A favorite phrase of mine while growing up was "Think Globally, Act Locally" instructing those so inclined to make a change in the world to do so by impacting their immediate vicinities. As I continue to come to age, I realize the falsified liberal hypocrisy of the notion, though. Either the motivation behind doing so is purely selfish, to see one's own area burgeon and assume, possibly even hope, that the influential effect will grow geographically, or to promote the ideals of one's own community with disregard for the needs and goals of surrounding areas. Both avenues and flaccid anf facile, facilitating in their implementation a selfish sense of Samaritan duties fulfilled, as is the proverbial bread and butter of the wealthy, image-conscious elite. Influence can only be carried so far. To act in one's own interests and on one's own behalf is to implicitly ignore or outright deprive others the opportunity to do so. Action must be carried out directly in each expansive setting, whether concentrically growing (from village to county to city to state to world as is often dreamt of) or in sporadic, but intense linearity (as in a political campaign). Reliance solely on ideals and examples not only refuses responsibility but also employs a passive demeanor which ensures almost completely the inability to prolong any desired improvements in an isolated locale.
The only way to construct in our future a harmonious and somewhat tolerable co-existence is the establishment and enforcement of a philosophy based on Thinking Globally and Acting Globally. We live in an epoch that certainly allows for such ambitions through technology mostly, though it's technology that our personal and public philosophies have yet to catch up to. The essence of success is unity of goals and uniform execution. All locales over the entire world must make agreements to work, even subtly, towards a more suitable world. Of course, such lofty goals as complete disarmament or universal sustanence are fairly unrealistic (as a side note, I will take this opportunity to point out that the wealthy will never help, since it's their desire for money that created their wealth and is the core of each one's identity. For the purpose of this discussion, I will leave aside any particular targets), but I believe that with the correct coercion and support that countries could being to take steps that would then affect the individuals within each country and perhaps lead to an actual change in what we call human nature. So as to avoid turning this into abemusingly typical antiestablishmentarian rant, I'll refrain from specifics and allow the reader to dream of small improvements that could be implemented universally and realistically. We live in an age where it's quite possible for an individual to at least initiate a prospect.
Of course, I know that we also live in a highly divisive age wherein progress for one body means defeat for another and that any attempts at unity will be summarily attacked with suspicion and resisted with force. I'm sure there are competing accusations from readers now of globalization or fascism, but I can't say I believe in that necessarily. Of course the I do believe in such behavior as growing produce locally to sustain to the gentry of the vicinity, for example. I think the resources it requires to globally distribute food are out of proportion with the provisions divided.

A while back, I was weakly contradicted while first entertaining this notion. The effect of the argument was that it's necessary to maintain unique, localized cultures in order to promote diversity and cultural understanding. To a less philanthropic degree, it was added that without foreign customs and dress that vacations would not be as exciting. While it's more than generous to say so, this brought up a (fleetingly) interesting point to which the obvious response is that through natural phenomena, each locale can produce and maintain a unique identity. To be clear, I'll say that no one in a tropical climate would require the same clothing or have access to the same food as someone living in an arctic or near arctic one. Therefore, due to available resources, local identities are maintained to a degree. So a global thinker must accept that certain aspects of culture and life are a given, that they can be disregarded.

I offer all this with full knowledge of the following--it's also nature for humans, no matter what region, to be selfish, greedy, ignorant and stubborn. They do not require the delicacy and prescience required to enact such an ideal, and never will. I also know that all of my opinions and suggestions above have been offered more than once by those with more eloquence and intelligence at their grasp than I'll ever have. Even so, it bears importance to restate such seemingly obvious observations for the benefit of those who may not have considered them previously, especially in the face of such arrogant, unaware, self-congratulatory rhetoric that spurred this half of the discussion. Whatever the scope or aim, though, to Act and not to merely Think is the quintessence of existence.