Many or few?

[Mega Nix]

There seems to be a ever growing number of people who wants to have independents. Striving for World Peace, would it be best to have a large number of nations or very few in the world?

 

[Tee Kay]

Global confederation

 

[ParkCungHee]

Define World Peace.

 

[Plotinus]

Moderator Action: Not history. Moved to the Chamber.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

It's not the number of nations that's the problem, it's the number of jerks.

 

[aronnax]

There seems to be a ever growing number of people who wants to have independents. Striving for World Peace, would it be best to have a large number of nations or very few in the world?

In overall relative terms, the world has now entered the most peaceful era humankind has ever experienced. The whole North Atlantic region has entered some sort of Peace Zone which now is stretching to include most of Central and South America. Outright war between states or significant internal wars seems unlikely from Australia to Thailand to Vietnam, temple mangling aside.

Although Africa is still volatile, the Sudans, Congo, Somalia, Arab Spring, West African coups and wars, a lot of Africa has settled into some sort of relative calm. South Africa, Namibia, Gabon, Botswana, Kenya and many others are neither on the brink of war or civil collapse, though not devoid of dangerous social problems.

Yet the number of countries has grown from fify-something in the 1900s to over almost two hundred now. If we are striving for 'world peace' as vague and as undefined as that word can get, it's not a matter of how many independent peoples and states are, but the ability of states, few or many, to provide their citizens with a sense of social and economic progress and on the international level, for states to use less rhetoric, to be more tolerant, more understanding and more 'cosmopolitan'.

Since the end of the Cold War, nations are no longer so divided into clearly black or white camps. The ability for people, ideas and goods to transcend national boundaries has in a way 'united' people, no matter how loose that is. So despite the South Sudans, East Timors, Palestines and Kosovos of recent political history and the upheaval they cause, the world is increasingly getting more invested in balancing the different clashes of interest than to let them divide them.
One Chinese aircraft built and a few thousand American troops in Darwin does not take away the increasing relations between China and the USA, economical, political and social. Hopefully, with time, the peoples of both countries will drop their suspicions and realise that many of them are the same middle and working class families, aiming for a better life.

 

[Traitorfish]

I vote "none", but I'm not sure if that counts as "many" taken to the point of seven billion, or "few" taken to the point of zero.

 

[Mise]

There should be as many sovereign states as there are nations, and there should be only one nation, so....

More realistically, there are probably more nations right now than there are states representing them, so I'll go for "many".

 

[warpus]

There seems to be a ever growing number of people who wants to have independents. Striving for World Peace, would it be best to have a large number of nations or very few in the world?

How about a one world government loosely modelled after Spain? We'd end up with a bunch of loosely associated states retaining a lot of their sovereignty.

Win-win

 

[aronnax]

The Spanish model seems to be encouraging independence ironically.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Spain is a nation of hipsters?

 

[Absolution]

The desire for global peace is no more than an ancient legend.
It shouldn't really happen. You don't want the world to be "stuck" in the same political status for centuries..

The number of states is not that enormous. There have been times in the history in which every major city was independent. It doesn't say anything about peace.
When people get independence, they can still fight. If other states objected the declaration of independence, it doesn't end here.

 

[Traitorfish]

The desire for global peace is no more than an ancient legend.
It shouldn't really happen. You don't want the world to be "stuck" in the same political status for centuries..

It doesn't seem obvious that our choice is between stagnation and systematic mass-murder.

 

[Absolution]

Well, global peace means stagnation, but no global peace doesn't mean mass-murder.
There are better ways to prevent world wars than forcing global peace.
As seen very clearly in the 1930s btw..

 

[Traitorfish]

By "systematic mass-murder", I pretty just mean war-in-general.

 

[Perfection]

One nation under Perfs.

Honestly, in the era of multinational government bodies, non-profits and corporations, nations as an entity are becoming less important.

 

[Tahuti]

Honestly, in the era of multinational government bodies, non-profits and corporations, nations as an entity are becoming less important.

I fear this statement wouldn't go so well with Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders. I wouldn't say nationalism on the decline, and as popular sentiment, it is probably on the rise, especially among the Populist Right in Europe and Populist Left in South America. The state however is, as in this age of globalisation, states seem to be lagging behind compared to multinational corporation and international media, (and partially because of this popular nationalist sentiment). It wouldn't be suprising how supranational organisations like the UN and EU would be repurposed to restore the authority of the state of transnational bodies.

 

[Tee Kay]

The great ideological rivalry of the 21st century will be globalism versus nationalism.

 

[Perfection]

I fear this statement wouldn't go so well with Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders.

Of course, the truth hurts

I wouldn't say nationalism on the decline, and as popular sentiment, it is probably on the rise, especially among the Populist Right in Europe and Populist Left in South America.

It's not on the rise, it's just louder because it's actually being challenged.

The great ideological rivalry of the 21st century will be globalism versus nationalism.

The greatest?

Sounds overblown to me.

 

[Ajidica]

One nation under Perfs.

Honestly, in the era of multinational government bodies, non-profits and corporations, nations as an entity are becoming less important.

Well, if I can't have my Star Trek future, than it looks like I will have to settle for a cyberpunk future.