-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
what year do you expect the world to come together as one nation
- Thread starter EhoaVash
- Start date
This isn't a very good argument. We have an extant state with 1.4 billion people.
teruterubozu
Member
That's pretty much what I meant, that history doesn't move towards an abstract idea of some kind of collective utopia.
SwiftDeath
Member
Please clarify if the death of the human race via nuclear devastation, chemical weapons, biological weapons or the heat death of the universe counts as coming together as one nation
Fenderputty
Banned
These were just my thoughts about how removing scarcity would help bring about a unification. It's just about removing some wedges. Not all. Which it seems like we agree on.
If my Utopian future sounds Marxist, it's probably because society would need to be at a place in which Marxist ideals can function before we could potentially unify!
I would say I'm a social democrat in reality. I do not believe we're at a point, technologically, where a true socialized country/economy could exist. Until that time regulated capitalism is best. In all honesty, the school of thought regarding socialism I think makes the most sense is probably the most bastardized version. Market based socialism (yeah right I know lol)
This is why I brought up a need for a higher state of intelligence. Maybe genetically, as another poster suggested, but also possibly through mechanical means. Think ghost in the shell modifications. If all humans born after 2050 started with 100x the mental capacity of what we currently think of as intelligence, where does that take us? Do the concepts of racism and political ideology even make sense in that scenario?
Well here's the thing. It might be moving towards that, we should just be aware that this isn't out of some Hegelian dialectic that means that it must be moving towards the better.
These were just my thoughts about how removing scarcity would help bring about a unification. It's just about removing some wedges. Not all. Which it seems like we agree on.
Here's the thing though. Many conflicts are over access to resources, but nothing about the question actually requires a reduction in conflict. I think the end of scarcity would be helpful towards a Utopian ideal, but I don't think its necessarily, let alone sufficient, for a single state.
I wasn't saying your future sounded Marxist, I was saying your reasoning struck me as Marxist. It seemed at least somewhat historical materialist.
I mean I think this is too far in the realm of technological counterfactual for us to actually say anything based on our current social models.
I'm not sure why increased "intelligence" means the end of racism or political-philosophy. I mean it's possible I suppose.
teruterubozu
Member
Alien invasion keeps coming up but how is that gonna unite the world? When has there ever been a 100% consensus on how to fight the enemy?
George Washington
Member
Never
Edit: alien invasion and by then its too late
Edit: alien invasion and by then its too late
Uhhh, yes it did?
Moose Biscuits
It would be extreamly painful...
AuthenticM
Member
never happening, nor should it
I was going to post something like this.
We did not have nations in the sense of the word that currently exists 500 years ago. There were states. Nation essentially meant something similar to race or macro-ethnic group. The closest thing to modern nations would have been the city states of Northern Italy.
I don't think the ocean is what's stopping a unitary state from forming. We've also had lots of examples of trans-oceanic states.
HazySaiyan
Banned
2XXX
Never
pixelation
Member
Is never a year?
Polioliolio
Member
It will happen. The way a single corporation can prosper all over the world today, is just the start.
The world has never been as connected as it is today. And now we have apps and games and international connectivity on the internet. Corporations will bring everyone closer. Governments will bend to corporate interests.
The question is, will the one world government be evil, or in the interest of individuals?
The world has never been as connected as it is today. And now we have apps and games and international connectivity on the internet. Corporations will bring everyone closer. Governments will bend to corporate interests.
The question is, will the one world government be evil, or in the interest of individuals?
This is rather odd logic. It's essentially A can happen, A and B have similarities, therefore B must happen.
This is a better argument, but you need to make some sort of argument for why "bringing everyone closer" means there will be a single state. Historically this doesn't really pan out that well.
This is just a random assumption.
This.
MetalGearZed
Member
is that when Half-Life 3 gets announced?
I think probably not until technology makes the world an even smaller space and also reduces scarcity to a minimum
?
Governments already bend to corporate interests all the time.
?
Governments already bend to corporate interests all the time.
They also sometimes don't? That's bad logic. A thing sometimes being true now does not guarantee that it must be true at a specific point in the future. Which is the most generous way to read that.
Underrated post
Fenderputty
Banned
This is true. My mind went to a Utopian unification. Maybe because I've been watching too much start trek lol, but I suppose an authoritarian unification could potentially occur as well. It might even be more likely, honestly. In that scenario a unification isn't really a good thing.
See above. Mostly likely because I approached this scenario through a Utopian perspective and not in a more holistic approach.
Sure, but we're in a thread asking for a specific date in which some wild hypothetical unification could happen. At least from the Utopian perspective, conjecture seems like all we can muster.
I suppose it doesn't guarantee things change, but if we're all more logical well reasoned people, one would hope our actions would follow suit. We're operating under the premise that racism is wrong. There isn't wiggle room there. So well reasoned people should come to the correct conclusion easier than someone who's more easily manipulated. Same thing with politics and economics. There may not be a right or wrong, but there is a better and best. Both things that should be easier to discern with a larger mental capacity. We even have evidence which show that a higher education leads to more liberal beliefs via voting patterns.
If we're all genetically modified beings on equal footing, how does one even square the concept of racial superiority? Especially if we're all much less ignorant.
That shares, for the large part, a common language (though with differing dialects), culture and history. And does so with a kind of authority and brutality that gets more difficult to enforce the more people you throw in.
And even then you sort of have fray around the edges with say, Taiwan, Tibet, the Uighurs.
Something about human society would pretty fundamentally need to change.
The title question isn't when are we all the same person though, it's when would there be a single nation, by which he probably meant state. I grant that the OP itself did essentially ask when everyone will be the exact same, but that's a terrible question not worth thinking about.
Sleight of Jam
Banned
We'll destroy ourselves long before it could be discussed.
Robot Pants
Member
Whatever year the aliens invade. And even then its a long shot
But it's a social question. Allowing for something that destroys our social models, i.e. changing what humans are, means that we have nothing with which to posit conjecture. I think more meaningful conjecture requires us to assume that humans don't biologically change that much.
I know a lot of smart people. They are far less likely to be racist, but a lot of them still are. I don't think racism is purely a lack of intelligence, it's in large part a culture.
But when it comes to political thought I find smarter people are far more ideologically varied than the average joe. I'm also quite convinced there is no platonic best. There are however various value models which suggest that certain structures are better at a specific juncture.
Part of your problem with how your thinking about political thought here is that you have it on merely a scale, and that scale is based on American politics which are so far to the right that one side is a joke. When we move into saner waters better comes more into question.
SlipperyFishes
Banned
When the human race dies out and we're just a future races archaeology dig.
Fuck, this was my 5000th post here on GAF. Aliens please remember this moment fondly.
Fuck, this was my 5000th post here on GAF. Aliens please remember this moment fondly.
I would also agree with never except maybe if there is some event that will be humankinds extinction if we don't come together. Even then I don't think that unity would last very long after said event is over.
I do genuinely believe that people are instinctively selfish and that hasn't changed since the dawn of the species. As long as everyone wants more than their neighbor we're never gonna get along
I do genuinely believe that people are instinctively selfish and that hasn't changed since the dawn of the species. As long as everyone wants more than their neighbor we're never gonna get along
One of the main superpowers up and coming is an authoritarian officially atheist state where religion is controlled or outright banned. They have an almoat 700 million population of irreligion aka no religion. There are 1.3 million+ mainland Chinese with almost 900 million being homogenous ethnic Han Chinese. Nationalism is on the rise and recently you had a recent fovernment sponsored brownface moment where State journalist and anchors mocked Sikh Indians as dirty with bearsds and turbans and slow. Ain't no kumbaya hand holding happening anytime soon and it has nothing to do with religion.
KoopaTheCasual
Junior Member
The year after violent aliens invade and vow to eradicate humanity
Nothing about being the same person, but states and nationalism are facilitated by those types of commonalities. Common words, common flags, common legends, common cultures, common politics, between its citizens and territory, and as China shows us notably with Taiwan, you get stress even then.
Now imagine trying to merge the Chinese state with say, the Indian state. How would that even work? It wouldn't without changing something fundamental about how people organise their societies.
BibiMaghoo
Member
It would take an apocalypse scenario of pretty serious proportions for it to be possible, and by that point our numbers and boarders will be meaningless.
So whatever year that is.
So whatever year that is.
Sometimes, but not always. Look at empires.
Conquest is a pretty obvious example. Institutional pressure, like how all states are essentially Western style now, is another.
If we're looking democratically then federalization is also possible.
Nothing about the question requires fundamentally different people.
When someone finally wins. I'm sure there are planets with nations whose brains work fundamentally different from ours that could allow it. Who knows if such things are any more creative than ants though.
Tech is pretty amazing though. I dunno. Let's say 2300. We'll fight over VR ecosystems maybe.
Tech is pretty amazing though. I dunno. Let's say 2300. We'll fight over VR ecosystems maybe.
So you're saying communication and cultural similarities are extremely important factors. Tell me, over time do you see communication becoming more difficult and less common? And cultures becoming more alien to each other?