Well forgive me for putting a more philosophical spin to this discussion. As an NF, I find many faults with the whole concept of a "Global village". That assumes a level of intimacy with other people far away that simply cannot, nor should, exist.
This is not to say I'm against the concept of a universal concen for all humanity, far from it. Rather, I say that the version of that concept presented by the image of a "Global village" is built upon a flawed understanding of inter-human relations, and places such relations on an abstract level.
Inter-human relations on any geniune scale is built upon a concrete, rather than an abstract, basis. This means, among other things, placing limits upon who you show love and concern for. I cannot love everyman as if they were literally my brother(or sister). To do so means to undermine the value of such love, in more ways than one. First, the more people you love, the less love you're able to give to each person. So ironically, the more people you love, the more meaningless it becomes.
Second, in terms of the image of a family or "village", such forms of human solidairity are formed on a basis of exclusion of some sort: that is I have a more special relation with some people more than others. That is why the old saying goes that blood is thicker than water. This has been the basis for families and communities since time immemorial.
But as I said, this need not nor should not lead one to dismiss a geniune concern for all humanity; but one must set their priorities right. That means having primary concern for those whom one has more immediate contact and concern for. Too often people are so concerned about the poor starving kid in Africa they see on TV, they forget the poor starving children in their own neighborhoods.
Just my random incoherent thoughts on the matter.
