Should earth unify or remain divided?

[Side 3]

I don't believe the Earth should unify until it's viable for the masses to live off of it. Or rather, I don't think we as a species are mature enough to unify yet. But maybe in a hundred years or so...

[Peatiktist]

In theory it's a wonderful idea.


In practice, humanity is too culturally and politically diverse to actually maintain a single world government without the threat of annihilation driving it.

[Neanderthaland]

We must colonize Mars first to give ourselves a common enemy.

[ArenaC]

We must colonize Mars first to give ourselves a common enemy.

Yes.

[New Haasia]

I don't believe the Earth should unify until it's viable for the masses to live off of it. Or rather, I don't think we as a species are mature enough to unify yet. But maybe in a hundred years or so...

I agree. Humanity has to mature greatly before this is even feasible. Considering we don’t destroy ourselves I say that 2300 AD might be a good year to consider it. By then we will have permanent settlements on multiple planets, so it won’t be like one government rules all of humanity. We would need a World Bank, a World Court, a World Parliament, a World Army, we would need to blend cultures, but not assimilate them. Nukes would have to be banned, and hopefully we will have come to a point of near Global Peace. I think the UN (or a successor to the UN, WA anyone) would be able to facilitate this transition, but afterwards it would become obsolete. Also speaking about a Parliament, we could make it a Constitutional Monarchy. Just my ideas though. What do y’all think?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

We must colonize Mars first to give ourselves a common enemy.

They'd be quite easy to beat though. We'll have to concoct some outer-space thingummy field to explain why we went to Mars once but can't reach it any more.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I don't believe the Earth should unify until it's viable for the masses to live off of it. Or rather, I don't think we as a species are mature enough to unify yet. But maybe in a hundred years or so...

I agree. Humanity has to mature greatly before this is even feasible. Considering we don’t destroy ourselves I say that 2300 AD might be a good year to consider it. By then we will have permanent settlements on multiple planets, so it won’t be like one government rules all of humanity. We would need a World Bank, a World Court, a World Parliament, a World Army, we would need to blend cultures, but not assimilate them. Nukes would have to be banned, and hopefully we will have come to a point of near Global Peace. I think the UN (or a successor to the UN, WA anyone) would be able to facilitate this transition, but afterwards it would become obsolete. Also speaking about a Parliament, we could make it a Constitutional Monarchy. Just my ideas though. What do y’all think?

Replace the word "Monarchy" by "Monkey" and I could go with it.

[Geneviev]

Since the Bible may or may not warn against a world government, and it would never work anyway, that's a no from me. Different countries. I don't mind globalization, but that's going too far.

[Purpelia]

Why is the nation-state necessarily the optimal unit that strikes the right balance between size and internal cohesion? By what criteria did you determine this, and on what evidence?

The evidence is entirely empirical. Simply put, the nation state or variant there of as defined through a group of people that share the same culture first and foremost is the one that has emerged from the evolutionary process that is human civilization. During our past many different forms of organization and government have been tried. Tribes, clans, communes, multi cultural empires with a dominant culture, multi cultural empires without an overtly dominant culture etc. And the one pattern that always repeats is that members of the same broader culture always fight to create their own entity and break away even if this goes against practical considerations such as wealth, standard of living or even odds of victory. This was true when the city states of Greece fought to resist Persia and it is true today in Catalonia.

The fundamental conclusion is inevitably is that in order to live a happy life you must be free to do so as you see fit, that is to say in accordance to your culture. And the only way to get that is to create an entity whose job is to protect and enforce that right. And that this is worth fighting for even if in the end you end up poorer, weaker and generally worse off than you were before.

If you believe in an international order where sovereign states are regulated, who enforce these regulations against states that are, after all, sovereign? What incentive do they have to act in the interests of the global community?

In a perfect system the motivation would be simple. Everyone would refrain from meddling lest they be deemed an outlaw and declared a free target for everyone else. The nation that declares war on another, places sanctions on them, criticize their social policies or the way they sacrifice humans to their bloodthirsty sun god would find it self under UN punishment for doing so. And indeed, that would be the only international crime for which one could get punished. Meddling.

Sadly this is not the system we have today. Quite the opposite in fact. The system we have right now is one that is designed not to allow nations to do their own thing in peace and ensures they can do this but explicitly to hinder this freedom. The UN is a product of post WW2 imperialism designed to carve the world up into spheres of influence assigned to the permanent security council members and create a mechanism through which they can produce casus belli to dominate these countries, invade them, sanction them, bomb them and depose their governments at will either directly or through local proxies all disguised under a veneer of world cooperation. And for this it explicitly promotes meddling into the affairs of other nations. It is literally an organization designed to meddle. And since its inception this meddling has only ever lead to misery, oppression and enslavement of nations and their peoples for the crime of daring to wish for freedom.

[Kubra]

We must colonize Mars first to give ourselves a common enemy.

"congratulations on being the first humans to settle mars. We are now mortal enemies."

[Albrenia]

I hope we manage to unify one day, under a fair and even government with the best interests of its people at the helm.

Kind of a long shot, but I'm allowed to hope.

[Senkaku]

it's very telling that the OP says "assuming this were possible, would you want it" and everyone in the replies sidesteps it by just saying "I don't think it's possible" as if that by itself were a philosophical argument against it, and without clarifying what about it is so impossible.

in any case, going off the premise of a democratic world government offered in the OP, yes, I'd be very much in favor. Giving every person on Earth the political representation and civil rights they deserve, giving us a mechanism to confront global problems like climate change or space colonization and coordinate development efforts in poorer regions, and oh by the way ending war are all pretty fucking compelling, and I don't think any human being is seriously against such things, even if they say they are for internet points or whatever.

unfortunately, like capitalism, it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of the nation-state. I think most of the people who aren't really answering the question and are just sidestepping with "it's impossible" are really just saying that they can't imagine the path we'd take to get there, not that it wouldn't actually be a desirable outcome if we found a way to do it

[Senkaku]

Why is the nation-state necessarily the optimal unit that strikes the right balance between size and internal cohesion? By what criteria did you determine this, and on what evidence?

The evidence is entirely empirical. Simply put, the nation state or variant there of as defined through a group of people that share the same culture first and foremost is the one that has emerged from the evolutionary process that is human civilization. During our past many different forms of organization and government have been tried. Tribes, clans, communes, multi cultural empires with a dominant culture, multi cultural empires without an overtly dominant culture etc. And the one pattern that always repeats is that members of the same broader culture always fight to create their own entity and break away even if this goes against practical considerations such as wealth, standard of living or even odds of victory. This was true when the city states of Greece fought to resist Persia and it is true today in Catalonia.

I mean firstly, for much of recorded history it's actually been massive multicultural empires of various types that have ruled over most people. Secondly, characterizing the ancient Greek city-states as a "nation-state" in any way, shape, or form is just deranged.

Thirdly, even if your argument weren't filled with weird ahistorical nonsense, all you've basically said is "this is the way it was done, and therefore it is the optimal way." Do you actually have any criteria or evidence that you used to determine this, or just more nonsensical generalizations about human history?

[The Greater Gothic Empire]

Earth united in a one-world state? If it is a planetary central autocracy, and compatible with the concept of Earth as a cosmopolitan nation-state, I am always in favor.

[Purpelia]

it's very telling that the OP says "assuming this were possible, would you want it" and everyone in the replies sidesteps it by just saying "I don't think it's possible" as if that by itself were a philosophical argument against it, and without clarifying what about it is so impossible.

in any case, going off the premise of a democratic world government offered in the OP, yes, I'd be very much in favor. Giving every person on Earth the political representation and civil rights they deserve, giving us a mechanism to confront global problems like climate change or space colonization and coordinate development efforts in poorer regions, and oh by the way ending war are all pretty fucking compelling, and I don't think any human being is seriously against such things, even if they say they are for internet points or whatever.

unfortunately, like capitalism, it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of the nation-state. I think most of the people who aren't really answering the question and are just sidestepping with "it's impossible" are really just saying that they can't imagine the path we'd take to get there, not that it wouldn't actually be a desirable outcome if we found a way to do it

But what about the people that do not want democratic representation? What about those that do not want the same sets of civil rights? Take for example the most trivial examples:
1. The people of Iran predominantly want to live in a republic run by Islamic law. The people of america do not.
2. The people of the united states want to have free gun ownership. The people of my country are horrified of that idea.
3. The people of China want communism, the people of North Korea demonstrably want the Kims (as evidenced by the lack of a revolution in spite of all the hardship) and the people of america apparently want Trump.

None of those choices are wrong. None of those options are wrong. They are all equally right for different people. And yet under a single government only one of those can be true. So who wins?
Do we instate a world democracy in spite of the wishes of half the planet? Do I have to live with gun tooting americans all around me? Do you have to be disarmed by force to suit my wishes? What law do we live by? Islamic, Chinese, European?

The only way for a world government to make sense would be for the entirety of the human race to be brainwashed into abandoning all of their cultures and adopting a single world culture. And we have a word for that. Genocide.

[Purpelia]

I mean firstly, for much of recorded history it's actually been massive multicultural empires of various types that have ruled over most people

And the one thing that characterized them all is that the subject peoples were oppressed, angry and wanted their freedom. A culturally defined state, or approximate equivalent, is really the only way to avoid this.

Secondly, characterizing the ancient Greek city-states as a "nation-state" in any way, shape, or form is just deranged.

How so? They were political entities whose citizens shared a common cultural identity, language, religion and way of life. Greece it self was not a nation at that point in history, but the individual city states very much were.
I fail to see any definition by which Sparta and Athens do not quality as nations but modern nations like France and Germany do. Not unless you are ethnocentric and ignore everything but blood. But by that logic Germany and Austria aren't distinct nations either.

Thirdly, even if your argument weren't filled with weird ahistorical nonsense, all you've basically said is "this is the way it was done, and therefore it is the optimal way." Do you actually have any criteria or evidence that you used to determine this, or just more nonsensical generalizations about human history?

No. What I said is "Of all the things that have been tried this is the best we have as evidenced by the fact people constantly keep fighting to make it happen."

As for evidence just look at literally every single culture, religion or race based revolt in human history. Why did the Ionian Greeks revolt against Persian hegemony? Why did the people of India throw out the British? Why did the people of Hungary try and throw out the Austrians knowing that even if they won they'd end up with state half as strong and far less rich and prosperous as the dual monarchy? Why did the people of the balkans struggle to throw off the Ottoman empire to exchange membership in a vast and rich empire for a bunch of rump states that to this day are at best 2nd world level? The pattern repeats it self over and over again. Hell, why did the american south try and throw out the north?

Culture and way of life matters. It is the key. It trumps ethnicity, citizenship and everything else.

[Senkaku]

it's very telling that the OP says "assuming this were possible, would you want it" and everyone in the replies sidesteps it by just saying "I don't think it's possible" as if that by itself were a philosophical argument against it, and without clarifying what about it is so impossible.

in any case, going off the premise of a democratic world government offered in the OP, yes, I'd be very much in favor. Giving every person on Earth the political representation and civil rights they deserve, giving us a mechanism to confront global problems like climate change or space colonization and coordinate development efforts in poorer regions, and oh by the way ending war are all pretty fucking compelling, and I don't think any human being is seriously against such things, even if they say they are for internet points or whatever.

unfortunately, like capitalism, it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of the nation-state. I think most of the people who aren't really answering the question and are just sidestepping with "it's impossible" are really just saying that they can't imagine the path we'd take to get there, not that it wouldn't actually be a desirable outcome if we found a way to do it

But what about the people that do not want democratic representation? What about those that do not want the same sets of civil rights?

Well, they'll get them for free anyways, and I bet they'll like them once they try them.

Take for example the most trivial examples:
1. The people of Iran predominantly want to live in a republic run by Islamic law. The people of america do not.
3. The people of China want communism, the people of North Korea demonstrably want the Kims (as evidenced by the lack of a revolution in spite of all the hardship) and the people of america apparently want Trump.

Sorta hard to characterize repressive autocracies as being reflective of popular will, given that they are... repressive autocracies? This is insane.

2. The people of the united states want to have free gun ownership. The people of my country are horrified of that idea.

Okay, cool?

None of those choices are wrong. None of those options are wrong. They are all equally right for different people. And yet under a single government only one of those can be true. So who wins?

I assume whoever ended up winning the majority of votes in the elections for the democratic world government we're postulating, though I have to assume at such a large scale there'd be a need for significant federal devolution of some things to local authorities.

Do we instate a world democracy in spite of the wishes of half the planet?

Again, hard to characterize autocracies as representing popular will. Your view that the people of North Korea's lack of successful revolution proves they want to continue being impoverished by a repressive kleptocratic dictatorship is one of the most tortured and amoral contortions of logic I've seen on this forum.

Do I have to live with gun tooting americans all around me?

No, there's only 300M of us, and I've never been a proponent of forced resettlement.

Do you have to be disarmed by force to suit my wishes?

If you can win a big enough majority, then probably, though I imagine you might also have to get candidates supporting that to win local elections in the former United States.

What law do we live by? Islamic, Chinese, European?

Terran, I assume. Or Earther? Solar? What demonym sounds best to you?

The only way for a world government to make sense would be for the entirety of the human race to be brainwashed into abandoning all of their cultures and adopting a single world culture. And we have a word for that. Genocide.

You seem to have been taken in by some odd delusion that people of different cultures cannot co-exist inside a polity, or that a world state would necessitate the creation of a hivemind-like unity of purpose between all mankind. I don't accept either of these premises.

Now that we've settled that, why are you so against solidarity, a stable climate, and world peace? Why should imaginary lines on maps define what portion of our fellow humans' dignity and worth we are willing to respect? Why do you want war, perhaps the greatest evil civilization has ever produced, to continue to plague our species?

[Senkaku]

I mean firstly, for much of recorded history it's actually been massive multicultural empires of various types that have ruled over most people

And the one thing that characterized them all is that the subject peoples were oppressed, angry and wanted their freedom. A culturally defined state, or approximate equivalent, is really the only way to avoid this.

Hey, "freedom"... why, it sounds to me like you've just defined a principle that transcends history and culture! Could there be other such principles? Could these principles perhaps provide the foundation of a universal state that recognizes our common humanity? Who knows!

Secondly, characterizing the ancient Greek city-states as a "nation-state" in any way, shape, or form is just deranged.

How so? They were political entities whose citizens shared a common cultural identity, language, religion and way of life. Greece it self was not a nation at that point in history, but the individual city states very much were.
I fail to see any definition by which Sparta and Athens do not quality as nations but modern nations like France and Germany do. Not unless you are ethnocentric and ignore everything but blood. But by that logic Germany and Austria aren't distinct nations either.

Nation-states are a very modern phenomenon, I don't think any ancient polities really fit the bill. Athens and Sparta, or Thebes and Miletos, had very different cultures even if they shared some things in common as Greek. They had lots of people from other cultures coming and going, their political hierarchies were ill-defined and far less complex than those of modern states. This isn't a controversial take, you're pretty far out of step with all of history and political science if you equate Ancient Greece to industrial Germany.

Thirdly, even if your argument weren't filled with weird ahistorical nonsense, all you've basically said is "this is the way it was done, and therefore it is the optimal way." Do you actually have any criteria or evidence that you used to determine this, or just more nonsensical generalizations about human history?

No. What I said is "Of all the things that have been tried this is the best we have as evidenced by the fact people constantly keep fighting to make it happen."

...read that back to yourself.

Your evidence is just that it kept happening, not that it is inherently better in some way. Do you have any actual metrics beyond "those people thought it was good enough"? Social outcomes, economic outcomes? Anything?

[Tagorford]

As much as I’d like to see Earth unified with national borders removed and people can finally travel freely across the Earth without being stopped by anyone or all government functions are unified and have “World” attaches to them,we are too diverse and tribal and the government and bureaucracy involved would be massive and not free of corruption or leadership being put in fewer and fewer hands until we get dictators in charge of the whole Earth. We need to mature for much,much longer as a species before we are ready to unify the Earth and we are far far off from doing so.

[Nation of Hanguk]

If ever a world government did stabilize (which will never do in my opinion), it would be excessively bureaucratic and citizens will lose their last remaining contacts to their government. I mean, one vote doesn't matter anymore when you have 5 billion people voting.

[CoraSpia]

I'd quite like the world to divide up even further honestly, into states with around 1m people each.

[Bala Mantre]

Unless you want just one giant Yugoslavia this is highly unrecommended

[Purpelia]

Well, they'll get them for free anyways, and I bet they'll like them once they try them.

Do you not see how arrogant you are to assume your tastes are superior to everyone else's and that everyone will agree with you as soon as they try things your way?
To me that attitude is frankly horrifying.

I assume whoever ended up winning the majority of votes in the elections for the democratic world government we're postulating, though I have to assume at such a large scale there'd be a need for significant federal devolution of some things to local authorities.

And what about all the people that do not want a democracy? Or all the people that are not in the majority? Sure, you can federalize but unless your federation literally allows for different systems of government, economy and everything in its constituent units you will be oppressing people. All you are doing is forcing a square peg into a round hole.

Again, hard to characterize autocracies as representing popular will. Your view that the people of North Korea's lack of successful revolution proves they want to continue being impoverished by a repressive kleptocratic dictatorship is one of the most tortured and amoral contortions of logic I've seen on this forum.

Even a cursory look at human history will demonstrate that no government ever survives long without the consent of its people. Revolutions happen. And even if they don't succeed they demonstrate to the world that the people are unhappy. It is thus indicative that North Korea newer had even an attempt at one.

No, there's only 300M of us, and I've never been a proponent of forced resettlement.

And yet if your rules come to cover the entire world everyone in my country will be able to freely get a gun. That is NOT a system I want to live in. Guns are evil instruments of murder and I do not want them in my society. Having open borders across which any american can walk in with a backpack full of them and start handing them out to criminals in my country is a nightmare scenario.

If you can win a big enough majority, then probably, though I imagine you might also have to get candidates supporting that to win local elections in the former United States.

No I don't. All I'd have to do is point at the fact that your federal government would presumably have free travel across its borders and that thus having guns freely available in one province means criminals from other provinces can buy them there and move them freely to my home. Than my local politicians can push for a world ban to prevent that eventuality. See how oppression goes around even from the nicest of intentions?

Terran, I assume. Or Earther? Solar? What demonym sounds best to you?

And what law is that? Do we stone homosexuals or not? Do we allow guns or not? Do we have a democracy or are run by the CCP? What economic system do we have? What currency do we use? Whose cultural practices, beliefs and rights do we enforce?

There is no unified human culture and thus there can be no unified human law. Not unless you deliberately want to oppress people.

You seem to have been taken in by some odd delusion that people of different cultures cannot co-exist inside a polity, or that a world state would necessitate the creation of a hivemind-like unity of purpose between all mankind. I don't accept either of these premises.

History proves that they can't and don't. When ever there are multiple cultures that are incompatible stuck within the same polity they always chafe and struggle with one another because of their incompatibility. This is why empires always fall. And it is why they are evil.

Now that we've settled that, why are you so against solidarity, a stable climate, and world peace? Why should imaginary lines on maps define what portion of our fellow humans' dignity and worth we are willing to respect? Why do you want war, perhaps the greatest evil civilization has ever produced, to continue to plague our species?

No, I want a system where war, sanctions and all other international meddling is forbidden. A system where every nation is free to do as they please within their own borders without having an evil international cabal hanging over their heads ready to destroy them at a moments notice for the crime of being free.

War can only be eradicated when non intervention is enforced.

[Mordka]

There should be a unified military government.

[Purpelia]

And the one thing that characterized them all is that the subject peoples were oppressed, angry and wanted their freedom. A culturally defined state, or approximate equivalent, is really the only way to avoid this.

Hey, "freedom"... why, it sounds to me like you've just defined a principle that transcends history and culture! Could there be other such principles? Could these principles perhaps provide the foundation of a universal state that recognizes our common humanity? Who knows!

Freedom to live their lives as they see fit. Even if this means holding slaves or sacrificing their fellow man to a sun god. And not "freedom" in the absolute sense that modern western civilization talks about.

The people of South America fought, died and lost in a war to defend their freedom to murder their fellow man, rip their hearts out and throw their corpses off a pyramid. That is the freedom I would give them and the freedom I am talking about. And not the "freedom" to abandon their ways and adopt some universal rule set. That is not freedom, it is oppression.

Nation-states are a very modern phenomenon, I don't think any ancient polities really fit the bill. Athens and Sparta, or Thebes and Miletos, had very different cultures even if they shared some things in common as Greek. They had lots of people from other cultures coming and going, their political hierarchies were ill-defined and far less complex than those of modern states. This isn't a controversial take, you're pretty far out of step with all of history and political science if you equate Ancient Greece to industrial Germany.

Again, I am not talking about a "greek" nation or culture. I am talking about each of the individual city states of the period. Each of them individually fit all the required parameters to be considered a nation.
They all had internally the same language and general culture, held territory and had a government. The fact their governments were different from what we know today is hardly a disqualifying factor. There is no specific form of government that is a must for nations. Neither is having a culture very similar and connected to your neighbors. See Germany and Austria. And yes, they had people from foreign lands coming and going but again, so do modern nations. Does this invalidate modern nations? What matters is that in that diversity they still shared a common identity and cultural practices. A common desired and expected way of life.


Again, we are not talking about ethic but cultural identy here. Ethnic identity is a modernish invention that is frankly worthless.

...read that back to yourself.

Your evidence is just that it kept happening, not that it is inherently better in some way. Do you have any actual metrics beyond "those people thought it was good enough"? Social outcomes, economic outcomes? Anything?

What more do you need? If the entirety of human civilization for the entirety of human history solves the same problem with the same solution AND they also explicitly define your ideal world as the PROBLEM that needs solving how is that not evidence enough? How else am I supposed to prove that people don't like being stuck in multi cultural empires than by pointing out historical examples of people that didn't like being stuck in them? What standard of evidence would you accept other than observation? There literally is nothing else when it comes to history and human nature. Even the best of our science into the human mind is still fundamentally just observation and theories based there on.