Let's destroy the borders - All of them

[Artifis]

A bit of a read, so watch out..

So there's this issue which has been floating in my head for a long while, and it never goes away. Basically it's this: every time I read the news I always see countries and groups of people fighting with each other. No surprise there, you may say. And I agree, there's no surprise there. But what always gets me is how people play the Community Card.

Koreans vs Japanese
Hutus vs Tutsis
Christians vs Muslims
The list goes on and on.

There's always this inclusive community pitted against another, and often we see them separated by distinct borders. The issue to me is that people have let these borders solidify. They have political meaning and weight, and are given legitimacy by the very existence of countries.

I'm sure we've all heard the term "United States of Europe" bandied about recently, and predictably the vast majority are against such an idea because they fear losing their sovereignty. But...

Why? Why should governments want to maintain their own right to rule their countries? Why must it be America's trade deficit vs China's surplus? Or Germany’s tax money vs Greek debt? Why can we not all just help each other? Is it that hard to see that we are all essentially one race called humanity?

Now I know that I sound like a starry-eyed idealist, but before you walk out the door, please give this a chance.

I am personally disgusted by much of the conflict we see in the world, and one thing which gets to me is the way people, organisations, and yes, even governments play up the nationalist card, highlighting the differences. Borders are a social construct, and the enforcement of their existence is an exercise I find distasteful.

There is no such thing as race, we are all homo sapiens.

One of the things I would love to see is a world government, not something like the UN, but one which has the teeth to enforce laws upon its members. It would have the right to crack down on those who break the rules, and will be governed by representatives of the members.

And the goal? To work for the continued progress of humanity. To further our achievements in science, culture, peace, poverty-reduction, environmental protection and all those things we always dream about. There would be no Germany vs Greece, nor Israel vs Palestine. Such concepts would lose their meanings as we all work together.

But of course, the criticism comes in.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

First off, we have the issue of culture. To give a pertinent example, there was the recent debacle in the UK about immigration causing a loss of “Englishness”. To be fair, the issue of immigration caused Variations on the Theme of Cultural Dilution across Europe, but I’m sure you all know what I mean.

The Far Right is gaining political ground, and it’s scary. They constantly play on what it means to be Swedish/English/German/French/Whatever and it’s working. They deploy national languages, religions, cultural values. It’s “us” vs “them”, and they actually get support for their cause.

When you have differing cultures, can you really ever find a way to play down the differences and instead highlight the fact that we’re all people with the same ability to love, care, make friends and live?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is related to the second point, which is about religion. What happens when you have one group of people who believe their way is The Way, and they see the rest of the world as uneducated and pitiful souls? Religious conflict is terrible, and it’s always happening. It happens in India, in Africa, and some centuries back was rolling out in full force on the battlefields of Europe.

When faced with two diametrically opposing viewpoints, can there really be compromise? Sure, the Crusades no longer happen, and Christianity is much better than what it was, save for a few fringe elements, but the differences remain, and they’re palpable. I’m honestly not sure whether we can ever get people come together for a higher purpose when they believe with all their heart, all their soul, all their strength, and all their mind that their higher purpose is right and yours (i.e. those who don’t agree) is wrong.

A horrible convergence of the first and second point is when Switzerland banned the construction of minarets. This was one of the posters used to garner support for the vote (note the similarities between minarets and missile warheads):

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Third, I’d like to draw back to a larger picture and focus on something called “The Monkeysphere” (more scientifically known as Dunbar’s number). I’m not sure how many of you folk have heard of this concept, but it basically goes like this:

Dunbar's number is suggested to be a theoretical cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships. These are relationships in which an individual knows who each person is, and how each person relates to every other person.

In other words, this is the number of people you can actually feel empathy for. Not just sympathy in the “oh look at that poor homeless child” sort of way, but in the “I’m gonna help you out because you’re my friend” sort of way.

It has been hypothesised to lie between 100 and 230. There’s a good article on cracked.com which explains it further if you’re interested.

In other words, we can maintain personal relationships with around 100-230 people maximum. Good enough for a small village. But what about 7 billion people? If the Monkeysphere is correct, then we can’t possibly feel proper empathy for the whole world because it’s beyond our ability to.

This would explain why one death is a tragedy while a million is a statistic. And even then, who is to say that within this 100-230 people there is no conflict? Murders occur even within the same family.

Essentially, if we are limited by our biology to feel only for a village’s worth of people, how can all of us be expected to feel for the whole of humanity? Notice how in Community Propaganda (essentially nationalist/racial/religious propaganda) one whole group is presented as a cohesive entity with no noticeable difference between its members. All become one. This is how I’ve reasoned that we can feel for one community because we ignore all the differences and see it as one being, and we can definitely fit one being into our Monkeysphere.

Now I know that this can be used back on me. Aren’t I ignoring all the differences between humans in aiming for a sort of cohesive Global Community? Well, yes I am. But am I pitting it against another community? Not that I can tell. My community consists of the whole 7 billion of us, and I think that by trying to cater for every single soul on the planet we can only do good. Furthermore, I think it’s a lot more compelling to highlight the fact that we’re all homo sapiens; at least it’s an undisputable fact, unlike say, the superiority of one socially-constructed culture against another.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ultimately, my thread boils down to this:

I see it as good for humanity to break down the differences between us and work together. Destroy borders, have a Global Government, make people see that they have to work with each other. At the same time, I seriously doubt our ability and commitment to do so for the reasons I stated above.

So now, I would like to hear what the people of this forum think. Is my position tenable? Am I being hopelessly unrealistic in thinking that maybe one day we can try to find a common cause and push for a united world? I can see all the political, legal and human challenges there will be to that. And they are, to put it mildly, enormous.

Truth be told, there are times when I feel like sliding into defeatism, that we’re simply not able to surmount the challenges. After all, we’ve never stopped fighting ever since Ug killed Ogg.

I think this thread as gone on for long enough, and to those who have reached this sentence, I thank you for reading. It’s time to hear what you guys think.

 

[Tee Kay]

^ Ditto.

 

[Kyriakos]

In theory it is a noble idea, but if we had a world government then we would have even less 'democracy' than now. Democracy works only in relatively small populations. A global government based on voting for nationals would not work, and based on merit would, well, be rather hard to define (after all very few positions of power have ever been held on account of merit).
That said i agree that the economical aspect of things must change, unless we want a return to hyper-tariffs.

Edit: Also, unless there is a massive restructuring of the economic system, the quality of life of the west cannot be had by any majority of the world.

 

[Veles]

One day that will happen. You shouldn't force it, though, imo. It's the next point of our evolution - the united humanity. When we're ready - we'll become one.

 

[Tee Kay]

In theory it is a noble idea, but if we had a world government then we would have even less 'democracy' than now. Democracy works only in relatively small populations. A global government based on voting for nationals would not work, and based on merit would, well, be rather hard to define (after all very few positions of power have ever been held on account of merit).

A world government would be a significantly devolved one rather than a centralised one. Direct democracy could be practiced at the lower levels of government, and representative democracy at the higher levels.

 

[Artifis]

In theory it is a noble idea, but if we had a world government then we would have even less 'democracy' than now. Democracy works only in relatively small populations. A global government based on voting for nationals would not work, and based on merit would, well, be rather hard to define (after all very few positions of power have ever been held on account of merit).

Now there's another issue you bring up, democracy. I wouldn't have us voting based on nationality, nor on merit. How about based on profession?

At least Farmer vs Lawyer is more easily definable than Chinese vs Korean.

That said i agree that the economical aspect of things must change, unless we want a return to hyper-tariffs.

Edit: Also, unless there is a massive restructuring of the economic system, the quality of life of the west cannot be had by any majority of the world.

Yes, I do think that there's something inherently wrong with the way the global economy work. I'm for more intervention because I simply don't trust the markets. But then again, that brings up a whole new can of worms.

One day that will happen. You shouldn't force it, though, imo. It's the next point of our evolution - the united humanity. When we're ready - we'll become one.

Do you really think so? United Humanity? Why are you so optimistic in the face of all our mindless propensity for hate and violence?

 

[Tee Kay]

Do you really think so? United Humanity? Why are you so optimistic in the face of all our mindless propensity for hate and violence?

Because sooner or later we'd find a common enemy, and direct our hate and violence towards it instead. Ask smallpox.

 

[civver_764]

You're on the right track but I think you're missing the main source of the problem. The ruling class needs to be eliminated in every manifestation. Simply setting up a world government will only change the nature of the problem. They are the ones that continually drag our species into conflict and continually make it harder to avoid conflict in the future. They are the ones that have manufactured nuclear weapons and continue to do so. They are the ones who engage in propaganda measures to keep us divided. They are the ones who alienate and exploit workers all over the world, and they use their goons(police, soldiers, mercenaries) to violently suppress anybody who objects. They are the ones who own our media, who own our representatives, and who own our militaries. Simply put, we must eliminate systems of hierarchy, privilege, and power.

I suggest you look into Libertarian Socialism if you haven't already, it aims for many of the same things you do.

 

[Artifis]

Because sooner or later we'd find a common enemy, and direct our hate and violence towards it instead. Ask smallpox.

But that requires that we direct our hatred against an enemy. A marriage of convenience. What happens once that enemy goes? We can't keep on finding enemies to fight against, this sort of thing simply doesn't last.

Rather, a union based on a goal of furthering humanity's progress is a lot more stable. In any case a consequence of that will be defeating common enemies.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

Absolutely no for many reasons.

1) It is global genocide. All cultures and ethnic groups would eventually disappear and be replaced by a global lowest common denominator. There would be no Tibet, there would be no Africa there would be no Europe. Just a giant blob of new soviet citizens.

2) It would destroy diversity. There would soon be monopoly situations where there are a few newspapers, a few restaurant chains and a few car manufacturers. The same books would be promoted everywhere.

3) It would require the same laws everywhere. This means that the world would need to be ruled by a world government. No one would ever agree on policy, the policy would be wrong for different parts of the world and it would destroy local freedom.

 

[Artifis]

You're on the right track but I think you're missing the main source of the problem. The ruling class needs to be eliminated in every manifestation. Simply setting up a world government will only change the nature of the problem. They are the ones that continually drag our species into conflict and continually make it harder to avoid conflict in the future. They are the ones that have manufactured nuclear weapons and continue to do so. They are the ones who engage in propaganda measures to keep us divided. They are the ones who alienate and exploit workers all over the world, and they use their goons(police, soldiers, mercenaries) to violently suppress anybody who objects. They are the ones who own our media, who own our representatives, and who own our militaries. Simply put, we must eliminate systems of hierarchy, privilege, and power.

I suggest you look into Libertarian Socialism if you haven't already, it aims for many of the same things you do.

But isn't what you're advocating against human nature? In any society a leader will always emerge. It seems nice to have a society where nobody oppresses anybody due to their position, but can it really happen? I don't think so.

If it isn't clear enough from my thread, I don't trust humans enough. I don't trust the free market because we'll find some way to make money off it at other people's expense. Take a look at our financial crisis. I don't trust people to come together without any leader and somehow progress in the right direction. Communism has been an abject failure.

I do generally know what Libertarians aim for, but isn't Libertarian Socialism something that goes close to anarchy? Do enlighten me if I'm getting things horribly wrong.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

Ethnic conflicts are not solved by destroying all ethnic groups, ethnic conflicts are caused by mixing groups. Hutsis and tutsis killed eachother because they where two groups sharing the same resources. If they had lived far away from eachother they would never have fought. Serbia is a similar conflict. Why did they fight with the muslism they fought with and not saudi arabia? Because the people of kosovo where right there.

The EU is a project to remove the boarders in Europe and have one Europe. That disaster is now coming apart.

 

[holy king]

yeah, and why did brandenburg fight pommern and bavaria fight prussia and münster fight brabant?

you dont mix germans with germans, it only ends in war...

 

[Tee Kay]

we must eliminate systems of hierarchy, privilege, and power.

This is important. Privilege and hierarchy is just as divisive, if not more so, than cultures and nations.

But that requires that we direct our hatred against an enemy. A marriage of convenience. What happens once that enemy goes? We can't keep on finding enemies to fight against, this sort of thing simply doesn't last.

Extraterrestrials.

Anyway, our increasing impact on the environment necessitates global cooperation to manage resources sooner or later.

1) It is global genocide. All cultures and ethnic groups would eventually disappear and be replaced by a global lowest common denominator. There would be no Tibet, there would be no Africa there would be no Europe. Just a giant blob of new soviet citizens.

If cultures can only be sustained by arbitrary lines on a piece of paper, then I say, screw them.

2) It would destroy diversity. There would soon be monopoly situations where there are a few newspapers, a few restaurant chains and a few car manufacturers. The same books would be promoted everywhere.

Not necessarily. The planet's still the same size; it's just that instead of many independent states based on artificial constructs of nationhood there would be many interdependent entities based on common humanity. The internet is a far, far greater threat to diversity than a multicultural World Government could ever be.

3) It would require the same laws everywhere. This means that the world would need to be ruled by a world government. No one would ever agree on policy, the policy would be wrong for different parts of the world and it would destroy local freedom.

A world government could be federal or otherwise devolved.

 

[Artifis]

Absolutely no for many reasons.

1) It is global genocide. All cultures and ethnic groups would eventually disappear and be replaced by a global lowest common denominator. There would be no Tibet, there would be no Africa there would be no Europe. Just a giant blob of new soviet citizens.

2) It would destroy diversity. There would soon be monopoly situations where there are a few newspapers, a few restaurant chains and a few car manufacturers. The same books would be promoted everywhere.

3) It would require the same laws everywhere. This means that the world would need to be ruled by a world government. No one would ever agree on policy, the policy would be wrong for different parts of the world and it would destroy local freedom.

1) Isn't America essentially a country where people from all over the world came together to create a new culture? Something called The American Culture? I don't see them calling themselves Soviets.

Yes I do agree that any such project will probably end up causing different cultures and languages and all to disappear. And yes it is a possibility that discomforts me greatly. But at what cost?

Going back to the USA, although there's something called The American Culture, nobody in their right minds would say that all Americans are the same. America is in no way a homogeneous country. They speak many different languages there, and have vastly differing cultures. But do you see them trying to go to war with each other?

Hasn't happened since 1865.

2) So you're now talking about intellectual diversity. What makes you so sure my ideal situation would destroy intellectual diversity? Let's take one supposedly homogeneous people: the Han Chinese. Can you tell me that they are one blob with no differing ideas? Are there only a few newspapers? For all the censorship, there are still newspapers which criticise the government.

In America there's Democrat vs Republican. They're all American, and they would never think of splitting America up, but can you tell me that they're all the same? The bloody debacle in Congress is going totally against that.

3) If local freedom gives people the right to hate another group just because they're a different group, I'm not sure it's a freedom I'd support.

Ethnic conflicts are not solved by destroying all ethnic groups, ethnic conflicts are caused by mixing groups. Hutsis and tutsis killed eachother because they where two groups sharing the same resources. If they had lived far away from eachother they would never have fought. Serbia is a similar conflict. Why did they fight with the muslism they fought with and not saudi arabia? Because the people of kosovo where right there.

The EU is a project to remove the boarders in Europe and have one Europe. That disaster is now coming apart.

So what are you suggesting? That we keep all peoples of differing cultures physically apart? You know as well as I do that that isn't tenable at all.

Also, the EU is coming apart not because of the idea but because of the implementation.

 

[Veles]

I believe every people should have thier land, preserve their culture, for the sake of diversity at the very least. Thus a stronger local self-government is needed, having the authority to regulate police and immigration and all the meaningfull stuff in respective locality. This however shouldn't prevent federal powers (rather ceremonial compared to the former) to be delegated to one world government, making sure that it wouldn't become too powerful.

This is in idealistic concept though, because the people in charge won't change and it's beneficary for them to have a "soup" of humanity rather than world confederation of strong entities.

 

[civver_764]

But isn't what you're advocating against human nature?

A common argument against socialist positions, but one that never contains any substance behind it. What makes you think it would be against human nature?

In any society a leader will always emerge.

Baloney. What if the society has been set up by an educated populace explicitly trying to keep the society a libertarian one? Leaders come to power when the populace is ignorant, have been exposed to enormous amounts of propaganda, or have no real choice in the matter(or are unprepared to revolt).

It seems nice to have a society where nobody oppresses anybody due to their position, but can it really happen? I don't think so.

It won't happen right away but that doesn't mean we can't work towards it. Even if a completely opression-less society is impossible that doesn't mean we can't do away with the extreme forms of oppression we see today. "We can't make things perfect so why try to improve at all?" is silly.

I do generally know what Libertarians aim for, but isn't Libertarian Socialism something that goes close to anarchy? Do enlighten me if I'm getting things horribly wrong.

Anarchism is a subcategory of libertarian socialism, I would say. It aims for a society run on the principles of free association and equal rights. Don't be confused and associate it with the modern right-wing "libertarians", because it has nothing to do with them.

 

[Tee Kay]

"We can't make things perfect so why try to improve at all?" is silly.

This is worth quoting again. Took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

yeah, and why did brandenburg fight pommern and bavaria fight prussia and münster fight brabant?

you dont mix germans with germans, it only ends in war...

Exactly. Put two tribes together and they will kill eachother for thousands of years. There are many European ethnic groups that no longer exist.

Anyway, our increasing impact on the environment necessitates global cooperation to manage resources sooner or later.

This isn't done by flying people and goods all over the planet and importing people to countries that use a lot of resources.

If cultures can only be sustained by arbitrary lines on a piece of paper, then I say, screw them

Sitting bull would disagree and so would dali lama.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

The thing is that trying to implement groundbreaking ideas and systems in the society before the society is ready or the leaders are capable enough, always lead to suffering. Idealists usually forget that. To try to improve society does not mean "go all in no matter the odds or the consequences".

I'd give it another hundred years before considering this idea.