The New Nationalism (2010 edition)

The below is a little bit all over the place and could use some restructuring and explication, so I'll try to re-write it soon. That said - some interesting and still relevant points in here

The (relatively) recent economic collapse has shown how truly interconnected global markets have become. While many analysts projected decoupling after the inevitable crash of the frothy US stock and real estate markets, instead foreign economy reacted in kind. Historically, we would have called this contagion, but to say national economies are only loosely connected these days is foolish. We need to see the positive side of the global nature of the downturn – it fully revealed how technology has created a huge single interconnected economy. Financial markets have become truly global which was inevitable. Further, the entropy of ideas means it is extremely unlikely that the global economy will again separate into separate spheres of influence. [1] Our challenge now is to create economic and political systems to maximize the benefits of a global economy and help avoid downturns going forward.

But what should this system look like? If we are to create a framework for global policy that will last indefinitely, it needs to take a very long view of the world and be extremely flexible. Its goals must be to:

• Maximize human happiness
• Maximize technological growth (via IQ, openness, creativity)
• Maximize and fulfill human potential (although we need to define what this means)
• Solve the problems threatening humanity’s long-term survival.

Of course, it’s impossible to maximize four separate things simultaneously. Instead we need a system that strikes a balance between them. In this essay, I’ll discuss how we should approach each of these issues then explain how and why “The New Nationalism” is the best solution to managing globalization, as it strikes the right balance between them.

Problems should always be solved by smallest group of people closest to the problem at hand. Smaller groups are easier to manage and the people “on the ground” better understand the nuances of the problems they are facing. We must allow small groups to create their own management systems within larger entities.

Unfortunately, many problems are approached from an overly broad perspective. The Kyoto Protocol is a global solution to pollution; the IMF/World Bank is a global solution to economic stagnation. However, very few problems (including these) need to be solved on global level, and even so, we need to try multiple solutions to larger problems. This can be done on a state, country and global level.

All this is to say that American democracy is not the “end of history”. Other government systems are necessary for us to test solutions to problems. Societies based on different value systems approach problems in different ways.  China’s limited command and control economy and focus on the group over the individual have earned it praise in recent years and it will be interesting to see if they can maintain a growing, creative economy by limited individual rights (especially to privacy). There may be some problems better solved via the worldview and value systems prevalent in traditional Hindu, Islamic or African societies, but our current global system gives us limited visibility into how these cultures could be leveraged.

If we are going to allow societies to treat individuals in different ways, however, we need to make sure that people are able to be a part of societies that allow them to fulfill their potential.

Some injustice is unavoidable and, therefore, acceptable. From a global perspective, injustice to individuals can lead to maximum efficiency. A classic example is the Navy’s policy that if a ship runs aground, the captain’s career is over. Even if he was off-duty at the time. By making a captain accountable at all times, it increases his vigilance and the performance of his team.

The danger with encouraging multiple viewpoints is that we can easily slide into moral relativism. Europe is currently struggling to manage unacceptable cultural mores as they face increased immigration from Islamic societies. However, since we are seeking a balance between four goals, if openness and leniency have a negative effect, we have the grounds to denounce certain views as unacceptable.

Certain behaviors have such a negative effect on human happiness or progress that they cannot be acceptable in any global system. First and foremost is the subjugation and oppression of women. By preventing women from obtaining an education or working as they choose, we are effectively cutting global IQ and potential in half. Child exploitation has a similar effect in that it prevents whole generations from developing fully. In both cases, this “lost” IQ prevents progress in solving the human race’s real problems. And it obviously decreases happiness within these populations, so there is really no way to justify it.

Technological progress is maximized via openness. As discussed in my essay on creativity,

But how do we enforce them? Let the people do the talking.

Emigration must be allowed and thus a human rights “market” is established. Immigration should and can be limited however.

Is this practical? Hard with over population, but underdeveloped countries have an opportunity to do so. It’s been done before:

(http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2010/07/the-politically-incorrect-guide-to-ending-poverty/8134/)

This will allow “start-up” countries (Madagascar or Dubai style) to pursue new sociopolitical models to drive growth.

This means to a certain extent people can choose where on the plane of human goals they fit best. Certain value systems will fit people better. (People who rate communal values, for instance, may be better off in countries that define the individual differently)

End goal is what I call the new nationalism. We need to maintain as many different modes of thought/cultures/approaches to problems as possible. “Diverse teams” are a lie. What we need is cohesive teams with differing philosophies. Look at start-ups. We often see exec teams with very homogenous backgrounds and value systems. People from completely different backgrounds are less helpful. Small fiefdoms are ok.

It’s also a more diverse nationalism – based on beliefs/thoughts rather than countries. This will continue intermingling, and help transcend the racial biases inherent in our evolutionary background

Finally, this nationalism needs to be tempered so it doesn’t lead to war and excessive aggression. Competition tempered with respect. This comes from exposure. We need to celebrate competitive advantages. Celebrate differences. Every country should have a sport they’re culture excels at (Netherlands and Speed skating).

Again we need dynamic equilibrium. Creative tension between these different worldviews.

Ultimate goal: Eventually, evolution and entropy will prevail. We’ll create a sustainable global society or die trying. Some will leave this planet., which will open up a new wave of differing viewpoints and allow for increased competition. Sustainability requires slower growth to avoid destruction because people can’t do whatever they want.

[1] While this could happen, it would mean a major breakdown in the current world order and we’d have much bigger problems to deal with then discussed here. Still, even if such a state of punctuated equilibrium came into being, it could not last forever