prompter: Is it acceptable to prioritize national interests over international cooperation? For example, if a country's actions harm the global community, is it justifiable if it benefits the country's citizens?

assistant: Multi-level governance and economic inequality make this a complex issue. When national interests adversely affect international relations, it may result in a crisis or war. Although a nationalist agenda may receive approval by a majority of a country's internal government or citizenry, benefits are uncertain. For example, reactionary fiscal policy such as tariffs have negative effects on economic growth for all parties involved. 
Ireland's Great Famine from 1845-1852 is a potential case study for both the positive and negative consequences that can arise from prioritizing nationalist policy.

prompter: Hi

assistant: The justification for prioritizing national interests over international cooperation is a complex issue with differing opinions. Some argue that a country has a primary responsibility to its own citizens and must take actions that serve their interests, even if it results in harm to the global community. Others argue that in an interconnected world, countries must consider the broader impact of their actions on the global community and prioritize international cooperation in order to address global challenges such as climate change and pandemics. Ultimately, the acceptability of prioritizing national interests over international cooperation will depend on a number of factors, including the specific circumstances, the impact on the global community, and the principles of international law and ethics.

prompter: How has this topic and its related views, challenges, and solutions changed with the global Internet?

assistant: The internet, and the broadened access to information it provides, has allowed for greater international cooperation as a whole, and provides significantly greater accountability against national governments acting in a way that is explicitly harmful to the interest of international cooperation.

That said, it is also a tool being used by national and transnational actors to direct attention away from national and international issues, influence the national and global perception of issues, and agitate foreign nationals around their local issues in order to divert energy from addressing global issues other issues relevant to these malicious actors. 

Ultimately, the internet, in an uncensored and unmitigated form, gives local populations much greater access to the global stage, and therefore they tend to be much more concerned about global issues, have a generally higher quality of life due to the access to virtual experiences, a higher expected standard of living, and therefore discontent in reductions in standard of living or access to global markets. Since this may foment discontent locally, many governments do not allow free and open access to the global internet, in order to retain their autonomy in determining the focus of their population on either national or global issues, depending on their agenda.

assistant: The ethical question of right or wrong is independent on the existence of the global internet.

Regarding the views related to the topic: The global internet has changed the way human consume information. Previously highly specialized knowledge became available to all members of the population that could access the internet, at the burden to verify the correctness of that information by themselves. 

While the freely available online encyclopedia Wikipedia and search engines such as Google made it easier than ever for humans to cross reference facts, at the same time the rise of social networks such as Facebook and micro blogging services such as Twitter gave rise to the 'echo chamber' phenomenon, where repetitive selection of biased information lead to the reinforcement of previous held biases.  

A combination of both effects is among the factors the contributed to a polarization in many societies where some parts of the global political spectrum believe that a stronger emphasis on national interests is more important whereas other parts want to extend international cooperation.

assistant: International cooperation is more responsive with the introduction of the Internet, and therefore each nation's actions would have a more pronounced effect to other countries. In fact, with the introduction of the Internet, new challenges and solutions arose. For example, using open access journals to share scientific data allow scientists from around the world to receive the latest information about their area of expertise, however this has come with a radical shift with the journal's publishing model. While the answer still depends on many factors, it is argued that the Internet has a profound effect of international cooperation.

assistant: Prioritizing national interests over international cooperation is not justifiable as it perpetuates systemic inequalities and creates a world where the strong dominate the weak. Actions taken by a country that harm the global community, even if they benefit its citizens, are not acceptable because they undermine the progress towards global equality and cooperation. A country's actions should not only benefit its own citizens, but should also be in line with international norms and values, and contribute to the common good of the global community.

prompter: Could you come up with a concrete example where prioritising national interests would be justified, even though it might have a negative impact on the global community?

assistant: Democracy and national sovereignty, two pillars of international law, entails that population have the right to prioritize their own interests above that of other nations. However, this is only by default. Signing and later backtracking on international treatises like the Paris agreement is not only against international law, but it reduces the trustworthiness of the nation, which goes against the interests of the nation. I don't know what you mean by "harming" the international comunity, but with a few exceptions, it is not only justified, but also necesary to prioritise national interests.

prompter: I agree that it is important to uphold international law, but I also believe that rising sea levels are a natural phenomenon that should be embraced. We should be looking for ways to adapt to the changing environment, rather than trying to stop it. We should be looking for ways to use the rising sea levels to our advantage, such as creating new coastal communities and utilizing the increased water resources.

assistant: Human activity is the driving factor of rapid and dangerous climate change. Rising sea levels, more extreme weather and climate-induced-famine will endanger a majority of the human population. The most underdeveloped regions of the world, the ones least responsible for human emmisions, are going to suffer the most. UN reports indicate current levels of emisions will lead to hundreds of millions of climate refugees from Asia and Africa. Adapting to climate change is an unsustainable way to deal with the problem, and pushes the responsibility from the benefactors of industrialization to the thirld world victims. Furthermore, no country is going to benefit in the long run from breaking international climate treatises.