Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

There’s a theory that I’ve been hatching in my brain for a few years.
It's a controversial idea of eventually transcending nations and having one nation where everyone is a global citizen.
I am not talking about the New World Order idea that the likes of Alex Jones warns of, but rather a one world that has equality and none of the issues that currently plague us with wars between nations and fighting over land etc.

Have been thinking there may be four states of identity for individuals, depending on each individual’s consciousness:

1 States/Provinces (provincial thinking)
2 Countries (Nationalism/Patriotism)
3 Global (internationalism)
4 Galactic (Seeing the Earth as part of the Galaxy or Galaxies and one with any ET civilizations or other yet-to-be-categorized alien life forms who may or may not reside “out there�)

I know there are many who would say global citizenship could never work due to all the different cultures in the world with conflicting ideologies. But then again, remember there were many provincial thinkers in each nation who said their nation could never live in harmony and were eventually proven wrong. Point is, there are nations that generally have peace even tho they contain conflicting or combative elements within them (e.g. Turkey is roughly 50% Christian and 50% Muslim). So if one day the Earth was to move toward equality and a fairer distribution of resources, why couldn't we transcend nationalism and become global citizens?

This article might relate to these concepts:

Thursday, July 23, 2015

Reagan’s 1987 UN speech on ‘alien threat� resonates now

By Steve Hammons

(This article was featured 7/26/15 in “Knapp’s News� on the Coast to Coast AM radio show website. "Coast" has the largest late-night radio audience in the U.S. Award-winning investigative journalist George Knapp of KLAS-TV News in Las Vegas is a popular "C2C" host.)

On Sept. 21, 1987, then-U.S. President Ronald Reagan gave an address to the United Nations General Assembly. In an often-quoted section of his speech, Reagan asked rhetorical questions and commented about the nations and cultures of the world uniting in common efforts to live in peace and avoid wars and bloodshed.

“Cannot swords be turned to plowshares? Can we and all nations not live in peace? In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity,� Reagan said.

“Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to make us recognize this common bond,� Reagan proposed.

“I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world. And yet, I ask you, is not an alien force already among us? What could be more alien to the universal aspirations of our peoples than war and the threat of war?�

In these statements, Reagan seems to be noting that in addition to the diverse cultures and societies around the world, we should also keep in mind the larger human culture. And despite conflicts and wars throughout human history to the present day, this larger human culture has many unifying elements.

UNIFIED HUMANITY

Among these are the major accomplishments of humanity, including the survival of our human species on this planet over hundreds of thousands of years. The development of agriculture, language, education, art, music and technology are common to most human cultures.

Reagan urged us to see the big picture � “how much unites all the members of humanity.� He warned us to take the long view instead of “our obsession with antagonisms of the moment.�

Of course, the nations of the world already engage in significant cooperation on many levels. These include efforts to improve trade and economic prosperity, share cultural resources and viewpoints, protect global public heath, and respond to disasters and humanitarian challenges.

Yet, there is room for significant improvement in how nations and cultures interact, and how individual humans treat one another.

These conflicts, of course, are not just between countries and cultures. Within the many nations and cultures on Earth, we often see internal conflict and strife when people within a society are divided and angry about real or perceived injustice, oppression, ethnic and religious differences or some other cause.

In his address, Reagan theorized that these many sources of discord and conflict around the world “would [quickly] vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world.� And, he put forth the idea that, “Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to make us recognize this common bond.�

Was Reagan correct? Would certain adverse developments help bring the human race together? Would the human race unify in the face of a devastating impending meteor strike, severe global disease pandemic, worldwide natural disaster or other threat?

THREAT OR BREAKTHROUGH

Reagan appeared to hold an optimistic view of humanity. He seemed to indicate that he felt the human race would pull together in greater unity in the face of a larger danger. As a result, a greater awareness about what we have in common as humans would help us overcome the perpetual wars, death and destruction that have been a large part of the experience of the human race on Earth.

Implicit in his speech, the former president told us that we have the potential to transcend these destructive behaviors and seize opportunities to focus on unifying instincts, developments and events.

Would it really require “an alien threat from outside this world� for the people of Earth to make significant progress toward peace and prosperity instead of perpetual conflict?

Or, might we stumble on this truth without an impending disaster? Can we reach a tipping point when it becomes evident and obvious that our “universal aspirations� are more important and fundamental than war and destructive competition?

Instead of “an alien threat,� what if a positive kind of development emerged? Such a development could include scientific discovery of a remarkable nature or a change in global human psychology and consciousness.

Instead of Reagan’s concept of an “outside, universal threat,� what might happen if there was an inside, universal breakthrough that takes the human race on to the next levels of our development?

If we're talking of uniting the world under a single entity, it's not going to happen. Our trend in the past century has been toward breaking the world up. the reunification of Germany is a rare event at this point when the world steps in to maintain the separate nations created from the fall of Yugoslavia. We maintain the independence of the former Soviet territories when these were part of the Russian empire before the fall of the Czars. Instead of working to stabilize the situation in Sudan we arbitrarily decide to cut the country in half with no consideration toward the financial viability of South Sudan. More recently, we're calling for the three state solution in Iraq and we still have calls for a two state solution in Isreal.

Maybe WWII was an event that signaled to the surviving dominant nations the need to prevent other potentially hostile governments from growing in power to challenge them. Maybe the thought is people are easier to control if they're dividing into increasingly smaller and thus less powerful groups.

Whatever it is, the global mentality is toward dividing the world, not uniting it.

I tend to think it's governments dividing the world, whereas the people are all for uniting it. ;)

Harry, so you agree with Sharia Law then?

Overly simplistic. Most idealistic and pacificists would ponder this.

Just doesn't work. Neighbours cants even coexist because we have different values, the quiet nerdy Introverts next to the smoking drinking redneck party animals.

But they'll be United in a fight against a common enemy. Say a property developer or a mining company.

Nations become united against a common enemy in wars.

Muslims are divided into sects and tribes and then Sunni & Shi'a.

World peace is a rubbish cruel joke. It'll never happen. Maybe only against a common enemy such as a globally exists till threat such as intergalactic malevolence like that moron Reagan or the UN alluded to.

Humanity is in its infancy. Look at all the ways we insult our own existence. Like a bunch of children fighting, not mature enough to move forward instead of clinging to the familiar tragedies of the past. To come together people would have to forgive and forgiveness is next to impossible when one still breathes the pain of oppression, wrongful acts, war, poverty and all the other ailments humanity fails to squash. I think our differences is what makes us unique, yet we haven't grasped the idea that we are one-humanity. Perhaps an alien invasion/attack would unify us, or each nation would prepare to defend its own land, and gladly see its human enemies destroyed. Just my two cents on the subject.

So right Adam. People, by nature, People have their own idea of right and wrong just for a start. Then there is the great divide. Do I have to give up my very beliefs in spirituality to accommodate the world view, which would be???

This is just promoting world anarchy.

Guys, a lively group poll with associated discussion thread is underway on this topic asking members: If global citizenship was on offer, would you become a World Citizen?

/poll/show/1...

Laureen wrote: "This is just promoting world anarchy. ..."

Ha!

Regarding the Sharia Law aspect of Islam that keeps getting mentioned in this discussion (not sure why given its a fringe element of Islam), there are currently only a few countries on Earth that Sharia Law is their nation's entire legal system. Additional nations in the Middle East and in Africa abide by a selection of these laws but very few nations have complete Sharia Law.

Also, contrary to popular belief (at least in the West) there is no set of universally agreed rules that comprise Sharia Law i.e. it is not a definite legal system as is being implied. Rather, Sharia Law simply mean laws based on Islam, and Islam is obviously open to interpretation. Therefore most versions of Sharia Law are moderate (e.g. in Sunni Islam) and then there is the extremist version of Sharia Law (e.g. in the minority Shi'ites) which is the one that gets reported on. Check out this article to see the common myths surrounding Sharia Law:

And check out this Huffington Post article on the recent loaded/divisive surveys that have implied American Muslims want to impose extremist Sharia Law on all Americans:

Here's Why You Shouldn't Trust the Latest Poll on American Muslims --

So out of the 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide, it appears only a few hundred million (or about 2-3% of the global population of 7.5 billion) would be in favor of the extremist type of Sharia Law being the law of the land. The VAST majority of Muslims are Sunnis which is a much more moderate form of the religion (closer to Christianity in terms of human rights) and estimates suggest the figure of Sunnis is somewhere between 85% and 90% of all Muslims.

The vast majority of Muslims are very opposed to extremist forms of Islam whether it be that which supports terrorism or that which causes human rights violations. And violations like female circumcision, stoning people to death and killing adulterers would all be opposed by the vast majority (well over 90%, I would assume) of Muslims.

I'm not attempting to whitewash extremist versions of Islam, or indeed extremist forms of any religion. My residence here in Sydney, Australia is surrounded by Muslim communities and I know many Muslim people and I am very aware of all the complex issues surrounding Islam (quite a few of which clash with my own beliefs). Also, I certainly wouldn't be comfortable living in any nation that abides by the harshest versions of Sharia Law or extreme forms of Islam, but also think we need to keep this whole thing in perspective and go beyond news headlines delivered by our (corrupted) mainstream media in the West which obviously is there to support the Military Industrial Complex in its "war on terror"...

Also, I think it's worth remembering there are extremist forms of Christianity - Far Right groups who think females sole purpose is to be mothers and housewives and these groups are often opposed to minorities like blacks and all immigrants (i.e. that religious fringe Trump is attempting to catch!). But none of that shouldn't be confused with mainstream Christianity which is also moderate. And the fringe version of Christianity does not mean they have any voice within Christian nations like the USA as Old Testament-style believers clash with mainstream/modern American (Christian) values.

Even in Judaism there is an extremist element (I think from memory that's called Haredi Judaism or Traditional/Orthodox Judaism) where they don't like women showing much skin at all and follow various other strict rules which would clash with the freedoms most Jews experience and demand. Most of these Jews would be in Israel to my knowledge, but again this minority do not dictate Israeli laws.

So bottom line is in a global system any fringe elements amounting to only a few hundred million (max) would be no match for 7.5 billion any more than extremist religious groups currently have any major say within democratic nations right now.

I don't see how global citizenry will have the dire consequences you guys mention...at the end of the day, we still have bodies of water and mountains separating us....'invicible' borders will still exist..It's ingrained in our mindset...cultures will continue, because it is a way for us to belong and identify ourselves with those dear to us....this shouldn't have anything to do with world politics...people can live together and have different values...in many ways, we already do...a global citizenship would hopefully eliminate guerilla groups and other terrorist organizations as their agenda would not be tolerated...there would be no elitists benefitting from them.

There is the point that humanity was not ready for nations in many ways. Even if you look at the United States, the desire to create that single nation was opposed by a fairly large percentage who were trapped in provincial thinking i.e. they viewed their identity as being tied to a state like being a Texan rather than being an American.
So right now, a few hundred years after the creation of America, we now have (in my opinion) many people trapped in nationalistic/patriotic thinking where they believe their identity is solely related to a hunk of land with man-made borders. Not that many are ready to think as global citizens. But just as in the creation of nations, does that mean a positive World Government for global citizens couldn't be created right now?

Not pretending to remotely have any answers to this but hoping greater minds than I can enlighten within this discussion. Personally I've never felt any real patriotism or nationalism and always viewed myself as a global citizen first and foremost...So damnit, I want that global passport now!!

Also, I do think President Reagan's point was correct. If humanity was faced with a common external enemy (not necessarily alien, it could be environmental or anything that puts our survival in doubt), I think global citizenship and a one world community would happen very quickly and wars against other humans would cease because we'd all need each other to survive.

What would happen if some sort of authority (maybe an international charity or some kind of humanitarian forward-thinking group) set up something semi-official that would be the equivalent to setting up a new nation - except they call it The World. And they start handing out global passports/citizenship to anyone in the world who wants it and offer the global citizenship and passport for FREE - and advertise it everywhere including on Facebook etc. Now obviously this would all be symbolic, but it'd be trying to make a point to start with at least.

If one million people suddenly had a global passport, would this make any difference? I think not.
If one hundred million people had a global passport, would this make a difference? I actually think it would slightly, as it'd get the message out there that humanity can unite and the mainstream media would report on it.
If one billion people had a global passport, would this make a difference? I think still only in small ways - Individual nations would still block you from entering their land if you arrived at an airport with your global passport. Possibly if one billion had global passports some small nations might start acknowledging it and what about the likes of stateless refugees (of which there are 10 million in the world)? Their global passport would represent their only citizenship as they have no homeland.

However, what would happen if say 3.6 billion (50% of the world's population!) had accepted their Global Citizenship? I wonder if this actually could make some major differences and begin to challenge individual nations in some ways - for example, citizens of nations could start demanding their politicians in the nations they live in start acknowledging their (secondary) global citizenship. If half the world's population accepted this form of dual citizenship (additional to their own country citizenship), could the symbolic passport/citizenship start to become official or at least semi-official? Would the likes of the UN or humanitarian organizations or even small lowly populated nations who need more immigrants start to accept or officially recognize those who have Global Passports?

Or am I dreaming? :)

Laureen wrote: "Harry, so you agree with Sharia Law then?"

Nope.

dream on....dream on....dream on.....dream until your dreams come true.

Are we ready for a world without borders right now? Jeez no, it would be chaos.

Do, as I alluded to, the majority of the world want to live in peaceful co-existence? Sure they do. Don't believe the lies perpetrated by media.

Do most people think it's possible? Nope. Because we always seem to base what might be possible in the future on what we have done before.

There is hope things can change.

Harry is right. ..just look what happened at Trump's rally yesterday. ...we are too divided amongst ourselves right now. ...global citizenry wouldn't change that....but it may take Trump out of the picture. .

I don't think the mass populations within our current borders were ready for nations centuries ago when nations came into being.

Sometimes there's a difference between an idea being popular and actionable. And sometimes the brightest thinkers in our societies utilize their imaginations to devise superior systems that can encourage the mass populace to go beyond their fears and attempt to create a better world.

If you look at a map of the world it's a complete mess. Borders are not always or even usually dividers between conflicting ideologies as most people think - often they are just remnants of long-forgotten wars or historical divisions between empires that no longer exist.

Voting has ended on the aforementioned poll which asked: If global citizenship was on offer, would you become a World Citizen?
Here are the results:

52.1% voted YES
26.1% voted NO
21.8% voted UNSURE

Check out the poll and comments that occured underneath it during the voting period:
/poll/show/1...

I sometimes think that we should go the other direction. As an American, I see a pretty wide spectrum of cultures and beliefs that are all trying to participate in the same system. It's quite clear there are some areas of polarization around religion, race, economic issues, LGBTQ issues, etc.

I really wish Lincoln hadn't fought the Civil War (or the War of Northern Aggression). I think the US is too big and not really united.

Jim wrote: "I sometimes think that we should go the other direction. As an American, I see a pretty wide spectrum of cultures and beliefs that are all trying to participate in the same system. It's quite clear there are some areas of polarization around religion, race, economic issues, LGBTQ issues, etc...."

That was the platform that got Trump elected, and Brexit passed, I think...
Isolationism rather than global unity, retraction rather than expansion...

Haven't read this book but it looks like a nuanced summary of the NWO theory and global government:

A New World Order by Anne-Marie Slaughter

Synopsis:

Global governance is here--but not where most people think. This book presents the far-reaching argument that not only should we have a new world order but that we already do. Anne-Marie Slaughter asks us to completely rethink how we view the political world. It's not a collection of nation states that communicate through presidents, prime ministers, foreign ministers, and the United Nations. Nor is it a clique of NGOs. It is governance through a complex global web of "government networks."

Slaughter provides the most compelling and authoritative description to date of a world in which government officials--police investigators, financial regulators, even judges and legislators--exchange information and coordinate activity across national borders to tackle crime, terrorism, and the routine daily grind of international interactions. National and international judges and regulators can also work closely together to enforce international agreements more effectively than ever before. These networks, which can range from a group of constitutional judges exchanging opinions across borders to more established organizations such as the G8 or the International Association of Insurance Supervisors, make things happen--and they frequently make good things happen. But they are underappreciated and, worse, underused to address the challenges facing the world today.

The modern political world, then, consists of states whose component parts are fast becoming as important as their central leadership. Slaughter not only describes these networks but also sets forth a blueprint for how they can better the world. Despite questions of democratic accountability, this new world order is not one in which some "world government" enforces global dictates. The governments we already have at home are our best hope for tackling the problems we face abroad, in a networked world order.

The Practices of Global Citizenship

Globalizing Citizenship

Global Citizenship

An Introduction to Global Citizenship

Educating for Human Rights and Global Citizenship

Here's another book I plan to read on this subject The Great Convergence: Asia, the West, and the Logic of One World:

The twenty-first century has seen a rise in the global middle class that brings an unprecedented convergence of interests and perceptions, cultures and values. Kishore Mahbubani is optimistic. We are creating a new global civilization. Eighty-eight percent of the world's population outside the West is rising to Western living standards, and sharing Western aspirations. Yet Mahbubani, one of the most perceptive global commentators, also warns that a new global order needs new policies and attitudes.

Policymakers all over the world must change their preconceptions and accept that we live in one world. National interests must be balanced with global interests. Power must be shared. The U.S. and Europe must cede some power. China and India, Africa and the Islamic world must be integrated. Mahbubani urges that only through these actions can we create a world that converges benignly. This timely book explains how to move forward and confront many pressing global challenges.

I've thought about this one long and hard and I have to say I'm against it. As bad as nationalism is, one central, unified, 'world government' would be a catastrophe. A nightmare.

It is the last thing any citizen should want; and this goes for anarchists or progressives, as well. World govt is 'progress' in the wrong direction. It is the last thing any free-thinking individual should crave.

Do not accede to this slide into a bland, faceless, anonymous, drugged, mindless, and 'identity-less' concept of 'mass society'.

Identity is passion; passion is survival. Hang onto identity at all costs.

Fight for your family, your neighborhood, your city, your state, your nation, your religion. Fight for your self. As bad as it is to acknowledge aloud, this world will always follow one rule: 'kill or be killed'. The earth is a battleground: always has been and always will be.

If you do not fight for your values, then sooner or later they will be taken away from you.

I guess in case of global unity, migration of terrorism will become easier

"Nationalism and patriotism are the two most evil forces that I know of in this century or in any century and cause more wars and more death and more destruction to the soul and to human life than anything else." -Oliver Stone

Allow me to nitpick for a second. I don't think Nationalism and Patriotism cause wars. They are tools for selling wars. The cause is somebody powerful wants something: land, mineral resources, etc. Patriotism is what gets the cannon fodder to sign up.

Fair point, Jim.

I would never want to be a "world citizen". If I had my choice I would prefer a primitive agrarian society.....less regulated conformity and more leisure time.

Globalism is possible, but not without a shift in the thinking dynamic of every citizen on the planet. There are several ways this could change, IMHO, and all of them have potential to fail. Globalism will ONLY be achieved when the majority of the populous in every nation on earth is ready and willing to do what is necessary to embrace that concept.

Globalism could occur in three ways:
1. WWIII aftermath in which the remaining inhabitants are cast together in the same place.
2. Adoption of policies that override government/religion/gender/morality and make everyone equal in all areas of life.
3. Famine/Plague/Economic failures that put only one country in power to dominate the world.
4. Aliens (interstellar) appearing publicly.

In a nutshell:
#1 is the scary scenario. It is the reason we play big with our sticks to beat others into fearing us while we are very afraid to use those sticks because we know the outcome. It is also why we become very fearful of emerging nations making their own big stick because we have no idea if they will be as afraid as we are. (Re: Nuclear options)

#2 makes the most sense, but overriding Islam is the hardest of the many things that would make this a success. Islam has millions of members, and they have been fighting over the same issues for 1400 years. To un-indoctrinate the faithful there is like trying to convert Christians back to Judaism.

#3 This I see as the most probable. As we move into a hotter and hotter climate, the earth is doing the natural selection for us. Face it, we have the most diseases/deformities/poor/starving we have faced in history. Instead of it decreasing, more is happening each day to cull the sick and infirm. Yes, that is a pessimistic statement, but so far the children of africa, India, and the Middle East are still starving, still malnourished, still disease ridden despite modern medicine being there; despite bringing them good drinking water; despite the advancements of technology. One funny fact: For all of the poverty in the world, the most commonly purchased item by all economically challenged people, even before food, is an internet device/cell phone. They may have NOTHING, but they are connected.

And now I address #4
I have held the belief for many, many years that if aliens were to publicly appear we would change as a species. Religions would revert back to churches and homes, not evangelizing like some radical group. Focus would be more of a "togetherness", and wars would be inconsequential because we have a common "us vs. them" scenario that would push our focus beyond planetary borders. Science would grow by leaps and bounds simply by the multiplicity of people who would now focus on it. This, to me, would be the perfect scenario.
There is an argument to this that I would like to address before someone tries to slap me sideways with it. Yes, there might be aggressive species out there who would prefer to harm us by invasion. My response is that if they cared about us that much, they would have already been here. If we believe the myriad of stories of the ones who claim we have been approached, we do not see that form of hostility in them.

A very nuanced and insightful summary, Michael.

“You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.�
�Malcolm X, By Any Means Necessary

Global citizenship...what a beautiful concept in theory! Kind of like communism, where everybody has a role they fulfill and a doctor's role is no more important than a prostitute's role! That would be great and then I think about how often I use the sentence "People in this country have no sense of citizenship.". I literally find myself saying that several times a month, if not more! If the people who live around me don't understand that concept (although I say that a lot while reading or watching news), I'm guessing that it's probably a pervasive problem in the US. I can't speak to any other countries, as I've only ever been to other countries as a guest and there are many countries I haven't been to, such as North Korea ;).

Even if the world population was wiped out and we started fresh, there are always going to be those opportunists and those who will look for ways to exploit others. Maybe that's a cynical American answer; but, I'm a cynical American a lot of the time

Okay Rebecca, translating everything you wrote and figuring out my own analysis, I'll put you down as a YES :)
Your global citizenship papers and global passport are in the mail!

From Wikipedia:

Excerpt:
"Global citizenship is the rights, responsibilities and duties that come with being a member of the global entity as a citizen of a particular nation or place. The idea is that one’s identity transcends geography or political borders and that responsibilities or rights are or can be derived from membership in a broader class: "humanity". This does not mean that such a person denounces or waives their nationality or other, more local identities, but such identities are given "second place" to their membership in a global community.[1] Extended, the idea leads to questions about the state of global society in the age of globalization.[2] In general usage, the term may have much the same meaning as "world citizen" or cosmopolitan, but it also has additional, specialized meanings in differing contexts."


What is global citizenship?

It is a way of living that recognises our world is an increasingly complex web of connections and interdependencies. One in which our choices and actions may have repercussions for people and communities locally, nationally or internationally.

Global citizenship nurtures personal respect and respect for others, wherever they live. It encourages individuals to think deeply and critically about what is equitable and just, and what will minimise harm to our planet. Exploring global citizenship themes help learners grow more confident in standing up for their beliefs, and more skilled in evaluating the ethics and impact of their decisions.

What is a global citizen?

"An ethic of care for the world." Hannah Arendt

There is a great deal of debate and discussion around this question, as there is around the whole concept of globalisation. A useful working definition, however, is offered by Oxfam:

A Global Citizen is someone who:

-is aware of the wider world and has a sense of their own role as a world citizen
-respects and values diversity
-has an understanding of how the world works
-is outraged by social injustice
-participates in the community at a range of levels, from the local to the global
-is willing to act to make the world a more equitable and sustainable place
-takes responsibility for their actions.

To be effective Global Citizens, young people need to be flexible, creative and proactive. They need to be able to solve problems, make decisions, think critically, communicate ideas effectively and work well within teams and groups. These skills and attributes are increasingly recognised as being essential to succeed in other areas of 21st century life too, including many workplaces. These skills and qualities cannot be developed without the use of active learning methods through which pupils learn by doing and by collaborating with others.

Why is global citizenship education needed?

"Education must be not only a transmission of culture but also a provider of alternative views of the world and a strengthener of skills to explore them" Jerome S Bruner

With the interconnected and interdependent nature of our world, the global is not ‘out there�; it is part of our everyday lives, as we are linked to others on every continent:

-socially and culturally through the media and telecommunications, and through travel and migration
-economically through trade
-environmentally through sharing one planet
-politically through international relations and systems of regulation.

The opportunities our fast-changing ‘globalised� world offers young people are enormous. But so too are the challenges. Young people are entitled to an education that equips them with the knowledge, skills and values they need in order to embrace the opportunities and challenges they encounter, and to create the kind of world that they want to live in. An education that supports their development as Global Citizens.

The active, participatory methods of Education for Global Citizenship and Sustainable Development help young people to learn how decisions made by people in other parts of the world affect our lives, just as our decisions affect the lives of others. Education for Global Citizenship and Sustainable Development also promotes pupil participation in the learning process and in decision-making for the following reasons:

-Everything done in school sends out messages, so we need to exemplify the values we wish to promote. If we wish to affirm beliefs about the equality of all human beings and the importance of treating everyone fairly and with respect, we need to ensure that learning processes, and relationships between pupils and teachers, reflect and reinforce these values.
-Research shows that in more democratic schools pupils feel more in control of their learning, and the quality of teaching, learning and behaviour is better.
-The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child affirms the right of children to have their opinions taken into account on matters that affect them.

What does it look like in the classroom?

"Education is not a preparation for life, it is life itself." John Dewey

Education for global citizenship deals with issues of global interdependence, diversity of identities and cultures, sustainable development, peace & conflict and inequities of power, resources & respect.

These issues are addressed in the classroom through a wide and evolving variety of participatory teaching and learning methodologies, including structured discussion and debate, role-play, ranking exercises, and communities of enquiry. Such active methods are now established as good practice in education, and are not unique to global citizenship. Curriculum for Excellence has at its core a commitment to improved student participation in order to develop the four capacities: successful learners, confident individuals, responsible citizens and effective contributors.

It is crucial to be aware that, far from promoting one set of answers or values or attitudes, education for global citizenship encourages children and young people to explore, develop and express their own values and opinions. (Always requiring too that they listen to and respect other people's points of view.) This is an important step towards children and young people making informed choices as to how they exercise their own rights and their responsibilities to others.

It is also vital that teachers at all levels do not approach education for global citizenship with the feeling that they must have all the answers � impossible anyway in such a fast changing world. The role of the teacher is to enable pupils to find out about their world for themselves and to support them as they learn to assess evidence, negotiate and work with others, solve problems and make informed decisions.

I think we can lessen conflict and make progress but we are also very tribal. There are sports riots still going on when your team loses.

Peter wrote: "I think we can lessen conflict and make progress but we are also very tribal. There are sports riots still going on when your team loses."

Correct, but probably 50% of nations, including your own native USA, were deeply divided and warring at the time they were conceived, were they not?

Besides America, think of nations like Turkey (half Muslim, half Christian), Russia (covers one-sixth of the Earth's entire land!) and the Philippines (hundreds of islands, scores of tribes, 30% Muslim but a Catholic-ruling country), to name but a few.

I feel, as more "underground knowledge" leaks out to the mainstream public in the coming years that proves many conflicts between nations have not been organic but rather subtly and cleverly engineered by a warmongering elite, we may realize humanity is more united than we initially realized. And even, dare I say it, closer to world peace than most would assume...

We just somehow need to get rid of the Trumps, Obamas and Blairs, and others in power, who keep carrying out whatever suits the 1% instead of looking after the common people.

Armed conflicts should always be a last resort and never the go-to option.

Manipulation happens at all levels of society. Everybody knows someone who is an operator. World class operators rise to the top. That's how they get to be elite in the first place.

In other words cream may rise to the top but so does scum

Peter wrote: "Manipulation happens at all levels of society. Everybody knows someone who is an operator. World class operators rise to the top. That's how they get to be elite in the first place."

Agreed. 1000%.
I even heard or read somewhere that the NSA's employee test is predominantly designed to work out who the sociopaths are - then hire only sociopaths.

I tend to believe tho that when we look back at all the armed conflicts since WW2, most will become suspicious in future years.

I'm only highlighting wars as they are the thing that make the masses assume that our civilization is extremely divided and on the point of an Apocalypse.

So the Vietnam War was started off a false flag operation (as since admitted to by the NSA themselves). The War on Terror is completely illogical and not even the best journalists can explain and is based off an event (9/11) that's still to get a proper, unbiased investigation, and which 50% of Americans believe was an inside job (as per mainstream polls such as CNN, MSNBC polls). The Cold War seems to have been either exaggerated or else extended beyond its shelf life to pump up the lucrative arms race.

I just think we have been deceived over and over to assume, like the mainstream media tells us, that certain peoples (be they the Viet Cong, Soviets/Cubans/Communists, Muslims) are vastly different to us and are the enemies of the Free World and want to destroy us Westerners.

Yes, there are differences between the Earth's various cultures and communities and nations, but those differences are far outweighed by the common ground we share. Personally, I always think how remarkable it is, given that a lot of cultures evolved in total isolation over the centuries, how many similarities we all share...

I think people in charge are usually opportunists (comes with the territory) but there is plenty of room for random mayhem and random shit to happen.

Peter wrote: "I think people in charge are usually opportunists (comes with the territory) but there is plenty of room for random mayhem and random shit to happen."

Agreed, not everything is engineered. And yeah, it'd also be a tough job being in power trying to deal with all the random shit that occurs out of the blue. But dayum, we need someone with a heart in power!!

Like I said about cream and scum both can get to the top or to quote Frank Herbert it is not so much that power corrupts but that it often attracts corrupt people.

"I even heard or read somewhere that the NSA's employee test is predominantly designed to work out who the sociopaths are - then hire only sociopaths." That is interesting. It could well be that the definition of a sociopath and its application to work environments could one day weed out criminals in business and the governments. I wonder if sociopathic tendencies are the key features running against the above ideas defining global citizenship.

John wrote: ""I wonder if sociopathic tendencies are the key features running against the above ideas defining global citizenship. ..."

Not sure John, possibly.
I think certainly the divide and conquer tactics being carried out, where "they" amplify minor conflicts or tensions into fullscale wars, requires one to be a sociopath.

As mentioned at start of this entire thread, I believe the next step beyond being a globalist/internationalist/one-world-ist (i.e. thinking beyond countries and borders) will be for humans to become galactic in their mindset. In other words, to have an multi-planetary consciousness instead of only thinking of the Earth.

SpaceX/TeslaMotors creator Elon Musk's Mars Manifesto 'Making Humans a Multi-Planetary Species' is a document I recommend reading on this subject. This document is summary of Musk's presentation at the 67th International Astronautical Congress in Guadalajara, Mexico, September 26�30, 2016.
This document can be downloaded for free until mid-July here:

Here are a few excerpts from the document/speech:

I think there are really two fundamental paths. History is going to bifurcate along two directions. One path is we stay on Earth forever, and then there will be some eventual extinction event. I do not have an immediate doomsday prophecy, but eventually, history suggests, there will be some doomsday event.

The alternative is to become a space-bearing civilization and a multi-planetary species, which I hope you would agree is the right way to go.

So how do we figure out how to take you to Mars and create a self-sustaining city—a city that is not merely an outpost but which can become a planet in its own right, allowing us to become a truly multi-planetary species.

Elon Musk Publishes His Vision for Mars Travel - Popular Mechanics

"Elon Musk has put his manifesto on the future for spaceflight up online. While it's the same speech he gave last year as the keynote speaker at the 67th International Astronautical Congress, its online publication in the journal New Space allows for easy searching and a way to hold Musk and SpaceX accountable."

Am going to read this new book Federation: A short case for global unity and governance as a citizen of humanity by Aaron DeVries to see if I can learn something new:

What is the human race? A collection of different ethnicities and cultures all living and sharing this planet, we all throughout history have fought one another and waged war over land, ideology and ideas. In the 20th century onwards the Earth has become a smaller community of interconnection and cooperation, our collective safety is challenged by continued aggression and isolationism from a bygone era. As a species it's about time we started moving towards a collective goal, a collective view and a collective state of security and prosperity without sacrificing our national and regional identities. Federation addresses these concerns and brings to light the idea and importance of global federalism in the modern world and how it's one of the most realistic and noninvasive forms of global governance. Federation is a small Political essay with a big message, we can and need to work together for the betterment of the human race to ensure our future and our place as a united civilization.

Maybe it's just me: I'm 66. Have survived cancer, a roll-over car accident, and almost died. My smart parents got us out of Cuba in 1960. Lost my Father to lung cancer at age 11, Stayed in two abusive marriages for all the wrong reasons and my children hate me for it. All three of my children are bilingual and, just like me, are also bilingual. All three of them have Master's in their chosen profession. I was not able to go to college but was well prepared to be a bilingual secretary right after high school.

Honestly, I am just tired. Just plain tired. I really do not care what happens to the human race any more.

I much prefer to spend my time reading fiction, because what is going on in this world is detestable. All of it. I cannot be bothered any more.

I am not suicidal.

It may be better to set rules for these comment areas.