[matt4077]

There's a difference between globalisation, the economic term, and what this is about.

Essentially, he's talking about a world where the "in-group" (in terms of "in-group" vs. "out-group") becomes global. I simply cannot find fault with that, because almost by definition, that should greatly diminish risks of violence and war, increase cooperation, increase real freedom (because you'll have many more options for places to live without being the stranger feeling strange) and so on.

I am already part of several global communities whose members have more in common with each other than with the average citizen of their home countries. HN, (my branch of) academia etc.

The criticism that may be harder to dispel is weather such a community is possible: maybe there is some sort basic need for people to create groups, not just for the benefits they get from being on the inside, but also for some sort of satisfaction they get from the knowledge that others are not.

But even if: it seems at least as easy to believe that humans have an innate streak of violence, and it's part of greatness of humanity to have managed to largely stunt that instinct. If there really is a need for outsiders, I doubt that it could be stronger, or that it couldn't be overcome by the same mechanisms.

[metaphorm]

I find the idea of a "global in-group" to be a utopian fantasy. This is like saying "Communism is a great economic system". The ideal of it is great. We don't live in a world of ideals. We live in a world of flawed, frail, and sometimes vicious people.