Is it possible to make a world where countries are driven by concern of people as a whole rather than separate national interests?
In the EU we are already working on just that.
And we also have plenty of nationalist parties on the rise trying to avoid that.
Maybe if we eliminate the concept of countries and borders and national identity
That's a tad easier said than done.
Nations are defined by contrast to the outer world. So I don't think what you are dreaming of is possible. It will always be Us vs Them.
Alot of sci-fi is based on this, star trek for example talk about how humans are able to create almost unlimited energy and the discovery of the replicator. And yet it took several generations for humans to focus on science, medicine and art and specializes them self in different subjects, you didn't have to do so but not doing so was looked down upon. So if we all just focus on unlimited power! And a machine that can reproduce anything with just energy we should be on a good way to function together. I'm still afraid that religion will still be a chaotic fraction in than equation.
I'm guessing people would still want power over others. If there is no scarcity in resources, then we will find something else to fight over.
there's always racism/ethnicity. need a few thousand years of interbreeding to get rid of that issue
Land. Sexual partners. Values/morality. Those are the big two (and a half) that I could see.
Until VR is perfected (to the degree touch/taste/smell/sight/auditory/proprioception/etc. all match exactly what reality would deliver), things like views (wouldn't you want your house to be on the shore of Malibu?), proximity to activities (if everyone suddenly found themselves wanting to be a surfer, the beaches will become pretty crowded), proximity to others (whether that's immense crowding of folks into massive cities, or the loners who would want space and again, views [like of forested hills]) and other similar concepts would still motivate people to be in conflict. There would definitely still be winners/losers in all of those areas.
I'd say the sexual partners idea speaks for itself. Even as we appear to be at the zenith of sexual freedom in the west, there are lots of problems (such as incels/the concept of incels) cropping up that cause conflict. Probably a small chance of giant, intercontinental conflict, but who knows.
And we already see the imposition of values or morality by laws. I very seriously doubt that would diminish. Perhaps unlimited energy and whatever-matter-on-demand-you-want would allow people to move to where others' thoughts align with theirs, but if you could get away from local imposition of opposing values, it would be setting the stage for regions then being in conflict. Would a faction that believed homosexuality was the source of remaining human suffering allow their neighbor to engage in free love? I think we have our answer already in the form of genocides that have occurred in the world; ones where divisions were drawn based on nearly arbitrary lines. Throw pseudo-religious ideas/values into that mix, and you have yourself a war.
@ihavenoenemies I wasn't very popular at the dinner party where I suggested this, but my hunch: removing People from positions of authority, where we repeatedly see aspects of greed/corruption/nepotism furthering systems that benefit that person in power at the cost of the masses, may be key. Its apparent that it is nigh impossible to put a human in charge where they will always choose to benefit the masses over themselves.
I think the kind of person who would want to benefit the masses would be someone who wouldn't seek power.
Would be a fun experiment to just force temporary authority on people randomly.
"The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."
-Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
That was something I thought of years ago, and I was always curious how it would REALLY turn out.
My idea was to fill Congress like jury duty. We just randomly select people for a three year term. (With 1/3 of Congress rotating out each year) It would pay enough that most people would make much more than they normally would, it should be like winning the lottery, and not like getting drafted.
In theory, everybody should vote to improve their old life since they know they have to go back to it, but now I'm thinking about "We'll have a cushy executive consulting position for you after your term if you vote against this bill..." So, there might be some more loopholes to tie up.
@ihavenoenemies Possible Alternatives? I suggest something like an AI government, or at least something based on statistical models and systems developed from social science research. Something data driven, or rather, data that is derived from the population as a whole, rather than a single individual who only has had a single, particular view of the human experience and can only truly understand and relate to other humans with similar experiences. In essence, the masses govern the masses.
This might seem a little naive but I'd say you need the right space to bring different cultures together, and a lot of good will! For instance, I'm thinking of projects like the Erasmus programme for students in Europe, or even constructed languages like Esperanto that aim to build bridges between peoples. If we approach things with the right angle, there's always a way to build something with our differences, as resources and not obstacles.
Create a resource based economy that factors societal and environmental goods and losses and reward your citizens for the actions they take. It's a gross oversimplification, to be sure, but one issue with capitalism is currency, in that it is amoral. It does not care what you do with it, and your only motive is the acquisition of it.
No. Next question.
maybe in really small counties where the population is less than a few hundred thousand
you're talking about the communist revolution. our regional interests are defined by our local habitat, culture, and heritage. communism is bad and wants to destroy these things
Yes, extreme violence+ethnic cleansing efforts can lead to the emergence of stable national identities. This process could be applied on a global scale to give you the results you are looking for.
A politic and governing system founded on the removal of others is gonna either fail because it runs out of others to remove, or, more likely, will keep making others of its own people in order to justify its existence
No one is pure. There is no such thing as a pure ethnicity. We're not even all human, with some of us having neanderthal DNA, so creating a society designed to accept only one kind of person is effectively impossible, as there will always be hairs to split--And split those hairs they will when you found a society on the premise of blaming an other for your problems
Besides, even ethnic purity is no guarantee for stability. Countercultures exist, and revolutions happen for things besides racial means. There is still class warfare, not to mention the every-splintering world of spiritual beliefs
Ethnostates are doomed to fail
Uhh...that's the uh, nuclear option...
Sure. Hostile alien invasion.
I had this discussion with my work colleagues before COVID was a thing. I asked the question along the lines of "If aliens were to come to earth and pose an existential threat could you see the world uniting as one"
I don't believe so. I think although we would weakly work together the big world players still could not put aside their issues and trust enough to get the job done.
Then COVID occurred and I brought this question back up citing that even a global pandemic couldn't generally get us to put aside our differences and work for the benefit of the world.
In the back of each countries head would be "How do I as a country emerge from this threat as the dominate force".
I disagree on the COVID point somewhat
We DID actually coordinate for a bit, but I think once it was clear that we were getting a handle on things the selfishness came back. A large part of that was a few populist world leaders taking advantage of the situation for political gain.
Hoping we can do even better next time
I used to think something on that scale would do it, but after seeing the pettiness, selfishness, and conspiratorial denial of far too many people in response to a global pandemic, I am less hopeful.
wait maybe we can scapegoat elon musk if he decides to settle on mars permanently.