Hacker News Reader

Comment by meowface | Hacker News Reader

>the notion that many people hold that you should help your countrymen before others, while somewhat heartless, absolutely is not "crazy" or necessarily xenophobic.

No, it's not crazy or xenophobic. But it's interesting, because from a philosophical standpoint: what difference does it make? Why should you really help someone who lives down the street from you over someone 10 miles away? Why someone 30 miles away over someone 300 miles away? Because circumstance led you to randomly live near them?

Of course, the real answer is that it's hard to take in more people without externalities (like more splitting of funding, etc.). But the notion of helping your countrymen before non-countrymen on principle seems foolish and insular to me. People have feelings and desires whether they're born in the US or Canada or Iraq.

View on HN

Ironically, I think your claim that:

> helping your countrymen before non-countrymen on principle seems foolish and insular to me

is a bit insular =).

If you travel a bit around the world, having pride in your country, or camaraderie with your countrymen isn't that unusual a viewpoint. In fact, your view-point is a bit unusual (although that doesn't necessarily make it wrong). Many people will put their own country/tribe/family before strangers.

I'm probably the other side of the coin to you. To me, the next step is treating your country as nothing more than a business-transaction - I pay taxes, you give me services. I don't like that viewpoint.

Having a sense of civic pride - in a shared culture of history with those around you - can lead to many selfless things, and binds people together. Of course, taken too far, you get jingoism - but to my mind, there is a happy middle-ground.

I'm aware my position is the uncommon one, but that's irrelevant to the discussion.

>To me, the next step is treating your country as nothing more than a business-transaction - I pay taxes, you give me services. I don't like that viewpoint.

I guess that's my ideal world. I think that's where we're all inevitably moving, though it'll be slow.

> Why should you really help someone who lives down the street from you over someone 10 miles away? Why someone 30 miles away over someone 300 miles away? Because circumstance led you to randomly live near them?

Maybe because you've been through hardships together, maybe your neighbors ancestors owe yours a tremendous debt of gratitude, numerous reasons that I doubt refugees from most anywhere in the world would find difficult to understand.

Also, this thing called war used to affect us in the west, where the comfortable living of the last 70 odd years seems to have completely wiped any memories from the earlier difficult periods from our collective consciousness. The very idea of forming tightly knit bonds with your neighbors, and saving in times of plenty for the inevitable times of hardship that lie down the road, is now considered not just passe, but foolish.

>Maybe because you've been through hardships together

Maybe, but that's a special exception. Usually this is not the case.

>maybe your neighbors ancestors owe yours a tremendous debt of gratitude

Who cares about ancestors? If my ancestor was a murderer, do I have to honor his legacy? I couldn't care less what my ancestors did, unless I've interacted with them while they were still alive.

As for war: that's the one big exception. Of course nationalism is required during war. But the West is not currently in a state of war.

> Who cares about ancestors?

Almost everyone.

I don't know about that. Ask a random American how they feel about their dead great-grandfather, and you'd probably get an answer like "indifferent".

Of course, I know it's different in many non-Western cultures.

Sadly, you're most likely right.

> Why should you _really_ help someone who lives down the street from you over someone 10 miles away? Why someone 30 miles away over someone 300 miles away?

Because it's more efficient. Because you're more likely to be able to effectively communicate and interact with a neighbor than with someone from across the world. Because of self-interest: helping your neighbor is in part helping yourself.

Like, I grew up here, but the extreme individualism in America seems weird and unhealthy to me. People instinctually work for their family, friends, and tribe first, and we should harness that instinct for good rather than trying to just suppress it.

The efficiency argument goes both ways. Certainly it's hard to get anything done when you don't know the language or the culture. On the other hand, GiveWell has spent years researching how to do the most good per charity dollar, and their top recommendations are in Africa. It's estimated (with large error bars) that a few thousand dollars can save a life there by funding bednets to prevent malaria. It's hard to do anything comparable in the US.

So if your idea of charity is selflessly giving money, local is not the place to look. But it's rather abstract and you don't build relationships that way.

But you are right, charity doesn't have to purely selfless; it can also be about building the local community.

There is nothing random about where you are born. This is a false premise. It is about as not-random as it is possible to get.

It is not some majestic yet universal coincidence that people have more in common with those who happen to share the same genes, and less so the more divergence exists.

Perhaps random isn't the right word, but it's completely out of your control, will, or knowledge. Just like your eye color.

>It is not some majestic yet universal coincidence that people have more in common with those who happen to share the same genes, and less so the more divergence exists.

It is the definition of a coincidence. The confounding variables being the shared area, culture, and socioeconomic tier in which you're born.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com