Family or nation: which one can we live without?

Essential to our lives: but which one could be more sustainable for our
future? Family and nation, both have the roles in our lives: the former provides us
initial emotional, social and financial support, while the latter gives us the true
platform of meeting other people, forming an identity which keeps us together,
with commonly shared values, cultural elements (4l: also different nations divide
us). The first is the most basic group and social unit, the other is the system
which helds us and groups of people together and gives us identity in a big,
divided world. But is it truly necessary at this part of the history, to have such
systems like a nation? Only because we feel the need of it now, does it mean we
could not live without it? Isnt it just another the power tool of a small group of
wealthy and powerful people to control us? Lets see what these groups give us,
why is one necessary while the other is not, and observe the possible directions
of our future.
Family give us something that nation can not: emotional support, father-
mother patterns to live by and learn from, financial help and possible orientation
in life. Perhaps nation can also give us something similiar, such institution exists
that thrive to be a substitute for family lives and values: orphenages, for
example, but can they really provide a sufficient childhood experience (and
foundation for growing up later?). These public institutions meant to help people
can only mimic the real effect of families, but they will never be able to provide
the same quality care, attention or education. Families are the most fundamental
groups that we form since the beginning of time. Its basically in our genetic
properties: we need families to survive longer and have a healthier life. The
evolution showed us that in early ages, we wouldnt have been to able to survive
alone. The closest group of people also help us to understand the world around
us, teach us patterns of behaviour and makes us able to communicate with other
individuals. The families are too fundamental and necessary, to be eliminated.
Although it doesnt mean, its always shiny. In the other hand, because of
the nature of the distance between people in the families, unfortunately people
can also suffer more from negative experiences, than those without families:
physical and mental abuse. Whilst in public, such crimes can be easily seen and
punished, its easy to see how a person who grows up in a violent environment
can assimiliate to such events, maybe never get used to them, but partially
accept them, and by their effect, becomes highly deviant. Not every family is
providing the love and development material needed by children, but even
though they cant provide everything, most of the cases they provide just
enough. Social integration and sociolosation will help people to blend in,
anyways.
Nations provide us cultures, languages, and the conscioussness of a bigger
group of people belonging together, patriotism. At this point of the world -
history, it might seem that eliminating nations might be impossible: but is it
really impossible, by looking at the trends of globalisation, and based on the
technological developments, how people can access everything with their
devices, that walls between people that meant to serve a unit also differentiating
people from each other, will be tore down? Could it be safer, if the nations that
suppose to defend us from outer harm, stop existing, as there is no harm, at least
harm originating from differentiating people from each other.
 People believe and think in systems, and thats how we are since our
consciousness. We like to have theories about everything, we prefer to have
explanations and theories that help us understand each other and the world, and
also prefer answers over questions. Based on our personal skills, preferences and
genes, there will always be people who want to rule others, while others want to
be ruled. By this, not just the basic units of social interactions i.e. families, but
bigger groups would form as well, and by time, nations were created based on
the cultural, linguistical and genetic identity of people. But can we reorganise
these big groups, systems of people, with a different understanding, in order to
make our world better, in any means?
Hyperconnectivity reached by technology and the world-wide liberal
approaches let it look possible, that borders, both physical and theoretical can be
taken down, and perhaps should be taken down. People of many nations travel
and settle down around the world, and more or less successfully live their lives.
What is important is, that these people firstly have the possibility to do this, and
also secondly they manage to do it. Nowadays world is described as multi-
culturalist, meaning there is rarely a country, which would only contain people
from its own nation. The growing trends of travelling - which is not only, but still
based ont he competition of transportation companies - the developing
educational opportunities (primarly of languages), international standards in
many aspects of life and nations meeting these, make it look like, that the world
will come under a big order, where people will be united, equal to each other.
This sounds quite utopistic, but still more realisable than saying that families, our
foundation stones in social interaction and basic physcological patterns will
dissolve. By learning tolerance towards each other, racism is something that will
be left behind, and as we see more of others people culture, we will see the
common elements between them, more than the differences, only to make it
clear: we are one people. We have have our differences in languages and
cultures, but we want the same essential things: live happy, in a comfortable
environment, safely, with surronded the people we enjoy to be with.
International relations theories, namely also suggest, that there could be
a new, global world order and leadership, which will be able to eliminates nations
as we know them today. Its important to talk about globalism, when we try to
imagine how a new state of rulership might be created. Globalism is basically a
growing, world-wide economic and social trend and phenomenom, which allows
people of many countries to reach out for goods and services, that they could not
do before. It would take up too much word count, to describe the different
aspects and effects of globalism, so instead lets look at who are behind this
happening. Most of the time, we can say that its the multinational companies
and corporations which try to maximaize their profit by expanding their products
and services radius as far as they can. This enables these companies to gain
more money, while creates a whole different platform for people.
Would the same cultural values manage to remain, as they exist now?
What could be the effects of nowadays patriotism in an unnationaful world
order? Who would lead? How would people be able to organise themselves, what
kind of groups would be efficient, emotionally satisfying and safe? Connected to
what was written before, perhaps big global companies would hold these people
together, instead of nations, as they are already started something, that changes
the world as we know it.
This theory raises the questions: what would happen to international relations?
Possible war situations? Rivalries between countries for unknown (at least for the
most of us) reasons? How would the legal system work? Should there big a legal
system which would be superios over others, or form a whole new justice
system? How would we fight against possible dictatorships? Maybe this new
world order would stop weapon industry as it exists today, and would only focus
on sustainable energy solutions, space research, because if life would be
peaceful, people wouldnt feel threatened not to mate with each other, bringing
us to one of todays one important question: where will we live in 100 years?

Sajnos egy olyan helyzet alakult ki, amelyet gy is nevezhetnk, hogy a

vilg kormnyzsa vilgkormny nlkl, amelyben nhny intzmny (a
Vilgbank, az IMF, a WTO) s nhny szerepl, bizonyos kereskedelmi s
pnzgyi rdekcsoportokhoz szorosan kapcsold kereskedelmi s
pnzgyminiszter uralja a meznyt, mikzben az rintettek jelents rsze
nem jut szhoz rja Joseph E. Stiglitz

http://familyfacts.org/briefs/6/benefits-of-family-for-children-and-adults

Why is nation arbitrary, but family is not?

Why people dont talk / think the same way about nation and family? Nation can
be said az unjust, but about families we dont hear that.
Groups exist to serve people. People doesnt exist to serve groups.
Which one is easier to substitute? Family or nation?