Planetary Unification - more than a Sci-fi trope?

[The_Meme_Man]

We won't be able to tell if it is more than a Sci-fi trope until we meet some aliens of our own.

Actually that would be to tell if it is an actual occurrence. We know sci fi tropes because we make them up.

As much as we ponder it we never actually seriously look into how society would or should adapt to the existence of aliens, and we shouldn't, because we don't know if aliens exist at all. There is a whole other side to space-civilization sci fi that involves humans being the only intelligent life in the galaxy (or universe), and in that regard it would be countries competing against each other for control over planets and stars, and then colonized planets slowly becoming independent human administrations that develop their own countries and problems.

But alien and alien economic and diplomatic interaction would be a nightmare to administer if planets were not unified. Individual regions of planets would be dictating their own policies for trade, which would easily screw over the rest of the planet's trade interests. Also, imagine attacking a planet without upsetting everyone on it, or worse, one country sides with an alien invader to allow them to invade a neighboring country, and then THAT alien invader having its own geopolitical rivalries and wars at home.

 

[AluminumSoldier]

Talking about race, religion, and culture is important, but I think the actual politics of power is the most contentious issue. Why? Because a world government, if it was truly worthy of that name, would distribute the resources of the world more equally than they are now, in order to develop the entire world to a similar degree. The vast amount of political and military power is today vested in the European nations and North America, and they benefit from that arrangement. In the coming century, a case could be made that this power will shift towards the Asian and African nations, as their state of development catches up to their population. Either way, the dominant political bloc would have no impetus to sacrifice their own success to bring others up to their level. It's just bad politics.

So, more likely, if there ever is a "world government" it will be dominated by the interests of the political and military powers of that time, just like the UN is today dominated by the agendas of the western powers. A world government that represents all peoples and nations equally is a pipe dream, in my humble opinion

 

[The_Meme_Man]

Talking about race, religion, and culture is important, but I think the actual politics of power is the most contentious issue. Why? Because a world government, if it was truly worthy of that name, would distribute the resources of the world more equally than they are now, in order to develop the entire world to a similar degree. The vast amount of political and military power is today vested in the European nations and North America, and they benefit from that arrangement. In the coming century, a case could be made that this power will shift towards the Asian and African nations, as their state of development catches up to their population. Either way, the dominant political bloc would have no impetus to sacrifice their own success to bring others up to their level. It's just bad politics.

So, more likely, if there ever is a "world government" it will be dominated by the interests of the political and military powers of that time, just like the UN is today dominated by the agendas of the western powers. A world government that represents all peoples and nations equally is a pipe dream, in my humble opinion

And what better way to enforce that position of power than with some good ol' military might.

 

[13Foxtrot]

Talking about race, religion, and culture is important, but I think the actual politics of power is the most contentious issue. Why? Because a world government, if it was truly worthy of that name, would distribute the resources of the world more equally than they are now, in order to develop the entire world to a similar degree. The vast amount of political and military power is today vested in the European nations and North America, and they benefit from that arrangement. In the coming century, a case could be made that this power will shift towards the Asian and African nations, as their state of development catches up to their population. Either way, the dominant political bloc would have no impetus to sacrifice their own success to bring others up to their level. It's just bad politics.

So, more likely, if there ever is a "world government" it will be dominated by the interests of the political and military powers of that time, just like the UN is today dominated by the agendas of the western powers. A world government that represents all peoples and nations equally is a pipe dream, in my humble opinion

as soon as you start using the word 'distribute' you start to cause issues. It means force-ably taking from one to give to another......unless human nature changes you have an instant problem....

 

[AluminumSoldier]

as soon as you start using the word 'distribute' you start to cause issues. It means force-ably taking from one to give to another......unless human nature changes you have an instant problem....

Precisely. But if you were a hypothetical world government, you'd want all parts of your planet to be developed and successful so that your population is most productive. But that would mean taking resources that are over abundant in one part of the world (Right now, Europe and North America) and moving them to another part of the world. It would mean leveling out the consumption of materials that is now quite lopsided. And so a redistribution of some kind would be necessary. And so there is no reason for the powerful nations of the world to join in a world government, thus robbing a world government of any power. If you were able to force those nations into your world government, you would already be powerful and thus uninterested in a world government.

 

[13Foxtrot]

Precisely. But if you were a hypothetical world government, you'd want all parts of your planet to be developed and successful so that your population is most productive. But that would mean taking resources that are over abundant in one part of the world (Right now, Europe and North America) and moving them to another part of the world. It would mean leveling out the consumption of materials that is now quite lopsided. And so a redistribution of some kind would be necessary. And so there is no reason for the powerful nations of the world to join in a world government, thus robbing a world government of any power. If you were able to force those nations into your world government, you would already be powerful and thus uninterested in a world government.

if you were able to get humans to think all the same and took away any ability for them to resist..of course you would still have to control their behavior so they would do what you wanted.......

 

[The_Meme_Man]

as soon as you start using the word 'distribute' you start to cause issues. It means force-ably taking from one to give to another......unless human nature changes you have an instant problem....

And then there lies the problem that a good portion of the human populations believes this is actually good thing, which further divides human interest.

I personally see capitalism to be the best form of global government for humans, because the system gets to enjoy the vastness of the population and wideness of the geographical area for small regional enterprise to thrive. However, like socialism and communism, capitalism also is only perfect on paper, and until we are in a position to actually have a world government we cannot make any proposal that would actually work on a world scale. However, the survival of massive nations like China (and China has been able to see itself as a unified entity since the Han dynasty that all fractures try to mend), and the survival of freedom-tailored economic systems like the USA, only shows that with enough struggle it is still possible and possibly worthwhile to manage massive multiethnic that can endure. Technology only makes it easier. With information right on the common persons' fingertips, managing a massive nation is much easier than it was for Rome, Britain, China, Caliphate, etc. in terms of bureaucracy, military, and administration. It would still be very hard, and much harder than managing a small country, but much easier than it was earlier in history.

 

[AluminumSoldier]

if you were able to get humans to think all the same and took away any ability for them to resist..of course you would still have to control their behavior so they would do what you wanted.......

But at that point do you have a world government or merely a government of the world?

 

[ParagonExile]

as soon as you start using the word 'distribute' you start to cause issues. It means force-ably taking from one to give to another......unless human nature changes you have an instant problem....

Human nature isn't a fixed thing.

 

[Yenzen]

if you were able to get humans to think all the same and took away any ability for them to resist..of course you would still have to control their behavior so they would do what you wanted.......

That poster manages to make me feel physically ill.

 

[13Foxtrot]

Human nature isn't a fixed thing.

no it is not.....hence my assertion that it would need to change

 

[ParagonExile]

no it is not.....hence my assertion that it would need to change

How would human nature get in the way then?

:3

 

[Ezumiyr]

I don't believe in the "progressive unification" theory.
The only thing that gives that false impression is the speed of information and transportation in general.
There was always "multinational" agreements, and ancient empires (like the Roman Empire) used to regroup a much greater % of humanity. The truly International things are usually rather anodyne (like the ISS or research in Antarctica).
Also, the people in central America didn't wait Cortès to appreciate the value of trade. They just used a different money (or bartering). You cannot always buy something with gold - in fact, you will likely need to exchange your gold for local money in most cases. Which is not different from the situation in antiquity (you could use your metallic money at least from Portugal to Korea).

And what kind of unification are we talking about ? There are indeed things that everyone knows nowadays, thanks to the speed of information. And unified economy ? Yes, since almost everyone trades with almost everyone ? But an unified government ? We are very far from it and we are not going in that direction. In many countries people are ready to fight each other in the streets. Look how well immigrants are welcomed in pretty much every country. Even in the western countries of the European Union, the people who believed in the end of the borders (like me), the "Erasmus generation(s)" were never a majority - far from it.

In short : There is maybe an internationalized "elite", but it has been the case at different times throughout History. I don't think it means that we're goind towards unification.

 

[Yenzen]

I don't believe in the "progressive unification" theory.
The only thing that gives that false impression is the speed of information and transportation in general.
There was always "multinational" agreements, and ancient empires (like the Roman Empire) used to regroup a much greater % of humanity. The truly International things are usually rather anodyne (like the ISS or research in Antarctica).
Also, the people in central America didn't wait Cortès to appreciate the value of trade. They just used a different money (or bartering). You cannot always buy something with gold - in fact, you will likely need to exchange your gold for local money in most cases. Which is not different from the situation in antiquity (you could use your metallic money at least from Portugal to Korea).

And what kind of unification are we talking about ? There are indeed things that everyone knows nowadays, thanks to the speed of information. And unified economy ? Yes, since almost everyone trades with almost everyone ? But an unified government ? We are very far from it and we are not going in that direction. In many countries people are ready to fight each other in the streets. Look how well immigrants are welcomed in pretty much every country. Even in the western countries of the European Union, the people who believed in the end of the borders (like me), the "Erasmus generation(s)" were never a majority - far from it.

In short : There is maybe an internationalized "elite", but it has been the case at different times throughout History. I don't think it means that we're goind towards unification.

Had to look up anodyne. Thought it'd be an interesting word.

It wasn't.

Literally.

 

[13Foxtrot]

How would human nature get in the way then?

:3

a big enough gun can sometimes overcome human nature

 

[telge2]

Quite a bit offtopic here, but a nice theory that I would like to share. I've been reading the Sapiens book (and recommend it - it is a nice book), and a point the author (Yuval Noah Harari) makes is that humanity, through the course of history, moves itself towards unification. Since ancient times, we moved on (with ebbs and flows, gains and losses) towards unification.

When Cortez and his Spanish troops invaded the Aztec empire, the mesoamerican natives could not understand why they loved gold so much. In their eyes, it was a nice and shiny metal, which they could make good art, but it was inherently less valuable than other things like cocoa. Nowadays, there is nowhere - or almost nowhere - in the globe that cannot appreciate the value of money and gold.

While we have several nations, almost all the globe thinks and believes in roughly the same ideas - there should be law systems, democracy (even in autocracies there is some semblance of democracy), market economies, human rights, etc... Even as each nation and culture twists that ideas with some particular notions, they are still close enough to see the resemblance. Nowhere in the world today you would arrive with ocidental concepts like that and see the face that Montezuma did when Cortez waged wars to strip him off his gold.

And we see megaprojects today that transcend national borders - things like Antartic research (heck, most research done nowadays is made with multi-national teams), economic corporations, UN, and even space exploration - the International Space Station don't have its name for nothing. In other words, the "planetary unification" trope in sci0fi and in Stellaris does not means that there are not several nations in each world, but that if you zoom out and see that an space empire would be created by the effort of these nations helping each other, you can simply assume that the planet is a single entity (or a single goverment) and roll with it.

I think you somewhat misunderstood what he was saying. Unification in this case does not mean political unification, he was talking an economic unification, which already happened, and the bonds of this economic unity are becoming stronger as time passes. But political unification of the planet is not necessarily following form economic unity, and even if it happens, it probably won't last, knowing human nature.

 

[ParagonExile]

a big enough gun can sometimes overcome human nature

Human nature is fluid and can change for a variety of reasons. And it's not really the case that you can oppress people into an ideal you want. Dominating with violence works poorly most of the time and usually blows up in your face.

You can subjugate people to do what you want, but their hearts can only be won.

 

[Summin Cool]

Problem is that people on a whole are pretty nationalistic and I honestly don't see a way out unless something drastic happens, ie fourth reich or mr bean finally completes his plans etc etc

 

[Amor_Fati]

Problem is that people on a whole are pretty nationalistic and I honestly don't see a way out unless something drastic happens, ie fourth reich or mr bean finally completes his plans etc etc

This is a pretty modern construct. People 500 or 600 years ago weren't nationalistic at all. Maybe in 200 or 300 years ahead we won't be anymore.

 

[Daetrin]

Actually I'd argue human nature is fixed. There are no new problems.

Go back five thousand years and people were complaining about "kids these days" and the wastefulness of the government and debating which religion (if any) was right and bribing and whoring and fighting and writing poetry and making lolcats. The only things that have changed are the tools, not the wielders of the tools.