Global Citizenship a Growing Sentiment Among Citizens of Emerging Economies
globescan.com
globescan.com
Just like big corporations, I am totally convinced that if countries get too big, there is an increasing risk for corruption and evilness.
Just look at Russia, China and the US. Today, Putin is president (cough dictator cough) and he is kinda scary since he is so unpredictable. What if he gets cancer and wants to be remembered as someone who gave Russia more power and start WW3? I will be as scared for Trump if he gains power in the US.
China feels kind of stable, but none of these mega nations feels safe for us living in a smaller country. When so few people gains so much power, corruption is inevitable due to our nature.
Personally I think nation states are rather burdensome. In business one has to handle countless different legal and tax frameworks while fundamentally every human has comparable needs. Why operate ~196 governments when one government would suffice? The inefficiency is just mind boggling in my opinion.
That assumption has been at the core of some wonderful experiments in the 20th century, and the people who had the fortune to live under regimes based on that assumption showed their preference for moving to exactly the alternatives that the assumption is trying to exclude. Or tried to do so and got killed by the people who knew what their true needs were.
"comparable needs" does not necessarily refer to tangible goods. The central needs are probably freedom and a justice system protecting individual rights and us from each other, not e.g. everyone driving the same car.
I don't disagree with your inefficiency comment, but upsides are diversity of trying things in 196 slightly different ways, 196 chances to fail without thew whole system going down, and the opportunity for individuals to move to a place that is most inline with their personal philosophy.
There are very, very few people who are lucky enough to base their current country on their personal philosophy.
What you described is mostly descriptive while I argued purely normative. That doesn't make your arguments less true but we have to acknowledge the different viewpoints. The problem with the EU is that is not a government, stuck in some sort of limbo in-between sovereign European states and people that would like to see a fully integrated European government. I myself living in Germany would like to see such a European government if the structural issues within the EU are solved (e.g. lack of democratic legitimacy of the European Commission).
I agree with you on the currency issue. But it is solvable through more European integration and solidarity. In the US for example some states are economically weaker, while others are economically stronger. A fiscal union allocates federal taxes to the weaker ones, in order to ease economic differences. Such a model should be considered in the EU.
What worries me most about the current state of the EU is the pessimism. Yes, there are pressing issues and controversies but instead of choosing isolation (e.g. Poland and possibly the UK) we should rebuild and innovate what fundamentally is a rather successful project. Prosperity and peace are at an all time high. These all time highs are in danger now but can't be solved through reverting back to national states. Problems are global now and therefore have to be solved globally.
A normative claim that the world "should" have one government when there's no way to make it work is just fantasy. Nonexistent options don't figure into the moral calculus. If the EU can't be made to work it certainly can't be extended to the entire world. You think the stress of the EU is going to be lessened when it is outvoted on every issue by Asia?
Every major centralization of power right now is under huge stress and in serious danger of flying apart at the seams in the next couple of decades. There's no current "world government" option.
Same reason ships have separate compartments in the hull, so if one floods they all don't. Basically it is not wise to put all your eggs in one basket.
-Buckminster Fuller
Global citizen means person without (a national) culture (other than consumer culture maybe). But culture is a human need. Ideally, we should live in a world where free movement allows us to choose the culture that fits us best, and stick with it. In this world, only a few strong cultures would survive.
Does it? Seems more like people without a strong connection to a national culture, which doesn't mean they don't have culture. The example of Spain, pointed out in the article as one of the OECD countries where more people identify as "global citizens" versus of their country, is informative, as much of Spanish culture is highly regional. A citizen of Catalonia or the Basque region might have plenty of local cultural attachment without feeling a strong connection to the country overall.
You can argue things have changed since 1950s, but near every controversial action making the headlines (book bans, stand your ground laws, ID teaching in schools, anti-immigrant action, homophobic legislation, racially motivated police crimes) seem to come from county and state level.
Don't forget immigration law is a Federal boondoggle.
A perfect example are the Kurdish people spread across Syria, Turkey and Iraq. They identify as Kurdish; and don't view themselves as citizens of Syria, Turkey or Iraq. In the emerging world, this situation is common -- basic services are provided by local tribal groups, not by the national government (which is usually dominated by another ethnic group that diverts resources to its own people). Those tribal groups may or may not be confined within a single country.
Nationalism cuts both ways -- it's useful for tearing down the walls between ethnic groups within a country, but take it too far and you get Nazis.
Nationalism erects walls between ethnic groups by definition. Framing it as "within a country" is missing the forest for the trees.
Redistribution of wealth to provide equal opportunity is a fundamental principle of many countries and societies. I'm arguing that if you are for this principle, then how could you argue it should stop at a border? And if instead you're in favor of abolishing all income redistribution, then in essence that is also an implicit argument for abolishing government, which again makes borders meaningless. Either way, rationally, i see no objective defense for the principle of borders restricting what people have access to.
Compare the US and mexico. A child may be born 5 miles south and lose an incredible amount of opportunity. Why is that fair? What did the child do to earn that station in life? Why are castes accepted when they are cross-border but not inside a country? Why should poverty be inherited? (I'm not arguing against inheriting wealth, just against inheriting poverty and not getting a fair chance at making your own wealth as a consequence.)
No. That is just an argument against that type of society and government.
I really wonder in the end which effect will be more prevalent.
Just because you know someone does not mean you love them, you really can't, because it will effect your own well being and resource utilization. At best you can learn to tolerate people because you understand them... and integrate them into the global slave economy to serve your desires. But there is no hope of ever being together. We don't have that level of capacity to love. Only our ideas do and they too often fail.
At the end of the day why is the Middle East or Africa suffering simply because they are not willing to be a productive part of the global slave economy, therefore they get no respect and are exploited. It's not that we don't understand them. We don't like them because they don't work for us and consume and produce on our terms. Therefore, we don't respect them. We don't love them, and they don't love us. Their distribution of power is based in religion (the Middle East), ours is based on economics.
Why are Jewish people and Israelis held in such high esteem. For the same reason, they produce and consume with us. They have contributed massively to the economy and many other fields. They serve our desires, and we are one with them.
I know that the 2011 census for England & Wales showed that it has one of the largest mixed race populations in Europe, and projections are that it will continue to grow.
For me this is a positive development - it shows that people mix with others of different ethnicities, and perhaps might also encourage people to be more open and tolerant of others.
Internet has created bigger echo chambers, and bigger audiences for extremists of all sides. In that sense, yes, it has brought people together, but often not in a positive way.
That's why I don't believe that thought policing, "forced tolerance" or 'safe spaces' will amount to anything. We should think pragmatically and find a way to live non-violently, in a not-necessarily-tolerant world.
Interesting, I believe exactly that but I've never heard anyone else express it before. The idea of social constructivism, the notion that everything is a mere social construct, has been so ingrained in (western) societies that people assume every problem is one to be solved through social engineering. It just puzzles me why anyone would be so adamant to put naturally conflicting groups together. What is the goal? What are the benefits that are worth the hassle and friction? Maybe it's nothing but a naive attempt to achieve some utopian fantasy, or perhaps there is a less innocent agenda behind it. I honestly don't know. If you wish to expound on the subject or have any literary recommendations, I'm all ears.
I actually believe it can solve many problems, but it is not a lowest-energy solution. Nationalist propaganda requires a lot of resources, and as people are seeing that the benefits outweight the costs, they are giving up on it, i believe. I don't know any books about this, I do think it's an interesting subject as well.
That wouldn't work either. People would still be divided among fight vs appease vs run away, trying to use the chaos to backstab anyone they don't like or to jockey for power, etc.
We have something similar at a different level here. People in Salford (a not well thought of connurbation of Manchester, UK) are 'from Manchester', where as people from Didsbury are 'from Didsbury'.
That said China being on that list does surprise me.
People in China cannot be unaware of the country's shortcomings (as a repressive totalitarian state) while also having a strong awareness of, and often direct family or business connections to the rest of the world, which China has influenced and been influenced by for centuries.
Traditionally, Chinese people have had no objection to emigrating, working and settling in other countries, in Asia and beyond - exemplified by how many cities in the world have a Chinatown - and have never struck me as being particularly racist, nationalistic or xenophobic.
In particular, I don't perceive a country which rules dual nationality impossible to be likely to be more internationalist in public outlook than countries where large proportions of the population trace their ancestry to other continents, foreign languages are universally spoken, foreign media is consumed as often as domestic media, international travel is something most people actually do, immigrants are not novelties even in rural areas and the government couldn't give two shits about patriotism.
Sure, there are plenty of people born in China who see things differently, but the survey implies that two thirds of Chinese people living in the People's Republic of China don't really see themselves as Chinese.
You don't have to think that Chinese citizens are disproportionately racist, nationalistic or xenophobic (I don't) to find it quite hard to believe that they're substantially less attached to their national, ethnic and cultural identity than most of the rest of the world.
Even the diasporas - which undoubtedly would give different survey results - are as good at preserving their cultural identity as they're economically successful.
My ex is Nigerian, and keeps complaining about how many of her friends are now moving back for this reason. In most of these cases these are people with dual citizenships (e.g. my ex has dual citizenship as her dad was born in the UK) or who have lived in the UK long enough to obtain indefinite leave to remain, so most of them are leaving entirely out of choice.
I'm sure there's still a desire to move to the UK for a lot of Nigerians, but I'm also unconvinced that this is what drives the higher numbers that says global first.
Perhaps in some cases at least it is more down to rapid growth actually giving them a sense of "joining the world stage" and e.g. actually getting the opportunity to travel and work elsewhere that was limited to very small proportions before.
Indeed it is important to understand how they relate to other people, but not just people within the artificial boundaries of a nation state.
Those values weren't spontaneously and independently invented by the artificial lines drawn on a piece of paper, they were developed throughout all human history across the whole planet.
Judging by some responses, however, it seems as if using the term "global citizen" is seen as implicit support for some kind of central world government.
The world will not be stable with that sentiment for long. At some point, the "global citizen" will seek to express their political will; a will that will inevitably conflict with the will of the Nation-State.
To do that, the "global citizens" must have sponsors, leaders, and some way to organize. Would-be sponsors, leaders,and organizers will see the potential for gain here and will step in to sponsor, lead, and organize the "global citizens." And at that point, a central world government has been seeded and will begin to grow.
Alternately, people will remain organized in Nation-states and the "Global Citizen" mentality will fade away since it won't have any relevant meaning.
And ultimately, they'll discover that the "global human community" has as many differences as similarities and not all of those differences are compatible.
Nations are abstractions. I belong to a greater human community. Fortunately I could witness the advent of the internet and of massive information exchange between peoples. I rejoice with a untold pride when human beings make some amazing advancement in whatever field of knowledge we happen to strive for: the many fields of science, art, philosophy. I watch with amazement when a new boundary in space travel is surpassed; when we (humans) reach political agreements that make the world a bit less inhumane (insane) and more sustainable; when we stop thinking through the lenses of arbitrary divisions and reach to a higher goal.
I am a citizen of the world (global citizenship) — and I am proud of it. I am glad I am able to learn and to share information with such a vast array of different peoples. I literally live on an utopia (no place) that is an information matrix inside my head. And I am glad to be here today typing this comment within an international community (HN).
This is my interpretation. If you try to make global citizenship a dystopian political agenda then you're talking about something entirely different.
Even the democrats are marching in lock-step on the path to corporate lead world government (e.g., President Obama dutifully going to England and preaching against British EU exit, and of course democrat turned neoconservative Hilliary Clinton).
I like very small countries. I recently spent 2 weeks in Singapore on business and loved it there. I am also drawn to tiny countries like Dominica that are off the usual path.
Ordinary people do much better in local economies where money in return for services and resources circulates, largely staying in the local economy - local economies are I think more resilient to a future of sporadic, or no growth. The current economy relies on continuous growth, which is not sustainable.
I wonder what is keeping Germans from feeling global?
When sorted by % of population that is composed of immigrants, Germany does not have much immigration (it's country # sixty-something in the list) [0])
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_immigrant...
Today Germany is the second most popular migration destination in the world, after the United States[0]
Not commenting on whether that's a good or bad thing(I feel it's pretty neutral), just pointing out that the parent commenter saying "all the immigrants coming into our country" isn't making a crazy statement.
If we have to wait 3 or more generations for assimilation to happen, if ever, no wonder that right-conservative parties can use this as a selling point.
(and no I definitely don't feel global (I'm also young, with academic background), let all regions stay to themselves. Tourism is sufficient if you want to experience others)
On the other hand the term was used as a negative propaganda term in the eastern bloc[1]
In my experience German's are way more likely to call themselves Europeans first (more than most other European nationalities), and happily skip the world citizen part for convenience's sake. Even the E in PEGIDA stand for Europeans.
However I strongly support https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_quota
I would think that global citizens would not be so interested in nations with similar number of high aspirants.
Edit. Wow, 44% in Spain? Seriously guys? 35% Greece. Somebody should correlate this with GDP per capita, I believe there is a negative correlation there to be found...
Why does that worry you? I would generally consider greater global unity to be a positive trend.
It is like the call to workers of the world unite. But rich and well off workers will be less inclined when there is no upside.
Or with the level of real-life experience and awareness a population has with other countries.
Especially the huge white spaces.
In M2 it seems all of the "somewhat agree" and a few points of the "strongly agree" have gone elsewhere including back to national citizenship which creates a tension between the results of the two questions. It’s quite stark in the case of India where in the first question 67% place global citizenship over national citizenship but in M2 51% have national citizenship as their primary identity and only 6% have global citizenship.
I think the first question (Q18jt) would be more interesting if it was a 5 point scale with a "don't know" option provided rather than trying to railroad people into an answer with a 4 point scale. Even then I think the M2 question is a better instrument as it provides a clear set of choices. For example Pakistan goes from 56% global in the first question to 2% global in the second. Most of those seem to move to religion as their primary identity (43% answer religion on M2). Many religions are globally oriented toward all humanity but the M2 question lets us see more clearly what they believe.
Even though the second question (M2) is better it probably could still do with some examination. For example the only country where global citizenship was higher than national citizenship in M2 was Spain, but was that because many people in Catalonia and the Basque Country are choosing global over "Spanish" because the "local" option was translated in a particular way? If they used a word closer to "neighborhood" you could see how that might happen. Similarly was "local" translated more broadly in the Indonesian translation and became the dominant answer there (56%) as people could identify with an island/state/ethnic/linguistic group that was "local", like Bali for example. It's hard to tell without all the data and the exact translations of the questions.