Absolutely, look at the graffiti of Pompeii
http://www.pompeiana.org/Resources/Ancient/Graffiti from Pompeii.htm
http://www.pompeiana.org/Resources/Ancient/Graffiti from Pompeii.htm
- 3
Planetary Unification - more than a Sci-fi trope?
- Thread starter Amor_Fati
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
so me the path where the whole world would be happy with a world government and it could be successfully maintained.
- 1
While i believe species-wide negotiation/pacts/trade will become more and more prevalent, i think we've actually moved beyond the point where it was possible for us to be united as a species, either through conquest or diplomacy. I also believe that as we spread out into space, and even moreso when we get FTL, our separation will increase, not decrease.
To go into detail: The United Nations is largely regarded as a joke by most nations, and is even used by corrupt dictatorships as a way of legitimizing themselves and stonewalling their opponents. The Culture of a nation like, say, the United States is radically different from that of the EU or Britan. The US would never give up its sovereignty or pacific hegemony for any reason and largely regards EU ethics and politics as extremely different and far-far left to their most fundamental beliefs. Similarly, Russia and Eastern Europe are radically different, and Asia/India are even more divergent. This isn't even touching the mess that is the Middle East. Even within these nations, USA included, there are huge cultural and poltical divergences forming and widening to extreme degree's, making even maintaining unity within those nations harder. We may see a South/midwest US Republic and North US, A non-EU England and EU scotland, and all sorts of border gore and messed up political situations within the next century.
When we expand into space, a space race will ensue. The US, the EU, Russia, China and India will each be pushing their own individual efforts for the benefit of their nations, while joint projects are done for purely scientific reasons. Nations in conflict will directly hide colonization efforts and plans from eachother and spaceborne weaponry and treaties will rapidly evolve. Eventually, colonies not liking being beholden to the whims of Earth-based nations in conflict will try breaking away, and you may even get more divergence.
Honestly, the sci-fi trope seems to generally be done either to be optimistic or to avoid addressing modern politics directly so as to be more approachable by a larger audience. I'd like to see a science fiction series where the US and other nations still exist (along with new colonial nations) and are all competing and fighting across our section of the galaxy.
To go into detail: The United Nations is largely regarded as a joke by most nations, and is even used by corrupt dictatorships as a way of legitimizing themselves and stonewalling their opponents. The Culture of a nation like, say, the United States is radically different from that of the EU or Britan. The US would never give up its sovereignty or pacific hegemony for any reason and largely regards EU ethics and politics as extremely different and far-far left to their most fundamental beliefs. Similarly, Russia and Eastern Europe are radically different, and Asia/India are even more divergent. This isn't even touching the mess that is the Middle East. Even within these nations, USA included, there are huge cultural and poltical divergences forming and widening to extreme degree's, making even maintaining unity within those nations harder. We may see a South/midwest US Republic and North US, A non-EU England and EU scotland, and all sorts of border gore and messed up political situations within the next century.
When we expand into space, a space race will ensue. The US, the EU, Russia, China and India will each be pushing their own individual efforts for the benefit of their nations, while joint projects are done for purely scientific reasons. Nations in conflict will directly hide colonization efforts and plans from eachother and spaceborne weaponry and treaties will rapidly evolve. Eventually, colonies not liking being beholden to the whims of Earth-based nations in conflict will try breaking away, and you may even get more divergence.
Honestly, the sci-fi trope seems to generally be done either to be optimistic or to avoid addressing modern politics directly so as to be more approachable by a larger audience. I'd like to see a science fiction series where the US and other nations still exist (along with new colonial nations) and are all competing and fighting across our section of the galaxy.
- 6
- 4
I think that is more to do worth changes in information technology - rather than our attitudes. Our change in attitude lags our information technology significantly! There is hope though.
Fundamental inequalities - including access to those information technologies but also far more basic needs - prevents truly functioning community though. If we cannot change our attitudes around having and not-having then we will always lag behind the potential implied by our technology.
- 1
The UN is not regarded as a joke by most nations - it is just that most states have reasons to agree or disagree with different policies at different times. This is a feature of our international system.
If anything the UN is "aspirational" - our state level politics does not mesh well with pan-human collective objectives. Mostly because states can see others disadvantage as their advantage.
Also a lot of sci fi deals with these political themes.
- 4
A lot of people say this to try and sound smart, but looking at human history (modern history) when has civilization failed? Every natural disaster in the last century has resulted in people coming together to help. Some 'philosophers' claim that civilization is a thin veneer over human nature, but is it really? If it were so fragile it would have broken some time over the last century, yet it hasn't. You are wrong.
- 4
The UN has lost a LOT of influence over the years since the cold war, and the US on several recent occasions has threatened to withdraw its participation and kick it out of the US. While that may not ever happen (or it may, depending on the president we get next year), it shows that the UN is not really looked to to solve any real problems. At most it's used as a meeting area for national ambassadors to talk behind closed doors, while the entity itself is rarely effective. It speaks volumes when you have human rights violators on the human rights committee.
An added point is that, in the US, the US cannot and will not follow any UN treaty it has signed unless the US Congress also agree's. If the Congress does not agree, the US agreement with the UN is null and void. This is a constitutional imperative and can not be overridden by even the most adamant president.
Also, culturally not all nations aspire to pan-humanist ideology and objectives, many prioritize focus on their own nation and the prosperity of its unique culture and people over that of some "greater whole", the US is a primary example of that.
At the end of the day, if i were a betting man i'd go all in on: you will never see nations like the US sacrifice its national sovereignty and culture of national/state independence even if hell freezes over, unless something really really bad happens in the next century. Like Yellowstone blowing up.
Edit: In fact, on that note in Star Trek the only reason they got a world government was because of World War 3 annihilating all of the world's national governments and then Aliens landing in Montana a couple years later.
Edit 2: as i state in a later post, on a personal note i am personally opposed to the idea of a singular World Government and think humanity is better served by multiple independent nations serving the interests of their local cultures and ideologies. A World Government is not a necessity to colonizing space.
Last edited:
- 2
- 2
Is there a rising claim for unification?
No. There is a rising claim for efficiency as the people have grown conscious and can more clearly see what is and what isn't good administration. We are still a long way off, but ecuation and political philosophy is a good measure better than anything prior. Efficient communication and better bureaucracy allow larger and more centralized states. States can grow bigger without granting regional autonomy and this gives the appearance of a cry for unification. The growing power of USSR and USA prompted EU to form to keep relevant and economically stable in a time of uncertainty and polarization. Had USA or USSR been weaker there would be no EU. When USA and Russia are falling economically the need for EU is dissipating and calls for secession are increasing.
The UN is no instrument for unification, it is a platform for democratic countries to exert power while saving face. There are many crises the UN could have prevented but the individual states did not allow it. The UN is merely a pathway for states to exert power, not a power unto itself.
We are still the same humans who piled stones on top of each other in Mesopotamia. We are merely better educated, in tighter communication, and have 4 thousand years of history as our teacher.
I for one do not think we should ever have a world government. The risk of corruption is too great. We should have one interstellar border, enforced by a council like the alliance in Mass Effect but civilian in nature.
No. There is a rising claim for efficiency as the people have grown conscious and can more clearly see what is and what isn't good administration. We are still a long way off, but ecuation and political philosophy is a good measure better than anything prior. Efficient communication and better bureaucracy allow larger and more centralized states. States can grow bigger without granting regional autonomy and this gives the appearance of a cry for unification. The growing power of USSR and USA prompted EU to form to keep relevant and economically stable in a time of uncertainty and polarization. Had USA or USSR been weaker there would be no EU. When USA and Russia are falling economically the need for EU is dissipating and calls for secession are increasing.
The UN is no instrument for unification, it is a platform for democratic countries to exert power while saving face. There are many crises the UN could have prevented but the individual states did not allow it. The UN is merely a pathway for states to exert power, not a power unto itself.
We are still the same humans who piled stones on top of each other in Mesopotamia. We are merely better educated, in tighter communication, and have 4 thousand years of history as our teacher.
I for one do not think we should ever have a world government. The risk of corruption is too great. We should have one interstellar border, enforced by a council like the alliance in Mass Effect but civilian in nature.
- 3
- 1
You know the annoying about the US is them telling us to give up our (ie Brits for those not in the know) sovereignty in favour of staying in the EU. Bloody people in charge having double standards, but I digress. Civilization will probably exist for a long time as a whole. but it will probably be fragmented with its little countries and ideals under the greater banner of humanity.
- 4
- 1
Exactly! If we want historical analogies, I think the best is the colonization of the New World. Colonizing the Americas did not require to unify the Old World, on the contrary, the race between the European nations sped up the process.
- 2
- 1
- 1
Right, to be clear i too think a World Government is a bad idea and i support the US affirming its sovereignty at all times, and i also support GB wanting to leave the EU. I think, as a species, when the technology becomes available we will be able to expand into space just fine without a world government. In fact, on that note.
I agree, i think when the tech is available, the competing interests of our various nations will actually push us harder and faster into space than a world government would. Also, it just gives people more options. Instead of having a world government impose its will and ideology on billions of people, you have a plethora of the current and future nations each with its own ideology and approach to economics/politics for people to choose from. Similar to the colonial era, we may see some worlds who become independent as well, creating even more nations.
- 1
- 1
I think it's a mistake to zero in on UK/EU. The overall trend in post-Roman Europe has been unification since Charlemagne et al started glomping small kingdoms into bigger kingdoms. You get the occasional reversal and breakaway, but the trend is there.
Heck, even Australia is getting in on it - we're basically part of Eurovision now!
Heck, even Australia is getting in on it - we're basically part of Eurovision now!
- 2
There have been more break ups than get togethers....
lest you forget the former soviet union, balkan states....it comes in waves and cycles....
as soon as you get economic unrest there are talks of break ups and doing things on their own
as it stands we, as a global society are no where near a unified Earth government.
- 2
- 2
Of course not all planets history will be the same as our earth. Heck one can even be the humans but from a different history then our own. *nods*
- 2
I am fairly sure I agreed with/anticipated the observation that nation-states have vested interests in the current state of affairs.
I disagree about the reduction in influence. There have been fewer UN sponsored wars but that is not equivalent to influence.
Nothing to add about US constitutional law or personal political views.
- 1
I agree that the world unifying into some formal Worldstate is vanishingly unlikely.
That's not what I think is happening in Stellaris, though. I think that the mechanics in Stellaris are abstracting the real situation.
Many of you have claimed that the UN is a joke, and I can see why you might think that. As long as it holds no real territory and cannot have any force projection without the help of one of its major member states, the UN is doomed to be an international meeting and treaty organizer. Now, that's an important role and one it will likely continue, but I think you're all missing out on how human expansion into space might affect the UN given current space law and likely future trends.
The Outer Space Treaty is one of the main reasons I say this. Essentially, the treaty forbids Earthbound nations from claiming territory on any celestial body that isn't Earth and prevents nations from putting weaponry into space. You can own your rover/station/hab, but not the land under it. The UN has a major advantage here: it's not a nation. It has also already been established as a global treaty compliance monitor and an international forum. I could see the OST being modified to grant the UN title to all human-inhabited bodies and, if space crime or aliens ever becomes a problem, being allowed to establish a policing force.
I realize that you're probably thinking I'm underestimating how willing countries would be to tear up these treaties and go all gung-ho colonialism. Believe me, I'm not. I understand just how much nations are willing to break treaties and agreements if they can see a huge advantage for themselves. What I think you're missing, though, are the economic implications of increasing our presence in space and that the pros of a unified space administration outweigh the cons. Look at globalization. As companies and corporations expand around the world, they are having to adapt to each country's regulations, tax codes, culture and so forth. Imagine how expensive that it. That's why free trade zones and international accounting standards like IFRS are such a big deal. They reduce the cost of enterprise and allow for economic growth everywhere.
With space expansion, this trend would only have more pressure. Companies would have the chance to influence a completely clean slate, and believe me they would prefer to only have one set of regulations to follow in space. That's not to mention the entirely space-based companies like the asteroid miner Planetary Resources or space-to-space vessel construction firms. These firms would also have a vested interest in ensuring one set or a standardized set of regulations. What's the best body to ensure that? What's the body that has a history of ensuring compliance with treaties that establish things like international regulations? What's the body that already has a semblance of authority over space due to treaties its members signed? What body supposedly serves as a forum for the whole world? The UN. I'd expect most companies to throw their full weight behind the UN as the sole space regulator and police force. It just makes business sense.
Plus, if you want to get cynical, it's also much easier to bribe just UN regulators than regulators across the world. If worst comes to worst and you need to put pressure on the UN regulation commission from below, you can always pressure individual nation states who can then pressure the commission. That's why this arrangement would work so well for companies and other international organizations. When things are going well you only have to deal with one organization, but when they're going badly you have a really easy way to push the Space Commission back to where you want them. Of course, competing interests might mean that your plans won't always work out, but that's just politics. It's still better for them than what would happen if every single country maintained a sovereign space fleet and all the insanity that goes with that.
This is also why countries would, in my opinion, like this arrangement. They would all have a guaranteed voice in the Space Commission, regardless of what was happening in the world. Even countries like the US, Russia, and China would be ok with this arrangement. It gives them an easy way to try to check each other's power and exert influence over space while claiming that it's international action. Of course, long term, as the UN Space Commission gained wealth, influence, and power these nations might be disadvantaged, but I think it's safe to say based on history that most leaders will look at the short-term influence and economic benefits to their nations and either ignore the future possible problems or say "the next generation can deal with it." Small countries would love it because it would guarantee them a voice whereas their two-ship space fleet wouldn't do anything of the sort.
Another reason I see this being possible is because of the immense costs of space warfare. Seriously, space warfare would be hugely expensive and destructive. Not only would it lead to destroyed space infrastructure and the huge economic losses that entails, it also has the potential for huge loss of life on the surface. Look up Rods from God or any one of the hundreds of other fancy, destructive, and easily constructable space weapons we've dreamed up. If there's anything we're good at, it's finding ways to deal death. Consider the uproar that occurs when nations fight comparatively inexpensive and tiny modern wars. Imagine what would happen if millions started dying from space bombardment by another country. If only to limit the powers of the Enemy, whomever that might be, in the immensely powerful arena of space, I have a feeling that countries would be ok building up a UN fleet and retaining UN sovereignty over space. Companies, to avoid the kind of economic death spirals that hugely destructive wars always cause, would also be very much in favor of this which would also push countries towards acceptance.
Ultimately, what I see as "planetary unification" in this game and most near-future Earth space sci-fi is really a disunited planet grappling with each other on the surface of Earth, and possibly the other human colonies as well, all while leaving space travel and commerce to the UN for the reasons I've stated above.
That's not what I think is happening in Stellaris, though. I think that the mechanics in Stellaris are abstracting the real situation.
Many of you have claimed that the UN is a joke, and I can see why you might think that. As long as it holds no real territory and cannot have any force projection without the help of one of its major member states, the UN is doomed to be an international meeting and treaty organizer. Now, that's an important role and one it will likely continue, but I think you're all missing out on how human expansion into space might affect the UN given current space law and likely future trends.
The Outer Space Treaty is one of the main reasons I say this. Essentially, the treaty forbids Earthbound nations from claiming territory on any celestial body that isn't Earth and prevents nations from putting weaponry into space. You can own your rover/station/hab, but not the land under it. The UN has a major advantage here: it's not a nation. It has also already been established as a global treaty compliance monitor and an international forum. I could see the OST being modified to grant the UN title to all human-inhabited bodies and, if space crime or aliens ever becomes a problem, being allowed to establish a policing force.
I realize that you're probably thinking I'm underestimating how willing countries would be to tear up these treaties and go all gung-ho colonialism. Believe me, I'm not. I understand just how much nations are willing to break treaties and agreements if they can see a huge advantage for themselves. What I think you're missing, though, are the economic implications of increasing our presence in space and that the pros of a unified space administration outweigh the cons. Look at globalization. As companies and corporations expand around the world, they are having to adapt to each country's regulations, tax codes, culture and so forth. Imagine how expensive that it. That's why free trade zones and international accounting standards like IFRS are such a big deal. They reduce the cost of enterprise and allow for economic growth everywhere.
With space expansion, this trend would only have more pressure. Companies would have the chance to influence a completely clean slate, and believe me they would prefer to only have one set of regulations to follow in space. That's not to mention the entirely space-based companies like the asteroid miner Planetary Resources or space-to-space vessel construction firms. These firms would also have a vested interest in ensuring one set or a standardized set of regulations. What's the best body to ensure that? What's the body that has a history of ensuring compliance with treaties that establish things like international regulations? What's the body that already has a semblance of authority over space due to treaties its members signed? What body supposedly serves as a forum for the whole world? The UN. I'd expect most companies to throw their full weight behind the UN as the sole space regulator and police force. It just makes business sense.
Plus, if you want to get cynical, it's also much easier to bribe just UN regulators than regulators across the world. If worst comes to worst and you need to put pressure on the UN regulation commission from below, you can always pressure individual nation states who can then pressure the commission. That's why this arrangement would work so well for companies and other international organizations. When things are going well you only have to deal with one organization, but when they're going badly you have a really easy way to push the Space Commission back to where you want them. Of course, competing interests might mean that your plans won't always work out, but that's just politics. It's still better for them than what would happen if every single country maintained a sovereign space fleet and all the insanity that goes with that.
This is also why countries would, in my opinion, like this arrangement. They would all have a guaranteed voice in the Space Commission, regardless of what was happening in the world. Even countries like the US, Russia, and China would be ok with this arrangement. It gives them an easy way to try to check each other's power and exert influence over space while claiming that it's international action. Of course, long term, as the UN Space Commission gained wealth, influence, and power these nations might be disadvantaged, but I think it's safe to say based on history that most leaders will look at the short-term influence and economic benefits to their nations and either ignore the future possible problems or say "the next generation can deal with it." Small countries would love it because it would guarantee them a voice whereas their two-ship space fleet wouldn't do anything of the sort.
Another reason I see this being possible is because of the immense costs of space warfare. Seriously, space warfare would be hugely expensive and destructive. Not only would it lead to destroyed space infrastructure and the huge economic losses that entails, it also has the potential for huge loss of life on the surface. Look up Rods from God or any one of the hundreds of other fancy, destructive, and easily constructable space weapons we've dreamed up. If there's anything we're good at, it's finding ways to deal death. Consider the uproar that occurs when nations fight comparatively inexpensive and tiny modern wars. Imagine what would happen if millions started dying from space bombardment by another country. If only to limit the powers of the Enemy, whomever that might be, in the immensely powerful arena of space, I have a feeling that countries would be ok building up a UN fleet and retaining UN sovereignty over space. Companies, to avoid the kind of economic death spirals that hugely destructive wars always cause, would also be very much in favor of this which would also push countries towards acceptance.
Ultimately, what I see as "planetary unification" in this game and most near-future Earth space sci-fi is really a disunited planet grappling with each other on the surface of Earth, and possibly the other human colonies as well, all while leaving space travel and commerce to the UN for the reasons I've stated above.
- 2
- 2
- 1
Australia is in the UN Economic Commission for Europe too.
And TISM needs to reform and represent Australia at Eurovision.
- 1
- Status