Should earth unify or remain divided?

[Chan Island]

In the long term it would be desirable to have such an entity. The trend of human society has always headed towards working with larger and larger groups, from tribes to villages to citystates, to empires and nowadays countries.

I don't think it will happen in our lifetimes however, we are just about seeing the birth pangs of strong continental unions, and even that is a heavily contested step at the moment. Not to mention the historically very unique situation of where separatism is a workable, viable strategy (the fact that the 20th century was the first one which ended with more countries on the world map than at the start is a significance that is often lost on people), which alongside some interesting outcomes of digital communities and the global gradual differentiation between the politics of cities and rural areas means that there are some strong reasons why it might not even happen at all.

Still, a one world government (assuming it's not a hegemonic dictatorship or collapsed into anarchy) would represent a triumph of human goodwill and cooperation very much worth dreaming for.

[Punished UMN]

Well looked here, I have a fix, a very, very simple fix. Unite all world countries under one banner, but give them an extremely large amount of autonomy. So basically a bumped up version of the UN, but countries can't refuse laws set by it. Like per se the International Court of Justice can actually persecute war criminals, or can set minimum standards of living and laws n stuff (mostly in a constitution), whilst states can still make a good amount of decisions, like over their economy just with some standards. We still get the benefits of an international government, like one unified space agency that can far better explore space, while still not collapsing into a state of complete and utter chaos.

And again, why would any country agree to this?

[Punished UMN]

In the long term it would be desirable to have such an entity. The trend of human society has always headed towards working with larger and larger groups, from tribes to villages to citystates, to empires and nowadays countries.

I don't think it will happen in our lifetimes however, we are just about seeing the birth pangs of strong continental unions, and even that is a heavily contested step at the moment. Not to mention the historically very unique situation of where separatism is a workable, viable strategy (the fact that the 20th century was the first one which ended with more countries on the world map than at the start is a significance that is often lost on people), which alongside some interesting outcomes of digital communities and the global gradual differentiation between the politics of cities and rural areas means that there are some strong reasons why it might not even happen at all.

Still, a one world government (assuming it's not a hegemonic dictatorship or collapsed into anarchy) would represent a triumph of human goodwill and cooperation very much worth dreaming for.

No, the last 120 years have shown a trend towards balkanization of large entities.

[Plzen]

-snip-

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?

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?

[Punished UMN]

-snip-

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?

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?

1) States will enforce it.
2) They are members of the global community and thus have the incentive to act in favor of universal interests (i.e. those interests that do not contradict their own).

[The Opinions Guy]

Humanity has been transitioning into larger and larger governments since the dawn of mankind. We've come from five-person tribes that live within a couple of kilometres of where they originate from to political bodies that govern over billions of people and hundreds of thousands of kilometres of land. Give us enough time, and we will achieve one world government; now, we're just not ready.

[Punished UMN]

Humanity has been transitioning into larger and larger governments since the dawn of mankind. We've come from five-person tribes that live within a couple of kilometres of where they originate from to political bodies that govern over billions of people and hundreds of thousands of kilometres of land. Give us enough time, and we will achieve one world government; now, we're just not ready.

Again, have you looked at the last 120 years? The world is fragmented into more states than at any point since the 1890's. If history had ended in 1914, you could make this claim.

[Plzen]

1) States will enforce it.
2) They are members of the global community and thus have the incentive to act in favor of universal interests (i.e. those interests that do not contradict their own).

So basically, people will only be protected under international regulations if they live in a strong power that can defend its own rights under international agreement, or are allied to another that is both able and interested in doing so, and absolutely nothing will stop countries from ignoring abuses of power if acting in response to them don't suit their own interests.

You'll have to understand if I don't find this status-quo situation particularly desirable.

[Punished UMN]

1) States will enforce it.
2) They are members of the global community and thus have the incentive to act in favor of universal interests (i.e. those interests that do not contradict their own).

So basically, people will only be protected under international regulations if they live in a strong power that can defend its own rights under international agreement, or are allied to another that is both able and interested in doing so, and absolutely nothing will stop countries from ignoring abuses of power if acting in response to them don't suit their own interests.

You'll have to understand if I don't find this status-quo situation particularly desirable.

States often work together to punish other states for violations of human rights.

[The Opinions Guy]

Humanity has been transitioning into larger and larger governments since the dawn of mankind. We've come from five-person tribes that live within a couple of kilometres of where they originate from to political bodies that govern over billions of people and hundreds of thousands of kilometres of land. Give us enough time, and we will achieve one world government; now, we're just not ready.

Again, have you looked at the last 120 years? The world is fragmented into more states than at any point since the 1890's. If history had ended in 1914, you could make this claim.

This is a matter of long term trends, not short term outcomes. Yes, in the past 120 years there have happened to be many large armed conflicts, but in the past 10,000 years, we have progressed from nomadic tribes to massive superstates, with many stages in between. 10,000 years from now, we will have achieved one-world government and surpassed it, perhaps creating a solar government or larger.

[Nolo gap]

i believe there is far too much obsession with the idea of soverignty.

a quietly unobtrusive and mostly annonymous world governmet protecting the rights of unarmed civilians to relocate anywhere on the planet whenever and wherever it suited their whim, and negodiate agreements with alien worlds in other solar systems would be useful.

as for administration of land use and resources, that should revert to indiginous authority and scientific guidance.

keeping people and other living things, alive and healthy is one, infrastructure is the other, of the only good reasons for governments in any form to exist.

infrastructure done right is measured by the following two conditions, its respect for and protection of the natural environment, and its service and usefulness to all, regardless of social or economic status.

there is no greatness in ostentation, but there is beauty in diversity.

[Punished UMN]

Again, have you looked at the last 120 years? The world is fragmented into more states than at any point since the 1890's. If history had ended in 1914, you could make this claim.

This is a matter of long term trends, not short term outcomes. Yes, in the past 120 years there have happened to be many large armed conflicts, but in the past 10,000 years, we have progressed from nomadic tribes to massive superstates, with many stages in between. 10,000 years from now, we will have achieved one-world government and surpassed it, perhaps creating a solar government or larger.

120 years is a long-term trend in global politics. There really hasn't been any progress towards what you're talking about since the 1890's, and that progress was achieved through the military conquest and oppression of smaller groups by larger groups. In the grand scheme of things, the scale of the largest political entities, relative to the global whole, has not increased since Julius Caesar was assassinated.

[Plzen]

States often work together to punish other states for violations of human rights.

And in general, how often do we see a non-token response to a human right or other international law violation committed by a western power? How much respect does, say, the United States have for the International Court of Justice?

What I've come to realise in the politics of my home country over the last decade or so is that my fellow countrymen expect, and even demand, that our diplomats parrot whatever the US line is because there is a realisation, not entirely untrue, that we are completely dependent on their "benevolent" protection from the dangers of international politics. Certainly the US is not shy about reminding us how poorly we'd do without their goodwill every time they have a new set of demands they want us to sign off on, each larger than the last.

I advocate for my country leaving the non-proliferation treaty and securing ourselves a more independent military, economic, and diplomatic position on the world stage, but there is ultimately a limit to how much my small country can really defend the rights it supposedly has as an independent nation. The only way I'm getting a fair international order is if international law gets a proper international government to give it some teeth. National sovereignty is something to be crushed as quickly as possible and as decisively as possible.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

A united earth government would collapse in about an hour so that's gonna be a no from me.

If it got to the point where a United Earth government became a very real possibility in the first place then I’m sure we would have gotten past all the hurdles making it impossible to begin with.

[Luziyca]

Global unification is, for all intents and purposes, less likely to happen than the Pope getting (legally) married and having kids.

[The Huskar Social Union]

I think Humanity is a long long way off from a Unified earth government imo.

[Aureumterra III]

Not possible, at all. The United Nations is the closest we’ll ever get to a world government until we face any extraterrestrial threats (because there’s nothing more unifying than a common enemy, we saw that to some degree with the coronavirus)

If a united world government had proportional representation, you’ll have most things be dominated by East Asian and South Asian interests

[Tokora]

I think it should be united but as a confederation of cultural blocs to prevent domination of one group of people over the others.

[The Blaatschapen]

The only way we get a unified earth government is if we have 1 person living at most.

Unless they person is either an economist or has multiple personality disorder, then all bets are off.

A one world government would need to be a dictatorship to have any chance of holding onto power. It would need to suppress any form of nationalism, dissent, incompatible cultures, certain religious groups, etc. It would need to have an iron handed leadership and secret police.

That one person is gonna be busy *nods*

[Plzen]

If a united world government had proportional representation, you’ll have most things be dominated by East Asian and South Asian interests

...and why is this a bad thing?

I hold that things that happen to more people are, ceteris paribus, more important.

If Asia has four times as many people as Europe, and (in the highly unrealistic scenario that) Asians are all interested in issue X while Europeans are all interested in issue Y, then issue X is four times as important and should be given four times as much consideration as issue Y. That would be the fair democratic method.

[Diahon]

Humanity has been transitioning into larger and larger governments since the dawn of mankind. We've come from five-person tribes that live within a couple of kilometres of where they originate from to political bodies that govern over billions of people and hundreds of thousands of kilometres of land. Give us enough time, and we will achieve one world government; now, we're just not ready.

Again, have you looked at the last 120 years? The world is fragmented into more states than at any point since the 1890's. If history had ended in 1914, you could make this claim.

A short-term bump, given the raison d'etre for previous efforts at consolidation -- the right to outright conquest or annex by coercion -- has been progressively undermined throughout the 20th century.

[New haven america]

Unify.

Going by Star Trek standards we are decades behind where we should be in societal development.

[The Marlborough]

It should unify under a universal monarchy led by the Austrian Habsburgs who have embraced Eastern Orthodoxy.

[New haven america]

Global unification is, for all intents and purposes, less likely to happen than the Pope getting (legally) married and having kids.

Dozens of Popes have gotten married and had kids though.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

United under a single government? Odds of that happening are astronomically low. Not even worth considering.

Now, a world-wide union akin to the EU? Potentially possible. Worth a shot.