Massive protests are happening all over the world right now be it due to racism in the US, coronavirus, China's new restrictions on Hong Kong, etc. Most of these protests have extremely legit goals and reasons, e.g. fight against racism, pro-individual freedom, and pro-democracy. However, these protests also highlight a very perverse face of the globe, i.e. the fact that people care much more about their country of residence or birth than others. For example, it is definitely correct to rebels for the unjust death of a black man in the USA, but thousands of black people are killed unjustly around the world and no one says anything. If Floyd's video had happened in Uganda or Nepal there would be about no one on the streets in the USA, although almost everyone agrees that the absurdity of killing the Floyd would be the same anywhere in the world. The unjust death of black people in the US often leads to huge protests but much more black people are unjustly killed outside the country than inside the US, and those outside deaths never lead to huge protests in America. The same can be said about virtually any other protest all over the globe. This is not an American phenomenon. On average, people care much about their country of citizenship or place of residence than anywhere else.
If one life in your country is worth much more than one life abroad, then several economic and political tragedies will continue to be inevitable, such as the burning of the Amazon Forest, the economic trade wars, fascist movements, anti-migratory policies, among other types of much greater absurdities. On average, politicians do their best to please the people who have the power to maintain them in office (Geddes, 1995; Bueno de Mesquita et al, 2003) and only local citizens have a vote. Therefore, if the loss of 5 Chinese jobs will lead to the creation of 1 similar job in the US, Americans are likely to approve that and so the president will pursue it. If one job for a person who was luckily born in your country is worth more than a similar job for a non-citizen, refugees and other foreigners in great need will continue to have their entry denied by border authorities. If the burning of the Amazon will make pollution a little bit worse all over the globe but will give huge economic benefits for workers in Brazil, the local government will likely pursue it. As long as people give priority to their national wealth over the worlds' and only local citizens have political power (e.g. a vote), the world as a whole is doomed.
I understand that individuals are, on average, egoists in the sense that they care much more about themselves than others. This is the basis of traditional economics and much social science research. However, other factors probably come into play here to reinforce this egoist phenomenon. For example, mainstream media mostly publish local or national news as they are looking to get viewers and not make the world a better place. Therefore, average citizens have relatively little information about foreign news. Another factor that may help with this disproportional reaction to national news in relation to foreign is herd behavior (Asch, 1952; Deutsch and Gerard, 1995). Multiple research has shown that individuals benchmark other people to set their own behavior. Consequently, if no one in their social circles is concerned about something they probably will not be. If all their friends and family are worried out about an issue, they will probably do too.
If one life in your country is worth much more than one life abroad, then several economic and political tragedies will continue to be inevitable, such as the burning of the Amazon Forest, the economic trade wars, fascist movements, anti-migratory policies, among other types of much greater absurdities. On average, politicians do their best to please the people who have the power to maintain them in office (Geddes, 1995; Bueno de Mesquita et al, 2003) and only local citizens have a vote. Therefore, if the loss of 5 Chinese jobs will lead to the creation of 1 similar job in the US, Americans are likely to approve that and so the president will pursue it. If one job for a person who was luckily born in your country is worth more than a similar job for a non-citizen, refugees and other foreigners in great need will continue to have their entry denied by border authorities. If the burning of the Amazon will make pollution a little bit worse all over the globe but will give huge economic benefits for workers in Brazil, the local government will likely pursue it. As long as people give priority to their national wealth over the worlds' and only local citizens have political power (e.g. a vote), the world as a whole is doomed.
I understand that individuals are, on average, egoists in the sense that they care much more about themselves than others. This is the basis of traditional economics and much social science research. However, other factors probably come into play here to reinforce this egoist phenomenon. For example, mainstream media mostly publish local or national news as they are looking to get viewers and not make the world a better place. Therefore, average citizens have relatively little information about foreign news. Another factor that may help with this disproportional reaction to national news in relation to foreign is herd behavior (Asch, 1952; Deutsch and Gerard, 1995). Multiple research has shown that individuals benchmark other people to set their own behavior. Consequently, if no one in their social circles is concerned about something they probably will not be. If all their friends and family are worried out about an issue, they will probably do too.
Sources:
- Asch, Solomon (1952). Social Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
- Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce and Alastair Smith, Randolph M. Siverson, and James D. Morrow (2003). The Logic of Political Survival. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
- Deutsch, Morton, and Harold B. Gerard (1955). “A Study of Normative and Informational Social Influences upon Individual Judgment.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51: 629–36.
- Geddes, Barbara (1995). Challenging the Conventional Wisdom. In Larry Diamond & Marc Plattner, eds. Economic Reform and Democracy (Johns Hopkins UP), pp. 59-73.