LucidMomentum
Member
Never.
People are awful.
People are awful.
-
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
Hannor Mir
Member
After World War 3
Well, eventually the universe may collapse back into a singularity
When one tribe/race/nation of humanity commits the genocide or subjugation of all other tribes/races/nations is the time when this will happen or perhaps if Humanity came under an existential threat from Aliens Maybe. Nevertheless if we are able to wipe out the aliens we will then proceed to wipe ourselves out
BoosterDuck
Banned
sounds about right
What are the forces that are going to bring atheist, authoritarian China and Hindu Democratic India together though? I harp on them not because I see them as the biggest challenge, but because they're the states representing the most people.
Exactly what sort of institutional pressure could these two states even have to do that? Or if we're talking conquest, who is going to be strong enough to force that?
It would take such a shift in global military power or sociology that it's almost impossible to predict.
Again conquest would be one, reacting to some crisis could be another, but there are many other various other long scale historical forces would also work here.
Increasing homogenization of state structure, westernization modernization whatever you want to call it. You're talking about how these states are so different, but compare the political structure of what are now China and India 500 years ago.
I mean no one right now. I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing that it's going to happen in the immediate future. This is a weird argument given the discussion.
Yes. None of that requires people to fundamentally change.
They can facilitate it yes, but they can also be pretty easily subverted if external influence is put into play. The Korean Peninsula is an example of that.
The underlying schism in Korea for instance is not so much about the differences between the Korea people as it is the standoff between the US and China in Asia.
andythinkpad
Member
And how soon will North America secede after a Chinese or Indian, or Muslim president is elected?
I don't know when. But a nuclear holocaust will wipe out all nations.
Fenderputty
Banned
This seems like you're ignoring reality though. Unless we as a species decide against biological modification for arbitrary moral reason, that's where we are moving. Either through genetics or through mechanical means. We're not intellectually capable of solving the problems we need to solve.
That's why I agreed it isn't a guarantee that racism will or won't go poof.
That's why I included "better" and didn't leave it at "best"
I do admit that I HOPE intelligence is mostly at play here. At some point intelligence should help one see past any societal pressures. LIke I said .. if we're all genetically modified, how does one even square a racist belief. Nobody would be born with any lacking inherent qualities
Subverted in North Korea, a piddly anomoly that is under extreme pressure to normalise and most likely will in our lifetime. Meanwhile the question at play here is on a time line as long as humanity.
There is no argument for retreat from globalisation or technological advancement. Communication will occur as sure as smart phones are being smuggled into North Korea and cultures will melt as sure as South Korean DVDs are being smuggled in too.
Who is going to be strong enough? What crisis great enough?
Question of the thread is when and why, not how.
Well 500 years ago India didn't exist, but what would become India and what was China were both feudal monarchies, so they were a tad bit more similar if anything.
Also, a key principle of western modernisation developed compared to 500 years ago are the principles of self determination and nationalism, which are forces that run contrary to uniting states.
That's the question we're being asked though. When. We can't know when, if ever, because things need to change in ways that aren't predictable.
Don't believe I've argued people need to change.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
Either when the aliens invade or we just unify the globe in atomic fallout.
We have no idea whether and to what extent this is possible. This isn't ignoring reality because nothing has actually happened yet. Humans have not biologically changed in a meaningful way for the entirety of history. None of our current models could say anything about what happens if we do, on top of the fact that we don't even know what would happen and when it would happen. It's a possibility, but we just don't have the theoretical framework to tackle it in a meaningful way.
It's obviously difficult to measure really smart people are generally more similar to really dumb people of their own culture than they are to really smart people of other cultures. Culture is generally going to be more impactful than a nebulous trait like intelligence. In actuality it is of course some operation of both culture and intellect going on here, as in all thought.
I feel like racism is far more likely to be solved socially and culturally than biologically. This is of course ignoring the unfortunate implications a biological solution would have for racism as a cultural construct.
I think the "if we're all" is a key problem, the other is how genes would be selected.
North Korea exists apart from South Korea because that is how China wants it. It does not want a US ally on its border.
It is a symptom of the sort of irreconcilable division between major powers I'm talking about.
Oh yes there very much is. Nativist movements, even in the West (especially in the West) are making huge gains campaigning against globalization and cooperation politically, economically, environmentally.
That's why it's a bad question as I've been addressing throughout the thread.
Neither of them were feudal. Varies states in both were monarchical in the broadest sense of having hereditary leaders.
India and China today are both large territorial states based on some concept of nationhood and built on a Westphalian model. You are out of your mind if you think India and China were more similar to each other in the past than they are today. The Indian state is more similar to that of China of today than it is to the Indian states of 500 years ago.
Yes, I agree. I said this earlier in the thread.
I agree that this is a bad question, but that's due to degree not kind.
You're right, I was misremembering, you said would have to fundamentally change how we organize society.
I disagree with that as well, though this obviously depends on how you define fundamentally. We have multi-national states like the UK. We also have states that aren't really based on a strong conception of nationhood. Those two seem to be what you take to be the rub here.
Turns out nothing about communication means that states dissolve. France and Britain have have been in constant close communication for millennia. Turns out each have their own state.
You Pay This Much
Member
Exactly what I was thinking, then I read the next post...
Yeahhhhhh... maybe that's more likely.
Kill me.
Nor does China want a clown country on the border. Thus the pressure to normalise, from everyone. That the USA and China are not yet homogenous is nothing anyone is going to argue against. The idea that these divisions are forever irreconcilable is.
Like a pimple makes gains on an elephant's arse.
excelsiorlef
Member
Subpar Spatula
Banned
2300? That's my best guess. World is becoming more homogenized and eventually trade deals will be better suited with "zones" like the Eurozone that eventually collapse into a singular country.
Baraka Obama
Banned
When we fine an equal enemy so 2195 during the colony wars in mars.
FinaruDensetsu
Member
If aliens from outer space came and began decimating every continent, then maybe. No promises after the threat is dealt with though.
Fenderputty
Banned
Ok so, "ignoring reality" wasn't a good way to frame this. I see and understand your point. I'm not sure assuming we don't change (or much) is a good way to frame this either, even though past precedence could more easily be used to make a model.
BTW how do you plan/model for an outcome without historical precedence?
Yeah I wasn't picturing everyone becoming a homogenized white dude lol. More along the lines of choosing the less outward traits. Intelligence and empathy? It seems like some recent research suggests empathy could be affected at a genetic level.
DontTouchMe
Member
2019
SillyEskimo
Member
When the Singularity occurs within the next 100yrs.
I don't think the world will ever come together as one for some moral or political reason. I think it'll happen because technological change might make our current conception of government and the state obsolete.
For most of human history people lived in non-state societies - for all we know, this is a transitionary period in the grand scheme of things.
Humanity could hypothetically discover how to obtain limitless energy (through fusion or just well-utilized green energy sources), and there might one day be a food revolution and no one on Earth would ever starve again. A post-scarcity world might make some function of governments redundant or irrelevant.
If every human is guaranteed all the food they'd ever want or need without any human labor required, if we had perfect healthcare (let's say through some nanomachine nonsense), and the concept of money becomes solely devoted to the obtaining of luxuries instead of necessities (or money disappears altogether), I don't really see how governments could continue to exist in their current form - what would be the point of even paying taxes, given that they'd offer no real services to the public besides law enforcement? Perhaps that's all they'll then be - local police services.
Given the rate of technological change in just the past century, I'd be very surprised if we still have nations as we currently understand them in 1000 years, assuming we don't wipe ourselves out first.
For most of human history people lived in non-state societies - for all we know, this is a transitionary period in the grand scheme of things.
Humanity could hypothetically discover how to obtain limitless energy (through fusion or just well-utilized green energy sources), and there might one day be a food revolution and no one on Earth would ever starve again. A post-scarcity world might make some function of governments redundant or irrelevant.
If every human is guaranteed all the food they'd ever want or need without any human labor required, if we had perfect healthcare (let's say through some nanomachine nonsense), and the concept of money becomes solely devoted to the obtaining of luxuries instead of necessities (or money disappears altogether), I don't really see how governments could continue to exist in their current form - what would be the point of even paying taxes, given that they'd offer no real services to the public besides law enforcement? Perhaps that's all they'll then be - local police services.
Given the rate of technological change in just the past century, I'd be very surprised if we still have nations as we currently understand them in 1000 years, assuming we don't wipe ourselves out first.
A lot of sci-fi points to the key turning event that leads to one world government being a horrific calamitous war that makes people fed up with the differences that divide them
I'm not sure how viable that is, though. There's been enough ongoing sectarian violence in certain parts of the world to test that theory and it doesn't seem to be dying down. But is that simply because the grudges are that deep, or is it because there are external factors that are capitalizing on that violence?
I'll be honest with all this shit going on lately the dystopian cyberpunk future looks most likely in the US. Maybe we'll have the remains of the united states serving as little more than a home for hypercapitalistic mega corporations VS the more socially minded/governmentally-oriented rest of the world. Google, Apple, Amazon, Facebook, the telecoms,. and the oil companies VS The Eurasian Union.
I'm not sure how viable that is, though. There's been enough ongoing sectarian violence in certain parts of the world to test that theory and it doesn't seem to be dying down. But is that simply because the grudges are that deep, or is it because there are external factors that are capitalizing on that violence?
I'll be honest with all this shit going on lately the dystopian cyberpunk future looks most likely in the US. Maybe we'll have the remains of the united states serving as little more than a home for hypercapitalistic mega corporations VS the more socially minded/governmentally-oriented rest of the world. Google, Apple, Amazon, Facebook, the telecoms,. and the oil companies VS The Eurasian Union.
And yet each joined under a common jurisdiction, common customs and allowed borderless movement of their people's. Both passed over many of the responsibilities and trappings of statehood to another common party, and there has been a common identity forged, if not yet shared by all.
Ok it has been peeled back on one side, but all this after only a few millennia as you correctly point out, a minuscule amount of time given the timeline left to ponder in.
Subpar Spatula
Banned
why would we go extinct?