The best thing for humanity as a whole is, ultimately, the best thing for yourself - regardless of which nation you happen to live in.
Let us take a situation where Britain can improve its own economy or the economy of a less developed nation.
If we improve our own economy, we are improving the lives of a people who live a Western lifestyle - we are the privileged humans who are largely in no struggle to survive; we struggle for luxuries such as television, Internet access and the cinema, perhaps, but not food, shelter or water.
The global economy goes up slightly and we have improved our own, already privileged lives.
The less developed nation benefits relatively little from the global economic boost because it doesn't have an existing economy capable of utilising the benefits. Their people remain hungry.
If we improve their economy, then the global economy goes up as well - but not only do we benefit from the global economic boost but so do they, as they now have an economy capable of utilising the benefits. We become slightly more privileged and they are considerably less hungry.
Patriotism would normally forego the second option because there is no direct benefit for our nation - but rational and moral thought would support it because there is an indirect benefit for all, in addition to a direct benefit for the less developed nation.
The second option also benefits trade both for ourselves and others, reduces migration (a good thing if your system needs time to improve its management of resources), would likely reduce any tensions in the region and at home (the former due to less bickering over resources with other nations, the latter between the State and pressure groups) and could also conceivably improve the humanitarian position of the other nation.
Sorry about the less than welcoming welcome. I'll try it again.
Welcome to the forum. Hope you have a good time.
