All sorts of people in this world will from the perspective of innovation say that we are, and have been, entering a globalized age. But when you look around from the lens of a realist it’s quite obvious that human nature will only let this idea go ‘so far’. Claiming and marking territory, dividing the world with borders, and owning and possessing are all very strong traits of the modern psychology. And yet some of us feel like global citizens. Or do we? ‘Global’ in this sense is a concept which means the locality which concerns us and affects us emotionally covers the entire Earth. That contradicts the human experience just like long flights which warp our bodies and their natural rhythms of night and day bring us to a state of physiological unbalance. The ordinary man cares most about his locality and less so in proportion to the distance which separates him from that place and the events and people within it. This is natural and normal yet some alleged innovators who allegedly see, think, and feel in ways which are all allegedly ahead of their time believe our minds should and will transcend us to a point where our locality is now the entire planet. I think this is unnatural and it illustrates how technology can excel to a point where we can no longer accompany it without becoming distorted and likely demented. That is not to say that our actions should conflict or encroach on the welfare of other people or communities. It is rather that our intentions and aims may become overly stretched in trying to keep up with the possibilities which technology opens our awareness to. Possibilities which, at least through the path and vantage of technology, is utterly impractical for us.

I don’t think of myself as a global citizen. It should be enough that a human upon meeting another human feels a connection with them for the sake of common sense and natural emotions of respect and affection. If a man comes across an injustice incurred on another man or a need which he can help with, then sane and natural conduct means he will wish to help and assist to the best of his capacity and without any expectation of receiving something in return. These are natural qualities which seem to me quite obvious to most people.

To turn this in another, though connected, direction. There is currently some news in Iran where the people are upset in a typical scenario of supposed election fraud. Iranians are protesting in large numbers and the situation, from what the news reports reveal correctly or sensationalize, is getting quite ugly with blood and gore. Someone I know has voiced his interest in joining the fight and honouring his homeland. Having not lived there for over 20 years, I do not really have the association built in of ([Iran] = [my homeland]). Is this wrong? Should I identify myself with my race and the current headquarters of that race? Is their fight my fight? Am I bound to genetics and concepts of heritage or am I simply bound to being human? Is it one, the other, or both?

Borders are silly. They are concepts which we create as exaggerations of the natural instinct to mark territory, and thereby feel safe. Out of exaggerations which are more invention than they are reality we create complications, endless complications which strike clarity out of our minds and sweeep us into…agendas, schemes, assumptions, and delusions. Intelligence warrants us all to feel free to be boxed in by whatever limitations are insurmountable and strive to be as free as possible within those inherent constraints. Adding to them by indulging in further boundaries and borders which relate to race, age, gender, heritage, and the depth of your pocket are unnecessary constraints.