[PavlovsCat]

> it concerns me that no one seems to worry about whether we're losing some valuable things with the ongoing cultural homogenization of the planet.

This quote is for you then.

> From a philosophical viewpoint, the danger inherent in the new reality of mankind seems to be that this unity, based on the technical means of communication and violence, destroys all national traditions and buries the authentic origins of all human existence. This destructive process can even be considered a necessary prerequisite for ultimate understanding between men of all cultures, civilizations, races, and nations. Its result would be a shallowness that would transform man, as we have known him in five thousand years of recorded history, beyond recognition. It would be more than mere superficiality; it would be as though the whole dimension of depth, without which human thought, even on the mere level of technical invention, could not exist, would simply disappear. This leveling down would be much more radical than the leveling to the lowest common denominator; it would ultimately arrive at a denominator of which we have hardly any notion today.

> As long as one conceives of truth as separate and distinct from its expression, as something which by itself is uncommunicative and neither communicates itself to reason nor appeals to "existential" experience, it is almost impossible not to believe that this destructive process will inevitably be triggered off by the sheer automatism of technology which made the world one and, in a sense, united mankind. It looks as though the historical pasts of the-nations, in their utter diversity and disparity, in their confusing variety and bewildering strangeness for each other, are nothing but obstacles on the road to a horridly shallow unity. This, of course, is a delusion; if the dimension of depth out of which modern science and technology have developed ever were destroyed, the probability is that the new unity of mankind could not even technically survive. Everything then seems to depend upon the possibility of bringing the national pasts, in their original disparateness, into communication with each other as the only way to catch up with the global system of communication which covers the surface of the earth.

-- Hannah Arendt, "Men in Dark Times"

She also said nobody has the right to obey, and I agree with that, so we'd still have plenty to disagree about, but here you pointed to something that also worries me greatly. I'm not a nationalist in the ideological sense, but I also think souvereign nations are a great unit of organization, I don't believe in "smashing borders" anymore than I believe in smashing cell borders. So, there's this tiny sliver of common ground we have, at least.

[squiggleblaz]

You can have sovereign states with relatively free flowing immigration. And you can also have non-sovereign states with restricted immigration. And you can even have states with internally imposed restrictions to resettlement.

Ideally, I think most policy should be made at a lower level than the sovereign state in a democratic society. Administration from remote cities seems to create distrust. Best also to keep the army at a different level from the level that needs to respond most effectively to economic upset. This is the opposite direction than we have been trending in for the last several decades but I think it can change quickly.

[mistermann]

Some interesting ideas, worthy of consideration but not blind acceptance (they're ideas after all, not facts).

> This destructive process can even be considered a necessary prerequisite for ultimate understanding between men of all cultures, civilizations, races, and nations.

It can be considered a pre-requisite, but it can also be not considered that. The fact of the matter is, no one knows what path may yield greater harmony. There could be many that will do the trick, or none.

> This, of course, is a delusion; if the dimension of depth out of which modern science and technology have developed ever were destroyed, the probability is that the new unity of mankind could not even technically survive.

I don't see the logic in this, even though it seems to be supportive of my concerns.

> Everything then seems to depend upon the possibility of bringing the national pasts, in their original disparateness, into communication with each other as the only way to catch up with the global system of communication which covers the surface of the earth.

I very much prefer this approach, it would be nice to at least try it and see what happens.

> So, there's this tiny sliver of common ground we have, at least.

I suspect most people have much more common ground than it appears, that this isn't apparent may be due to the major shortcomings in our modes of thinking and communication.

[PavlovsCat]

> I don't see the logic in this, even though it seems to be supportive of my concerns.

The way I interpret it is that if you remove everything but the lowest common denominator, to achieve the "ultimate unity" of everybody being the same, picking their ideas from small selection on the same shelves, if you will, we'll be faced with ever growing problems we don't have the means to handle, not even the language to adequately describe. We won't physically die, of course, but what makes human agency and spontaneity possible, very well might.

But I can't speak for her, I found the passage interesting but nothing before or after it elaborates on it, and so far I haven't read any other elaboration by her on that (or I did but didn't realize it was connected).