theater, pissed on people who annoyed him and wanked himself off in public didn't think exactly like a modern progressive?

You understand that ancient Greece was a very different place where someone who lived as an individual was literally an "idiot"?



And you cherry pick the evidence that shows your goal to be a pipe dream that will end up fracturing into competing tribes.

"tribes" will always exist, so it is best to keep then relatively small and formed around a positive identity linked to a tangible local community.

One size fits all approaches will have the opposite effect as some groups will always feel they are getting cheated out of their fair share.

I think there are some large scale issues if we see ourselves as belonging to a local tribe rather than as a global citizen. I would like to cite two:

1) Environmental issues: The reason why there are so many trees standing on Brazil is because it is not the local communities that get to make this call. The Amazon would be gone by now if it was up to them....

2) Wars: Think of how often you hear of states waging war against each other compared to countries waging war with each other. How has that worked for Europe?

 

[joe1776]

Even if you invent your mythical system of perfect government, it still won't solve the problem. Even a rudimentary familiarity with humans both individually and as groups will tell you that treating people fairly doesn't ensure they think they have been treated fairly.

It doesn't matter what the complainers think. What matters is that most citizens see that the complainers were fairly treated and so they won't get behind a mass protest.

An identity that evolved over time, at multiple scales based on significant common interests and cultural commonalities mostly under a dominant British system and its successor. How do you propose creating this united global community where people have to give up power to those of very different cultures and value systems?

That's not what I imagine. I imagine people supporting a governing system the way they once got behind the concept of democracy --- except that they will be supporting a governing process that actually makes better decisions for the people.

Most people want a better world as it is.The problem is each group thinks the best way to achieve this is for everyone else to become more like them. "think of the children" doesn't bridge these divides.

No, it doesn't. But a governing system that can be tested and proven to actually make better decisions is something that everyone with a sane brain will support.

 

[Augustus]

Why do you ignore federative social structure. I live in a country composed of several nations and we live rather harmoniously together thanks to that federative structure all the while retaining a common sense of identity. I believe this is a case were national and global identity aren't mutually exclusive. You can have your cake and eat it too.

I'm all in favour of a federalised structure, but a federalised nation that comprises highly autonomous municipalities.

I do not believe it remotely plausible that this can be scaled up to the global level.

We can't just scale up institutions endlessly, and expect them to keep working despite the exponential increases in complexity this creates.

 

[Augustus]

1) Environmental issues: The reason why there are so many trees standing on Brazil is because it is not the local communities that get to make this call. The Amazon would be gone by now if it was up to them....

Would you say the national governments of China and The USSR made a better job of protecting their environments than local communities would have?

Wars: Think of how often you hear of states waging war against each other compared to countries waging war with each other. How has that worked for Europe?

The wars got far more destructive the bigger the scale of the actors involved were.

 

[joe1776]

I'm all in favour of a federalised structure, but a federalised nation that comprises highly autonomous municipalities.

I do not believe it remotely plausible that this can be scaled up to the global level.

We can't just scale up institutions endlessly, and expect them to keep working despite the exponential increases in complexity this creates.

What exponential increase in complexity? It's the same decision-making system used 150 times. It's not a different, more complex, system with the addition of more nations.

Moreover, the system isn't forced on them. They want it because it will be tested and proven. They will see that It obviously works before they commit to it..

 

[Koldo]

Would you say the national governments of China and The USSR made a better job of protecting their environments than local communities would have?

I don't know. But why are you mentioning those two specifically?

The wars got far more destructive the bigger the scale of the actors involved were.

What do you mean by 'more destructive'?
How are you measuring that?

 

[Augustus]

It doesn't matter what they think. What matters is that most citizens see that the complainers were fairly treated and won't get behind a mass protest.

What makes you think you can make all people of all regions of the world perceive they have been treated fairly and equally for ever and ever?

That's not what I imagine. I imagine people supporting a governing system the way they got behind democracy --- except that they will be supporting a governing process that actually makes better decisions for the people.

People can't agree what constitutes a better decesion on a national level, never mind a global one.

How do you create a consensus?

No, it doesn't. Bur a governing system that actually makes better decisions is something that everyone with a sane brain will support.

Humans are not very rational individually, let alone in large groups with abstract identities. Your "sane brains" aren't really very common.

Even then, first you have to invent and implement this magical system of government, then enforce sufficient ideological conformity that everyone agees these are better decisions in perpetuity and that they wouldn't be better off under a different system of government.

Nothing in human history or human psychology suggests this is remotely plausible.

You can't get everyone to agree all the time and after a while people desire change just for changes sake. People disagree just to be different.

Stability is an illusion, sooner or later everything blows up when you hit a critical mass.

 

[joe1776]

What makes you think you can make all people of all regions of the world perceive they have been treated fairly and equally for ever and ever?

You aren't reading carefully. I wrote:

It doesn't matter what they think. What matters is that most citizens see that the complainers were fairly treated and won't get behind a mass protest.

If the process is fair, and fairness is transparent, there's no worry.

People can't agree what constitutes a better decesion on a national level, never mind a global one. How do you create a consensus?

The majority of the citizenry will be convinced that the majority of an expert panel will make the right decisions based on the facts available at the time. It isn't necessary that they always agree with the individual decisions.

Humans are not very rational individually, let alone in large groups with abstract identities. Your "sane brains" aren't really very common.

Sanity is a common occurrence almost by definition.

Even then, first you have to invent and implement this magical system of government, then enforce sufficient ideological conformity that everyone agees these are better decisions in perpetuity and that they wouldn't be better off under a different system of government.

There's nothing magical about it. I've explained the basics of one such system in this forum. I'm not sure that it's the best available, though.

Nothing in human history or human psychology suggests this is remotely plausible.

You just described anything done for the first time.

You can't get everyone to agree all the time and after a while people desire change just for changes sake. People disagree just to be different.

A well-conceived decision-making system makes such erratic thinking a non-factor.

Stability is an illusion, sooner or later everything blows up when you hit a critical mass.

Poorly designed systems are unstable. Stability isn't an illusion if the system is well-designed.

 

[Heyo]

“I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world." -- Socrates

We can each make a serious leap forward morally by adopting an attitude of global citizenship. IMO, the unconscious need to feel superior to other people drives most, if not all, human failings. It results in arrogant behavior and causes wars. The most harm is done by the arrogance we call group pride, which we mistakenly think of as a virtue. It isn't a virtue because the ever-present flip-side of the coin is group prejudice, the cause of the most serious instances of human conflict.

Our tribe is superior to theirs!
Our religion is superior to theirs!
Our race is super to theirs!
Our nation is superior to theirs!

When we reject all group attachments, and become, first and foremost, a Global Citizen, we can leave behind a huge chunk of immoral baggage.

If you do a search for global citizenship, you'll find that the concept is now happening as a movement.

I don't care what your country of origin is or which you call home now.
I don't even care if you think you are superior because of your residency.
As long as you don't think your country should go to war with another country and you can behave decently, all is fine.