I'd say yes....It wouldn't be easy. I think the model is the United states or great Britain.
My idea of it is
1. The house would have one seat per nation. We'd be equals. Kind of like North Dakota is to California. 200+ nations.
2. The senate would be a few dozen senators that would be elected from the house or some hybrid system. This body would work a lot like the United states senate in have the power to place judges on the supreme court and confirm nominees of the admin. This body would also keep the presidency in check and enforce the constitution.
3. The presidency/executive. Maybe this would be elected by the largest party in the house and work towards global census. I think that would be the fairest way to do it at this level as no one would have too much power.
The presidency could be more like the prime minister as he'd also be the head of the house.
A constitution could be written and agreed to by all 200+ nations. I'd hope with the goals of peace, working together and a better future for humanity.
What do you think of my concepts.
Is a federation of nations or a world government possible?
-
weatheriscool
- Posts: 24486
- Joined: Sun May 16, 2021 6:16 pm
- Contact:
Re: Is a federation of nations or a world government possible?
Probably not.
It would be a giant cluster F trying to make this happen with anti revisionist socialist states. (Socialism is not going to be a major force before AGI)
Under Capitalism an imperialist country wants to exploit others not become one country with the third world.
Communism and abundance/post scarcity are basically the same thing. States should wither away when not needed.
I could see us having global organizations akin to the UN, a Global version of NASA etc
It would be a giant cluster F trying to make this happen with anti revisionist socialist states. (Socialism is not going to be a major force before AGI)
Under Capitalism an imperialist country wants to exploit others not become one country with the third world.
Communism and abundance/post scarcity are basically the same thing. States should wither away when not needed.
I could see us having global organizations akin to the UN, a Global version of NASA etc
Re: Is a federation of nations or a world government possible?
Right now? Absolutely not.
In the future? Definitely possible. I think it'll be a great question to seriously think about during the 22nd century. Humanity could be very different by that point.
In short:
In the future? Definitely possible. I think it'll be a great question to seriously think about during the 22nd century. Humanity could be very different by that point.
Current politics would make this sort of thing impossible.weatheriscool wrote: ↑Sat Feb 18, 2023 2:34 am A constitution could be written and agreed to by all 200+ nations. I'd hope with the goals of peace, working together and a better future for humanity.
In short:
I'm just a bird who escapes his cage to post here sometimes.
-
funkervogt
- Posts: 1365
- Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 3:03 pm
Re: Is a federation of nations or a world government possible?
We're not close to agreeing to that.
Re: Is a federation of nations or a world government possible?
Good luck getting China to agree to freedom of speech. Or Saudi Arabia to agree to freedom of religion. Or the USA to commit to not bombing random patches of desert in this new world nation.
Re: Is a federation of nations or a world government possible?
Good luck in integrating everyone.
●●●●●●●●●
-
funkervogt
- Posts: 1365
- Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 3:03 pm
Re: Is a federation of nations or a world government possible?
In the next 100 years, the only way we could have a world government is if an AGI takes over the planet.
Re: Is a federation of nations or a world government possible?
It's certainly possible. A more interesting question in my view would be what are the pre-requisites that would be needed to achieve this? Assuming a peaceful transition to world government as opposed to some future dictator conquering the entire world which is quite unlikely.
The two big ones for me would be:
1. Everyone can speak, communicate and be understood by each other presently this is not possible at the minute due to language barriers but with the future invention of perfect real time language translation this issue will go away
2. Every country has transitioned to a liberal democracy
The two big ones for me would be:
1. Everyone can speak, communicate and be understood by each other presently this is not possible at the minute due to language barriers but with the future invention of perfect real time language translation this issue will go away
2. Every country has transitioned to a liberal democracy
-
Nanotechandmorefuture
- Posts: 478
- Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 6:15 pm
- Location: At the moment Miami, FL
Re: Is a federation of nations or a world government possible?
Closest thing would be the United Nations in the always desperately marketed state of New York. If it ever evolved into official global government this could easily be a way for a politician to upgrade so to say in the USA. Besides finance, United Nations, and maybe some random stuff there really is nothing better in North East especially New York City New York that you can find out West USA with better environment. There is no need to rag on it anymore than its existence already does anyway since there are quite a bit of New Yorkers down where I am currently at and over the years I heard all I needed to about that hellhole.weatheriscool wrote: ↑Sat Feb 18, 2023 2:34 am I'd say yes....It wouldn't be easy. I think the model is the United states or great Britain.
My idea of it is
1. The house would have one seat per nation. We'd be equals. Kind of like North Dakota is to California. 200+ nations.
2. The senate would be a few dozen senators that would be elected from the house or some hybrid system. This body would work a lot like the United states senate in have the power to place judges on the supreme court and confirm nominees of the admin. This body would also keep the presidency in check and enforce the constitution.
3. The presidency/executive. Maybe this would be elected by the largest party in the house and work towards global census. I think that would be the fairest way to do it at this level as no one would have too much power.
The presidency could be more like the prime minister as he'd also be the head of the house.
A constitution could be written and agreed to by all 200+ nations. I'd hope with the goals of peace, working together and a better future for humanity.
What do you think of my concepts.
Re: Is a federation of nations or a world government possible?
Yes, but only after most if not all government work is done by AI. As long as humans with their greed for power are allowed to seek political positions of power such a federation or world government is impossible. Differences born out of power struggles will always prevent it. AI is the only way it can happen.
Re: Is a federation of nations or a world government possible?
I find it more likely that the "state" as we think of it today as this formalized national body with a monopoly on violence will cease to exist entirely. In that ceasing it doesn't follow that a universal body of control will form, rather, the opposite. For most of human history there was no state. There were societies and cultures and complexity but no state. Even at the dawn of urbanism is took millennia for the state to form out of almost universally egalitarian societies, and those societies resisted this change vigorously where they could. During this birth of civilization the first cities and towns were generally egalitarian and stateless, and very rarely warlike. See Caral, Catalhoyuk, and others.
Throughout the history of the many empires that followed the state was rarely so organized as it is today. The concept of a hard border and restriction on the freedom of movement is only a 20th century phenomena. This understandably comes as shocking in context of past slave empires and the horrors of colonialism. But it must be kept in context that the state's power for all its horrors in past centuries and especially on the timescale of millennia came in ebbs and flows, especially before the industrial revolution. The state would gain control over a region and subjugate it's people, then for a variety of reasons it would collapse, break apart, and recede before another state would come and take its place, sometimes, soon thereafter, other times not for decades or centuries. And through all this ebb and flow the state was never universal, it still isn't today. The people of the deep Amazon have no state and no state controls them. Many other people today still do not participate in financial systems or many of the formalized institutions of their "countries" even though we show these institutions as having jurisdiction over them on a map.
I won't write about the reasons for this gradual shift towards more controlling larger modern states right now, this post would be too long and I wouldn't do the information justice compared to self-study; this is the root of my vagueness in the paragraphs above in respect to the fine details. Moreover, there is simply too much ideological bias that people who take the state as a given have for any individual on a forum to overcome. The topics to study in order to understand are anarchism, marxism, anthropology, sociology, economics, and political philosophy, particularly concerning Thomas Hobbes and the many fans and detractors he's had over the years such as Fredy Perlman. Within the forms that are political be sure to read primary sources, not anyone's opinions or propaganda on those sources. Within the schools that are not explicitly political focus on study of human forms of organization prior to, during, and after the transition from stateless societies to states. What were people motivated by before and after the state and why? How and why did organized violence first occur? What role does violence play in politics today? Why does the state hold a monopoly on violence, how is it used? These are all very important questions.
But I do think it follows that humanity won't remain in this fragile fleeting form of organization for much longer on a historical timescale. It's completely unsustainable both socially and ecologically and while it doesn't imply that we will simply retrace our history and revert to prior stateless forms of society (a reactionary conclusion,) it does imply that statelessness is possible and at the very least this form of the state we experience today is temporary.
Personally I hope for some version of Greg Egan's future outlined in his novel Diaspora. A myriad of free polises teeming with beautiful minds sharing a digital soup while the physical world holds hundreds if not thousands of different human species all freely participating in their relationship with the broader ecosystem.
See the Setting and Premise section.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora_(novel)
Throughout the history of the many empires that followed the state was rarely so organized as it is today. The concept of a hard border and restriction on the freedom of movement is only a 20th century phenomena. This understandably comes as shocking in context of past slave empires and the horrors of colonialism. But it must be kept in context that the state's power for all its horrors in past centuries and especially on the timescale of millennia came in ebbs and flows, especially before the industrial revolution. The state would gain control over a region and subjugate it's people, then for a variety of reasons it would collapse, break apart, and recede before another state would come and take its place, sometimes, soon thereafter, other times not for decades or centuries. And through all this ebb and flow the state was never universal, it still isn't today. The people of the deep Amazon have no state and no state controls them. Many other people today still do not participate in financial systems or many of the formalized institutions of their "countries" even though we show these institutions as having jurisdiction over them on a map.
I won't write about the reasons for this gradual shift towards more controlling larger modern states right now, this post would be too long and I wouldn't do the information justice compared to self-study; this is the root of my vagueness in the paragraphs above in respect to the fine details. Moreover, there is simply too much ideological bias that people who take the state as a given have for any individual on a forum to overcome. The topics to study in order to understand are anarchism, marxism, anthropology, sociology, economics, and political philosophy, particularly concerning Thomas Hobbes and the many fans and detractors he's had over the years such as Fredy Perlman. Within the forms that are political be sure to read primary sources, not anyone's opinions or propaganda on those sources. Within the schools that are not explicitly political focus on study of human forms of organization prior to, during, and after the transition from stateless societies to states. What were people motivated by before and after the state and why? How and why did organized violence first occur? What role does violence play in politics today? Why does the state hold a monopoly on violence, how is it used? These are all very important questions.
But I do think it follows that humanity won't remain in this fragile fleeting form of organization for much longer on a historical timescale. It's completely unsustainable both socially and ecologically and while it doesn't imply that we will simply retrace our history and revert to prior stateless forms of society (a reactionary conclusion,) it does imply that statelessness is possible and at the very least this form of the state we experience today is temporary.
Personally I hope for some version of Greg Egan's future outlined in his novel Diaspora. A myriad of free polises teeming with beautiful minds sharing a digital soup while the physical world holds hundreds if not thousands of different human species all freely participating in their relationship with the broader ecosystem.
See the Setting and Premise section.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora_(novel)