A Singular, Global Society Would Be Most Sufficient For Humanity, Persuade Me Otherwise

TKDB

Humanity isn't anywhere close to being ready, for the hypothetical argument you're proposing? 

"A Singular, Global Society Would Be Most Sufficient For Humanity, Persuade Me Otherwise"

Because nuclear weapons, chemical and biological weapons, guns, anarchy, gangs, how individual humans corrupt Religion for their own needs, along with Abortion, and humanities addiction to illegal drugs, are already making your argument, fictional to say the least? 

Humanity doesn't want to be sufficient, because there's no profit to be gained from it. 

ZeusAres42

When AI's take over the world that will actually probably happen. I bet you didn't know that Terminator was based on a true story right?

MayCaesar

One hive-minded society in which everyone acts as a whole and the individuality is erased - is one of the best starting points for building a dystopian sci-fi world. If this ever comes to pass on Earth, humanity will be dead, and we will turn into mindless drones serving the will of the collective.

Nations should disappear eventually, but in a way that leads to the opposite outcome: to the individual being freed from any collective control, any notion of "we" with regards to those he/she is not interested in interacting with. 

How popular collectivism is becoming in the modern world is truly a scary trend to observe. People are willingly giving up on all the achievements of the last 2,500 years of civilisation and want to go back to the horrible tribal times, when everyone was a subject to the collective control, and anyone who deviated from the central planners' design was banished into the abyss. Only they now want one single tribe, consisting of billions people. How awful this idea is, I cannot describe in words.

ZeusAres42

MayCaesar said:

One hive-minded society in which everyone acts as a whole and the individuality is erased - is one of the best starting points for building a dystopian sci-fi world. If this ever comes to pass on Earth, humanity will be dead, and we will turn into mindless drones serving the will of the collective.

Hence, also one of the reasons for my joke comment above about Terminator and Artificial Intelligence.

Thomasius

@TKDB
There are indeed many issues that face humanity currently, however, wouldn't you say some of the potential ills in these times could be healed by humanity across the globe being granted universal civil rights and economic opportunity? Also, couldn't it be argued that there could be a transitional process by which the collective populaces of each nation go about ways to ensure mutual ease into a singular, global solidification?

Thomasius

@MayCaesar
You seem to presume that a global human society is synonymous with a global hivemind dystopia, but this doesn't have to be the case at all. We can forge a global order upon the basis of inalienable civil rights and with the agenda of producing a society in which all, both from a collective and individual standpoint, are able to attain prosperity in life. 

Thomasius

@TKDB
Additionally, yes, humanity at this point may not yet be ready for such a transition. That's why we'd need a movement across the world which would encourage such efforts. In reality, it may not even be an immediate totality of the world's populace, but a gradual unification of former national territories that expands upon other nations' peoples accepting such offers in time.

TKDB

@Thomasius

I hope that humanity takes the hint, and avoids your fictional conversation.

"Additionally, yes, humanity at this point may not yet be ready for such a transition."

"That's why we'd need a movement across the world which would encourage such efforts. In reality, it may not even be an immediate totality of the world's populace, but a gradual unification of former national territories that expands upon other nations' peoples accepting such offers in time.,

The word's from some on the internet, not unlike your "Thinking, is just as scary as some of the thinking that this or that "Movement," laments over through the uses of their own rhetoric;

The NRA,
Black Lives Matters,
The White Supremacy groups, or Militias,
The pro Marijuana Industry,
The pro Illegal Immigrant groups,
The pro Abortion movement,
The pro Non Violent drug offender movement,
The Pro Offender, or Criminal movement, and so on.
Along with some of the other Movements on the internet, that I won't give credit to, by mentioning their "Brand of rhetoric," names. 

Thomasius

@TKDB
I'm not understanding your point, as it's kind of all over the place to me. Can you boil it down to a more concise point of rebuttal?

Plaffelvohfen

Thomasius said:

@MayCaesar
You seem to presume that a global human society is synonymous with a global hivemind dystopia, but this doesn't have to be the case at all. We can forge a global order upon the basis of inalienable civil rights and with the agenda of producing a society in which all, both from a collective and individual standpoint, are able to attain prosperity in life. 

I have to agree. Some sort of democratic planetary republic of 195 states, I don't see the problem with that...

Thomasius

@Plaffelvohfen
I'm confused, you agreed with the post in which you're replying to but seem to disagree in your reply by the nature of the sentiment of your reply. Am I misreading something or?

대왕광개토

Building a single global society seems to be extremely defficult due to conflicting beliefs, traditions, cultures, and social systems. Though possible, it will take very long time to build such kind of society only by means of peaceful movement. A hypothetical situation I can think of that will not only speed up the process of building a single global society but also firmly create a sense of unity among people is that in which all humans face shared imminent danger like alien invasion(not necessarily). The idea is that people in a certain area tend to unite when they are attacked by outsiders.

MayCaesar

@Thomasius

It is naive to think that one centralised government that rules the entire planet will worry more about preserving its constituents' rights, than expanding its influence. But even if we assume that this government can somehow be noble, it still cannot possibly speak for everyone. Different people have different beliefs, and different groups of people have different beliefs. Forcing the same political system on Japanese people as the one Brazilian people live under is not going to work; people are going to protest, and force will be needed to pacify them. It would be a mess.

I do not want centralisation; I want the opposite, full decentralisation, to the point where each individual is their own master. I fail to see why I should delegate preservation of my rights to some people in Brussels or wherever else, who know nothing about my life, my preferences and my plans.

Plaffelvohfen

@Thomasius

I agree with you that it would be more effective than the present situation...  If we consider the basic principles underlying the US constitution, if those principles are sound and good, then we can imagine a planetary version, a "U.S.E." or United States of Earth, it should work the same, right? No need to go the hive mind way for a planetary system...

MayCaesar

@Plaffelvohfen ;

I would argue that the principles do not even work well in the US, as you see individual states constantly try to push through anti-constitutional laws. Some states, such as California or Texas, even have strong secessionist movements.

That is just on a land of 300 million people, with common history and culture. What would it be like when applied universally, throughout Earth? I do not see it working out. One could make the argument that in the age of communications we live in, where people from all over the world become connected, we are becoming more and more similar, and one day the similarity will reach the level when we all have effectively the same culture and values - but I am skeptical that this would be the case, as even nowadays we see huge nations, such as Russia or China, that refuse to comply with the general democratisation trends and stick to old authoritarian models, and we have the entire Middle East where religious fanatism never departed the cultures.

If one day absolutely all countries have similar political systems and cultures, then perhaps some organisation similar to UN, but with a bit of a real power, could arise. But then, if all countries already have similar political systems and cultures anyway, then what do we need this organisation for?

It is the case where the problems that the organisation is supposed to address need to already be gone in order for the organisation to be viable, defeating the purpose of the model.

Thomasius

@Plaffelvohfen
I see what you're saying and I agree ultimately, though I think there may very well need to be different structures to best integrate and coordinate a planetary populace.

Thomasius

@MayCaesar

Your point on centralized government is a fallacy, as it presumes the means of governing this global populace is necessarily going to be this central entity that’s a cabal of corrupt individuals, but these things all depend on how government is designed, which can mean many things for hierarchies and all dynamics at play. For your claim on efficacy, again, this goes by the presumption that the means to govern this global populace is this singular entity, when this doesn’t have to be the case at all. We can structure and institute levels of governance that operate in ways so that both ordinance on a supreme and more regional or localized level can be achieved. As for having a same political system apply to all, this is a fallacy as it is directly structuring the outcome of taking these populations as they currently are overnight and forcing them to abide by a sudden new set of standards. To truly achieve a sufficient global accord, this would involve these currently national populaces being persuaded and influenced over time to join this global union and decide for themselves to forfeit their national identity to join the actualizing global order, and we can have mutual agreements upon which the populaces of various nations decide for themselves best how to transition themselves into the planetary government, along with other potential measures. To respond to your last point on rights, I don’t see how joining a global accord would mean you’d have to relinquish all these rights, and, again, ordinance can be structured to where there are regional and local branches of global order by which the needs of individual populaces can be met.

AlofRI

Nuclear weapons would be useless. We would move into the time of "Captain Kirk". There would be no poor countries, no rich countries, no "U.S. versus them", poverty would be the concern of everyone, education would be the concern of everyone, we could fly on either side of the road  , women wouldn't have to cover themselves in some places ,, and there would be no trade wars ……….. nice. 

AmericanFurryBoy

No. No it wouldn’t work. The whole reason the Roman Empire fell is because it got too big for any one government to sustain it. Also, the law is the law. There would be no other country for you to move/flee to if you didn’t like the laws or if you were being persecuted based on a variety of personal values/looks

piloteer

@AlofRI

"Poverty would be the concern of everyone"?!?!? Since when did it become a good thing to have our concerns forced upon us like we're dogs? Will it also become outlawed to care about yourself more than the rest of society? 

@Thomasius

If AlofRIs vision of a "global government" is similar, to your vision, then I'd have to say it would be a $hit show. If it's just another scam to make individualism go away, then it should go away!!!!!
If I can't be more important to myself than everybody else, then your global government can go fu€k itself. 



Not you though, you don't need to go fu€k yourself      

ZeusAres42

AmericanFurryBoy said:

No. No it wouldn’t work. The whole reason the Roman Empire fell is because it got too big for any one government to sustain it. Also, the law is the law. There would be no other country for you to move/flee to if you didn’t like the laws or if you were being persecuted based on a variety of personal values/looks

It wouldn't work with humans no. But what about with artificial intelligence? Now there's a different story. Or have I been watching too much of Terminator lately?

Thomasius

@AmericanFurryBoy ;

Governmental stability isn’t just a matter of size but also of structure, and we can have a global society integrated with various hierarchies of governing order to manage universal law as well as regional and local ordinance. To your second point on persecution, laws in this hypothetical society may very likely be predicated, at least to some degree, upon regional and local territories, not just as the result of some monolithic governing entity, so laws can be subject to territorial jurisdictions. Also, if laws are found to be unsuitable by one or more individuals, the citizenry, ideally, should have the capacity to start organizing the people to address and petition the specific governing hierarchy at hand. And, also, a global society would not be sufficient if people could be persecuted on values or looks, whatever you may exactly be implying by that, and so I’d definitely agree that governance should be carefully designed and orchestrated to ensure no such incidents can occur.

Thomasius

@piloteer

Why would individualism be stripped away by this global society? Couldn’t we have a global society where the people are able to ultimately pursue their own interests but nonetheless contribute to society through things like labor, innovation and monetary contribution?

piloteer

@Thomasius

Having to contribute to society through labor IS a measure of stripping away our individualism. If we are working for the "common good", we are not working for ourselves. If we are expected to serve a purpose for society, then whatever that purpose may be, it's not for ourselves. Do you question the merit of letting people be free to achieve their own innovations, and do you question whether that freedom would not actually be more advantageous to the vast majority of society?       

Thomasius

@piloteer
Societal contribution is a necessary absolute in order for any kind of society to manifest, as literally all societies by definition can only arise if people are willing to engage in one another to forge varying outcomes and goals. As to your point on common good, wouldn't you indeed be working for yourself in the sense that you'd be a part of the same common good that you'd and others would be benefiting through contribution? I don't question the ability for people to achieve their own innovations, but, as with all societies, certain individual liberties have to be relinquished so that the people can forge a functional government that can provide others. On your other question, I do not see how a global society would contradict the notion of people being free to pursue innovations, given necessary constraints for law and order to be functional and sufficient.

piloteer

@Thomasius

I call into question your definition of "manifest", "contribution", and "liberties".

Liberty:

Exactly what  individual liberties must be diminished or relinquished to forge a functional government? The definition of liberty is not set in stone and can be interpreted vastly different from person to person. An anarchists (like me) interpretation of liberty can mean any kind of government or societal authority is invalid, so ANY kind of mandates imposed by them would be a violation of our liberty. But of course there are those who do not consider anarchy to be a pragmatic approach to societal matters, so they may feel that certain things that an anarchist would consider liberties are just impractical for a functional society to exist. They may consider things like freedom of expression and personal property to be within the framework of a functional society, but let's be honest, once those liberties are seen as threats to our society, those options can be cast aside easily. A more authoritarian approach to liberty would not place the importance of liberty on individuals, but rather on collective liberties. Those liberties tend to be used in a sense of liberty "from" certain abstract concepts like chaos or economic oppression. Those interpretations are only but a few stark differences in the myriad of interpretations of what liberty is. Where do you fall into this category?

Contribution:

This can mean "a gift or payment to a common fund or collection" (like for instance a tax). But it could also mean "the part played by a person or thing in bringing about a result or helping something to advance." If your use of the word "contribution" relates to the first definition of the term, then obviously it would be very difficult for me to refute that because some form of contribution must exist for a functional society to exist, but if your interpretation applies to the second definition of contribution, then I'll be all over that like stink on $hit, because it would be very difficult, or even impossible for you to prove that we as individuals must play some sort of predetermined role for the sake of some conceptual "end means", or "goal" other than individual goals. Societies can function without any predetermined collective goals, and they can function only for the sake of individual goals, because they have. We can function as a society without a system meritocracy in place. Although contribution is not quite as abstract a concept as liberty, you can't convince me that our worth must be applied to, or for, a predetermined collective goal.  

Manifest:

Using this term to make it seem like any of the other functional terms in your argument are somehow set in stone, and therefore without the need for interpretation is a tad shallow, and I'm convinced you might be trying to use the obtuse nature of your argument on purpose, but you are in fact very aware of the incompleteness of your argument. "Manifest" is also another abstract concept that means to "make things clear" , or to point out the "obviousness" of a concept, but since the other two terms you're using as a fulcrum for your argument are abstract, or have alternative meanings, this term also is murky when it's applied in your argument. You seem to be holding back with some of the ideals you are actually espousing in your argument, so the word manifest now becomes impotent.

How can you prove to me that the second definition of contribution is what is needed " in order for any kind of society to manifest? I am also not persuaded that your concept of liberty is not corrupted by idealistic rhetoric used to appeal to emotion rather than objective argumentation.    

MayCaesar

@Thomasius

You assume that it is all a matter of organisation; that should we build a system just right, it will be stable and corruption-free. Yet historical experience suggests that this is not the case.

There is more to an entity than just how this entity is organised at a given moment. What is much more important is how this entity evolves in time, what incentives it has to stay where it is or move in various directions, how resistant it is to individuals with malicious intent taking a hold of it and so on. And all governments, especially the large centralised ones, have incredibly poor record in this regard.

But suppose we (Who are "we" in any case? Am I a major participant in the process, or only a passive observer?) manage to build a completely error-proof perfect system. A system perhaps maintained by emotionless robots with error-free programming. Not prone to corruption in any way. Having only the interest of people in mind.
Would this be a desirable system? Not from my perspective. I do not want to be governed by anyone, not even the most benevolent creatures. I want to live in a system in which I govern my own life and interact with others in purely consensual way. And a world government system is antithetic to that desire.

It baffles me how many people on the West, the very place where the individual freedom movement originated back at the times of the Ancient Greece, are willing to exchange individual freedoms for some degree of comfort and stability. Maybe there is something wrong with me, but I have never wanted comfort and stability. What I have always wanted is choice and opportunity, and that is not something a globalised government is going to respect.