Being a Global Citizen: What does it truly mean?

I must first start with why this topic sparked off in my head and why it is relevant to initiate this kind of conversation at the earliest. As you read this, the world is making great strides in all imaginable aspects. New technologies, cures and innovations emerge and disrupt the world every second. Surrounded by such dynamism, it is hard to understand what stride is really benefiting humanity as a whole and which one is an "apparent" innovation which in fact sets us back. What are "apparent" innovations? They hold great benefit to niche avenues but have a deterring effect when considered in the context of Humanity as a whole. Exposure to the presence of lead, arsenic and asbestos used to enhance building materials lead to lung and skin cancers. They add value to construction and paint jobs but at the cost of exposing workers to carcinogens. Their overall value in this context is non beneficial and so they should be eliminated. What does this have to do with global citizenship? I am getting to it. Wouldn't it be great if we had a global organization that monitored the net effect of every innovation so that humans don't spend all their energy solving problems we ourselves create? How exactly can we make a difference going around in circles? It was this notion that led me to this topic of global thought and action. 

1. Thinking as an organism

We are all filled with ambitions and aspirations. This mindset of "I have worked hard for my moolah so I deserve this and more" makes sense in a world with limitless resources. Not so much living with limited resources. How can a limitless resource like money dictate the use of limited resources? Today, for things like global warming that are so obvious, on an individual level we all know what we need to do, but on a global level movement is slow. Why? We are not used to thinking as an organism of that scale. One of the major steps then, is for Humanity to start thinking consciously. The second major step to this end is to accept the roles that are necessary to aid the first. What does that mean? Discarding personal aspirations and dreams on some level, and to enjoy doing what is necessary.

What do we want our identity to be?

2. Top Down or Bottom up approach?
Do we need global institutions to bring about an 'across the borders' thought process? or does the movement start with each individual citizen breaking national boundaries in his mind? To better understand this, we need to delve into a familiar collective governance body. A Nation. Current nations stand not because of lines drawn on maps but because a nation is a collection of people with shared ideas of living/beliefs and cultural roots. So for a global citizen to exist, their perspective and vision must be expansive and impact humanity as a whole and not just a subset of it. This is enabled by solidarity, common motivations and most importantly, Global Institutions. We are witnessing today a UN who still plays a significant yet weakening role each passing day. Why? because national interests still outweigh global ones. So, we need both top down and bottom up approaches as, global citizens are required to keep check on global institutions.

3. Are we ready to occupy other planets?
This may seem like a rather odd point to bring up in this conversation, but we need to admit that we are taking the concept of “multiplanetary species” pretty seriously. Whether it is NASA, SpaceX or any other government or private organization, there is rapid progress being made in space technology. Sooner or later our time tables for reaching mars is going to be realized. The question we must ask ourselves is “Does just having the Technology to achieve something gives us the right to do it?” By all standards we have done a below average job of occupying earth. We create most of the problems on the planet and then we try to solve them. What is worse is we give ourselves a pat on the back for doing it. Trust me, I am sure the planet would’ve done quite well whether we were on it or not. What I am trying to say is, have we really figured out how to survive in harmony with our surroundings? Cause in the long run it is this question that can determine whether we survive or not as a species. I can say this though. If we ever do fly to mars, the initial periods of our existence on the red planet will see the best expression of humanity that is high on inspiration and achievement. What I am worried about though are the periods of settling down that follow right after and the attitude of entitlement creeps in. 

Do I really need to explain this picture?

4. We seem to be a united front in our virtual world  
We need to be thankful to the internet for many things. The most important thing though is the dissolution of boundaries. The ease of interaction and sharing over this virtual world has eliminated the need for boundaries, both physical and mental. An interesting observation though is while we find it so easy to define our motivations on the internet, we can’t seem to do it as well in reality. This points to either a difference between our status quo and actual intention (or) we just find it easier to press keys if it can make a difference rather than going out and manually effecting change. Don’t get me wrong. Social media movements have resulted in tremendous good. From cause donations to awareness campaigns, the internet has helped us achieve a lot of change. Is the internet sufficient for all change we want to bring about though? This is why we maybe need to think about defining our actions more outside the computer rooms. 

These points are just a few of the things we need to comprehend on our journey into humanity’s coming years


So what do YOU think we need to do?  

Comments

  1. Any innovation or an experiment has two outcomes, positive or negative, A negative result, is after all the opportunity cost we incur inorder to experiment the better and best in what we can make out for a chased living. A back foot in fear of negative outcomes destroys the possibility of innovations. It shall danger growth and it shall curb development. Yes, when the outcomes are negative, we create problems, then we search solutions, still it is a worthy opportunity cost.
    Money or gold, limited or limitless, a common medium to trade everything on this planet, enjoy and utilise everything, within the boundaries of righteousness and humanitarian grounds is necessary to find what's up next. If not, everything shall become redundant and no living will happen. I aspire moon for which if you have the key, you aspire Mars for which if I have the fuel, we have to do something to satiate our desire and trade between us. Either of us will give nothing for free. You trade, you grow, you cherish. Else there have to be limits for desires and boundaries for thoughts. We will go no where if our desires are limited and if thoughts were to have boundaries. No freedom. No living.
    Technologies, innovation at the cost of nature will recycle itself to get better. We cut trees for utilities, we understood it is leading to natural disaster, now we have people working on it and things are getting better.
    National interests outweigh global interests, true, but think about terrorism, is the world ready to fight it together? If you are not a nationalist, then your existence is under question.
    Global citizen thought in the minds of a soldier is a security threat.
    The right of global citizenship shall be limited to categories of professionals. The deterring effect of innovations on humanity as a whole is in itself within the limits of recovery. You need apple and orange. Each costs 25 rupees. You have only 30 rupees with you, you decide to buy apple, you forgo orange & vice versa.
    The internet, automations, robotics and artificial intelligence are the most advanced tools to achieve qualitative and time effective brilliance in almost every sector. It is a gift of art and science. It shall be every humans duty to take the initiatives to achieve their dreams and take the current generation 4.0 to 5 ASAP.
    As far as being a Global citizen, it's not everyone's cup of tea.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The point was not to say that the system of money should go or innovative experiments should be curbed. It was to point out that we should remind ourselves about the limits of using money to handle limited resources. That way we can move with more caution. Additionally, with innovation, the idea is not to stop experiments but to have an organization monitor whether some innovation s really matter to us in the big picture and if we can handle keeping it! Aside from these, I have to agree with the other points you have put forward. It may not be everyone's cup of tea but it is important to initiate a conversation about this.

      Delete

Post a Comment