5 ms·

I had a running theory that the spread of Internet and virtual communities would force free exchange of ideas and bring the people of the world together. I am l

I had a running theory that the spread of Internet and virtual communities would force free exchange of ideas and bring the people of the world together. I am less inclined to believe that now. Developed and under-developed nations show no difference in nationalism. Nothing short of an alien invasion can possibly bring humankind together.

brador 10y ago
Give it time, it's inevitable, but not in your current lifetime. It takes generations.
- cagenut 10y ago
  Yea the world is still run by pre-internet people and institutions. The first generation to 'grow up' with the internet in first-world countries is still largely waiting to take over. Farther down the tail, it'll be another decade before may in the 'third' world get their first smartphone. Defacto global/internet citizenship is still a full generation to generation and a half away, and who knows how long it'll take to actually reshape and reform the big institutions after that.
seren 10y ago
It is very paradoxical because access to Internet on one hand can expose you to new ideas and cultures, but, on the other hand, if you are inclined to, virtual communities can reinforce pre existing closed worldview (or at least pretty weird like otherkins). This is all the point of algorithms governing the Feed and filter bubbles. I really wonder in the end which effect will be more prevalent.
x5n1 10y ago
What does this bring together mean? At the end power is distributive and a zero sum game. Power can never be truly distributed because there is a limited amount of it. Therefore we really can't come together. That's what love is by the way a distributor of power. So as long as we have distributive systems that are resource limited like economics, there is no hope of love conquering all or power no longer playing a factor. 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.
f_allwein 10y ago
which is sad given that the issues we should confront are all of a global nature, e.g. global warming and resource depletion rather than refugees or religious conflicts. Maybe a future generation of global citizens will do better.
vanilla-almond 10y ago
One of the positive attitudes shown in this survey is the acceptance of mixed race relationships. 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.
- leaveyou 10y ago
  What worries me is that we are increasingly accepting people who are not necessarily accepting the same things we accept and we are increasingly intolerant with those of us who are worried about our excessive tolerance for the intolerant.
  - mistermann 10y ago
    Wilful ignorance, I see a lot of it on Facebook.
malka 10y ago
I agree. Sadly, for a "we" to exist, it seems that we need a "they" to antagonize.
spriggan3 10y ago
> I am less inclined to believe that now 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.
return0 10y ago
That was the wishful thinking of the left, but it seems it has backfired. The more people confront each other's differences (they massively do nowadays), the more they feel a need to show they are different (for example, the coming back in vogue of religious dress accessories). It seems group/kin segregation is part of our nature, and we can't really fight nature. 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.
- dracht 10y ago
  >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.
  - return0 10y ago
    > people assume every problem is one to be solved through social engineering. 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.
tbrownaw 10y ago
Nothing short of an alien invasion can possibly bring humankind together. 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.

brador 10y ago

Give it time, it's inevitable, but not in your current lifetime. It takes generations.

cagenut 10y ago
Yea the world is still run by pre-internet people and institutions. The first generation to 'grow up' with the internet in first-world countries is still largely waiting to take over. Farther down the tail, it'll be another decade before may in the 'third' world get their first smartphone. Defacto global/internet citizenship is still a full generation to generation and a half away, and who knows how long it'll take to actually reshape and reform the big institutions after that.

seren 10y ago

It is very paradoxical because access to Internet on one hand can expose you to new ideas and cultures, but, on the other hand, if you are inclined to, virtual communities can reinforce pre existing closed worldview (or at least pretty weird like otherkins). This is all the point of algorithms governing the Feed and filter bubbles. I really wonder in the end which effect will be more prevalent.

x5n1 10y ago

What does this bring together mean? At the end power is distributive and a zero sum game. Power can never be truly distributed because there is a limited amount of it. Therefore we really can't come together. That's what love is by the way a distributor of power. So as long as we have distributive systems that are resource limited like economics, there is no hope of love conquering all or power no longer playing a factor. 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.

f_allwein 10y ago

which is sad given that the issues we should confront are all of a global nature, e.g. global warming and resource depletion rather than refugees or religious conflicts. Maybe a future generation of global citizens will do better.

vanilla-almond 10y ago

One of the positive attitudes shown in this survey is the acceptance of mixed race relationships. 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.

leaveyou 10y ago
What worries me is that we are increasingly accepting people who are not necessarily accepting the same things we accept and we are increasingly intolerant with those of us who are worried about our excessive tolerance for the intolerant.
- mistermann 10y ago
  Wilful ignorance, I see a lot of it on Facebook.

malka 10y ago

I agree. Sadly, for a "we" to exist, it seems that we need a "they" to antagonize.

spriggan3 10y ago

> I am less inclined to believe that now 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.

return0 10y ago

That was the wishful thinking of the left, but it seems it has backfired. The more people confront each other's differences (they massively do nowadays), the more they feel a need to show they are different (for example, the coming back in vogue of religious dress accessories). It seems group/kin segregation is part of our nature, and we can't really fight nature. 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.

dracht 10y ago
>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.
- return0 10y ago
  > people assume every problem is one to be solved through social engineering. 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.

tbrownaw 10y ago

Nothing short of an alien invasion can possibly bring humankind together. 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.