A borderless world – when and how?

[wjfox]

This was mentioned briefly in the Canada thread, so let's have a discussion on it.

A world in which countries have no borders, country's names are just ways of identifying land areas, and humanity has merged into one giant mixture of peoples and cultures. Everyone is free to come and go as they please.

Could this ever happen? Ever?

If so, when and how? In stages, or all at once? Could technology help to address concerns over security, resource allocation, etc.?

I'm hoping it happens in the 22nd century, but I suspect it will take much longer to come about, owing to cultural differences and ingrained prejudices. Current economic blocs will probably do it first, and it's already possible to a certain extent with the EU. But the kind of world I'm talking about would be even more porous, i.e. doing away with all passports, visas, or other travel documentation, except perhaps in exceptional circumstances.

[Ozzie guy]

This was mentioned briefly in the Canada thread, so let's have a discussion on it.

A world in which countries have no borders, country's names are just ways of identifying land areas, and humanity has merged into one giant mixture of peoples and cultures. Everyone is free to come and go as they please.

Could this ever happen? Ever?

If so, when and how? In stages, or all at once? Could technology help to address concerns over security, resource allocation, etc.?

I'm hoping it happens in the 22nd century, but I suspect it will take much longer to come about, owing to cultural differences and ingrained prejudices. Current economic blocs will probably do it first, and it's already possible to a certain extent with the EU. But the kind of world I'm talking about would be even more porous, i.e. doing away with all passports, visas, or other travel documentation, except perhaps in exceptional circumstances.

I think it will occur when humanity is firmly entrenched on other planets. When we are on other planets countries will feel akin to states or cities in the early 21st century and the world will reflect it. If we are going by mainstream societys view this feels like a 25th/26th century thing.

Of course I could throw out the obligatory after the singularity and it could occur sometime between mainstream and singularity opinions.

It would also occur if global communism is reached but like saying "after the singularity" it feels like a poor non mainstream judgement to make.

[R8Z]

There's the hypothesis that the emergence of a strong supra-national currency would be able to at least blur the lines between borders as more and more people start using a currency that is not regulated by a determined piece of land. The users of such global currency might live cross borders and make business between them, they would use a different judicial system to solve contracts in contrast to their local systems and avoid local bureaucrats as they have no way to fiddle with their transactions (with the exception of using clear-cut force to block them, aka guns to the head). The use of such supra-national currency *strongly* weakens the power a local government has as it undermines the collection of a cut of these transactions; then it would have no way to purchase its way into power by hiring armed enforcers of their arbitrary rules. Therefore borders weaken. Note that any "services" that the bureaucrats promised would also slowly become more and more limited as government loses income and their currencies hyperinflate due to undiligent currency generation (printing). Once such currency comes to light it's going to be a self-reinforcing loop due to the reasons I've listed above, any country that doesn't go into a full dictatorship and block it will slowly lose the grasp on the neck of "their citizens".

At some point in time I was a strong proponent of cryptocurrencies to fill that gap, but the more time passes it seems that the technology of our time by itself won't do the trick to ensure a trustworthy foundation for people to transact and rely with their savings and contracts. DEFI (decentralized finance, smart contracts) also with the current technology doesn't solve this problem in a manner that is usable for this purpose, as we can see by it's low usage in real use-cases. It's not that the tech is not good, it's just that people don't trust it enough. Maybe time will solve this?

Anyway, I still think the emergence of such currency is possible given enough time, but it will require either (1) a strong corporation to back it somehow (think Libra and Meta) to be able to enforce contracts and the purchasing power; but then you have all the problems of a central bank that most countries currently have (won't go in such tangent); or (2) the automatic backing of that currency for something meaningful, like a commodity, just like the long lasting currencies used to have. I think maybe energy credits could be the way to go, but I am not sure. Automatic backing of contracts like in DEFI would also be a requirement to ensure trust in this energy-backed-currency. The reason we stopped transactions with commodities was because how inconvenient it was to transfer large amounts. We won't go back in that direction so this have to be taken into account.

[PrometheusUnbound]

I think a key challenge is to organize solidarity in a borderless world: pension funds, affordable healthcare, benefits for the sick and unemployed, education funding etc. A world where all this is arranged individually is a dystopia for me, and I think for most Europeans. But that also means we cannot have fully open borders, you would get a free-rider problem. This issue would be less for countries with lower taxes and fewer social services.

Could international communities of like-minded people organize solidarity in some kind of global networks? Would that be a solution for all, or only a way for the (relatively) wealthy to support each other, increasing inequality?

[R8Z]

I think a key challenge is to organize solidarity in a borderless world: pension funds, affordable healthcare, benefits for the sick and unemployed, education funding etc. A world where all this is arranged individually is a dystopia for me, and I think for most Europeans. But that also means we cannot have fully open borders, you would get a free-rider problem. This issue would be less for countries with lower taxes and fewer social services.

Could international communities of like-minded people organize solidarity in some kind of global networks? Would that be a solution for all, or only a way for the (relatively) wealthy to support each other, increasing inequality?

I think this is a very good idea and something that could happen if my above post becomes true: people that think alike join together and form "a country" that is actually non-existent in maps but is able to exist in a way with the technology. Sort of like a private insurance but for much more than just health.

[Tadasuke]

I hope that European Union will unify to make a one, large country. Unifying the whole planet is too much for the near future. I think unifying EU countries will happen in the 2040s or 2050s, becoming like the United States of America, but United States of Europe instead. It will cause mostly positive change. I don't know about UK, Norway or Switzerland.

[wjfox]

I don't know about UK, Norway or Switzerland.

UK will break up into its constituent parts in the coming years/decades. Scotland will go first (~2025-2030), then Northern Ireland will unify with Ireland (circa 2035), probably followed by Wales (~2040), leaving England on its own. Scotland, NI, and Wales will all rejoin the EU quickly. However, I don't see England rejoining anytime soon. This country is just too right-wing, and fanatically anti-immigrant.

[funkervogt]

If Skynet defeats humanity and takes over the world, it will all be one country.

[Lurking]

^ it will all be one entity

[Nanotechandmorefuture]

The Schengen zone is a start to the borderless world. I suppose expanding it would require global agreement with everything especially through tech.
As to where exactly the base of operations for all this will be who knows once it is global or being declared in the works.

[funkervogt]

Didn't China fall behind Europe because the latter was made up of many countries that competed with each other and had different rules and priorities? For example, when Christopher Columbus wanted money for his voyage in 1492, the Italian government declined, but he was able to go to Spain and get their patronage. However, China's government burned its fleet of deep water ships, abandoned all interest in world exploration and became isolationist, so a Columbus-like explorer in China would have had no way of raising government money.

With that in mind, wouldn't it be a bad idea for Earth to be one country (whether ruled by humans or an AI)?

[Doozer]

I think a key factor in making one would be if they were able to pull of the construction of an orbital elevator or two. They will be able to build homes in them, allowing millions of surface-dwellers to migrate into space and there will be way more free space (no pun intended) on Earth.

[R8Z]

I think many in this thread are confusing a borderless world with a "single-border" (nation) world. The former would only exist through advancing
technology and cultural advancement, but the latter could already exist to some extent with current violence technology (e.g nuking opponents and silencing dissenters). A "borderless world" with a single mafia ruling it is nightmare-fuel.

[weatheriscool]

Let's be honest...Humans are tribal and literally fight over everything and can't stand to be around each other with even the slightest differences of opinion or genetic make-up. No, a borderless world is very bad idea. It is probably more likely that more nations will form as people will fight to break up the middle east, Africa and even here In America in the future.

[wjfox]

Let's be honest...Humans are tribal and literally fight over everything and can't stand to be around each other with even the slightest differences of opinion or genetic make-up. No, a borderless world is very bad idea. It is probably more likely that more nations will form as people will fight to break up the middle east, Africa and even here In America in the future.

But in a post-scarcity world, what would we fight over? And with our planet becoming ever more connected, international, and globalised, how can you claim that people "can't stand to be around each other"?

To reiterate what I said before – a borderless world is a bad idea now, when resources are scarce and we're still trying to understand and respect each others' cultures. But we're talking about the distant future, when human society is a lot more advanced and homogenous. I can imagine the middle or latter parts of this millennium being like the Star Trek universe, where everyone is just accepted, war and poverty have been eliminated and technology can provide abundance.

[Tadasuke]

I think that European Union will be a federation by 2040-2045 (boomers will be out of politics by that time) and I think that all wars by cease to happen by around 2110-2120, when we all (meaning all humankind) enter our post-scarcity future.

People of the past waged wars because:
1) they were bored - their lives lacked nuance or hobbies
2) their lives were full of scarcity, including inter-war Germany or Italy for example
3) people were intolerant of other religions and cultures
4) they had no video games to prove themselves in

Future generations will be too occupied with VR to start wars. I know I probably will, let alone kids born in 2020, growing up with iPads and iGlasses.

So even if there is no borderless world by 2120, there will be no wars, because there will be no incentives for wars anymore. All people by 2120 will receive unconditional universal income.

[Doozer]

A world without borders will go against human nature. We are a tribalistic and territorial species.

[wjfox]

We are a tribalistic and territorial species.

Yeah, but why is that? It's usually down to resources/scarcity/economic concerns. A post-scarcity world, which we are ultimately heading towards, is a very different world. And furthermore – racial, cultural, and genetic intermingling will only increase over time, not decrease. This will be especially apparent when countries begin to experience population crashes due to declining fertility and need to relax their immigration policies. In the more distant future we'll also have lifelike androids and other new entities who'll be more influential and less concerned with tribalism.

[funkervogt]

We are a tribalistic and territorial species.

Yeah, but why is that? It's usually down to resources/scarcity/economic concerns. A post-scarcity world, which we are ultimately heading towards, is a very different world. And furthermore – racial, cultural, and genetic intermingling will only increase over time, not decrease. This will be especially apparent when countries begin to experience population crashes due to declining fertility and need to relax their immigration policies. In the more distant future we'll also have lifelike androids and other new entities who'll be more influential and less concerned with tribalism.

Tribalism might ease for the reasons you raise, but it won't go away. It's ingrained in human nature.

The U.S. is a rich country full of enormous opportunities for everyone, and yet its people still find things to fight over and to divide into opposing sides over.

[rennerpetey]

Tribalism might ease for the reasons you raise, but it won't go away. It's ingrained in human nature.

The U.S. is a rich country full of enormous opportunities for everyone, and yet its people still find things to fight over and to divide into opposing sides over.

perhaps, but I think the story of political development since the enlightenment is one of overcoming the human instincts that hold us back as conscious beings. I think the concept of the 'nation' is on the decline. It's certainly not dead and won't be for a long time but already academia, and eventually all of humanity, will move beyond the need for nation states. Obviously the more we work together as a civilization the more efficient we are so I think the natural inclination over time will be international integration. We've seen the integrations trends already begin as the world today is so much more 'globalist' than it was 100 years ago. Inversely the concept of a nation is only really 2 or 3 hundred years old and we are already seeing strong anti-nationalist trends across the globe (European Union, American ethnic social justice movements, the rise of global near free trade, etc...).