One Nation Earth

We are too complex as people
Celebrate our differences and our cultures. Some people desire tight leadership and some desire absolute freedom. Then there are all the people in between. Don't think for one minute that just because you hand some people freedom, they actually wanted it. We have enough earth to go around. We need to be different. It's in our human blood. Go with it.

To me, that's a frightening thought, extra medium. The 'one world' idea is nothing new. It is frequently espoused by megalomaniacs who hate anything 'different.' Homogenizing humanity can lead only to regimentation. And, as MichaelAllen has already said, we should celebrate the differences, not try to iron them out. The mind-numbing sameness that would result from such a move would far outweigh any perceived benefits.

Good topic!

I don't know if it is desirable, but I do think its inevitable.

Economics will probably be the driving force (rather than politics or religion).

In New York City the children who attend the public schools come from homes that speak 120 different languages. These various people live together for the sake of the economic opportunities.

There's no reason to think that the "global economy" and bodies such as the World Trade Organization will grow weaker as time passes.

The entire concept sounds strangely Illuminati to me. I would prefer that we move towards more localized diversity, with a willingness to share with others.

The global economuy has already expanded without homogenizing everyone. It's had some interesting effects on places, but the only things its really homogenized are the big cities like NY, which are effectively cosmopolitan (meaning that they are all the same because they have a little bit of everyone, not that everyone in them is all the same). America is one big country, but people living in different parts of it are still very different. Even in much smaller countries that you would expect to be more tightly knit, this is true. Think about how many empires have tried and failed to colonize everyone to their way of thinking. It'll never happen.

I agree with John/NYC and Rufio. Globalization and multinational corporations (possibly with their own private militaries) is inevitable, and there is no reason to assume that structural unity (or unification) necessarily results in cultural homogeneity. World unification would not be without gains. Nationalism has always been a cause of much grief.

As JL said, "World unification would not be without gains."

It would not be without pains also...but in my opinion, the gains would far outnumber the pains.

Nafta and the European Common Market (EU) are two examples of economic homogenization.

The World Trade Organization sets rules for the homoginization of banking laws, trademark and patent protection, import and export laws, etc..

On the down side, there's a notable absence of labor or environmental laws. This allows the corporate giants to pit the poor countries against the rich countries and has the result of weakening the position of the ordinary "working stiff" and pollution incentives also suffer.

Worldwide and region-wide organizations are effecting the laws of individual nations right now. The EU has gone to a single currency.

I see a trend.

I started a thread & poll vaguely similar to this a while back about a World Republic but I'm interested to see where this one leads.

Re: One Nation Earth


For those stuck with tunnel vision living day in and day out for the most part with blinders on seeing the entire world as being relative to them and not able to think on a global scale I am sure the premise of a single world government would be foreign and probably frightening. To step back and in one hand hold the last 5,000 years of geopolitical evolution and in the other hold the next 50,000 years of evolution on this planet I see two distinct outcomes.

1) We continue on our current path and our species perishes
2) We decide to overcome the obstacles ahead of use, create a single world government void of any possibility for corruption and permit our species to survive 50,000 and 500,000,000 years from now.

There is no need to lose customs and traditions. Those differences are part of our unique heritage but that is no reason to sacrifice our species. If we do not eventually pursue the merits of global harmony and global peace we will continue to put stupid differences like religion, nationalism, political boundaries, wealth, caste, skin color, and facial features in the way of what should be our true goal. We should each strive while we are on this planet to increase the median quality of life of every creature on this planet. To accomplish this task on a global scale we will eventually need to merge our distinct beliefs without sacrificing them into a society void of bigotry, prejudice, and jealousy. Here's the problem. We are not evolved enough yet to be capable of what is required of us. Our species is doomed because contrary to the instinctive drives to replicate and survive we have too much apathy to force the needed changes. This falls back to living life with blinders on concentrating too much on the immediate world around us and not taking enough time to remember the whole world going on outside our little personal bubbles of relative space and time. Our sun will go nova some day and our planet will be destroyed. That is inevitable. Will we as a species be well disbursed across the galaxy when that happens or will we allow everything we have accomplished to be destroyed ?

I like your post Nipok. It's made me think about things differently.

Not wishing to digress too far from the topic, but if anyone has read any of Isaac Asimov's Foundation books, they will know what I mean. If you haven't, I would recommend them highly.

Just voted in your poll and the score at the extremes is now even at 30.

John, I agree that the trend is unmistakable. Too bad that there are no mechanisms to promote economic justice as the process continues.

Some great posts.

Nipok, great stuff. I wanted to keep the question short, but your post captures what I was thinking of.

Thats the spirit I was thinking of: humanity coming together as part of the overall quest of alleviating suffering on all fronts.

Not that anyone would need to be homogenized. I like the New York City argument too. You have people speaking 120 languages there, yet all living within 50 miles of one another. No one needs to lose their culture.

It just seems like we're wasting so much of our time, energy, brainpower, and resources keeping these artificial national lines in place on earth. Brainpower, time, and energy that could be used for things so much more positive. I know, we're not evolved enough for it yet as a whole. The ~3% violent crimminal element, as well as people living with blinders, seems to stop the rest of humanity.

How can we evolve toward this in the face of the small groups of crimminals and violent idiots that seem to be moving us backwards?

We would need to guard against homogenizing forces, too. Need to include some laws against a McDonald's on every streetcorner and stuff like that! Ahhh, of course there's where the arguments begin again. What? No McDonalds within a stone's throw? I demand my American culture and way of life be kept intact!

Nipok, no matter how many boundaries you take away from people, they will build more. It's part of human culture to differentiate yourself and identify yourself with a smaller group within a larger one. We do not all have to become socially identical to become socially equal. Even if you take away people's identity with nations, there will still be identity with class, and with race, and with gender - probably even a more intense identity than before, thus worsening the issue on those fronts. We are already living in a global context, whether you acknowledge it or not. Effecting social change comes from manipulating the precendece of various social identities, not by iradicating one and intensifying the others.

1. I disagree that current trends lead inevitably to extinction if unaltered. We don't know where the trend lines will lead, but they almost certainly will not continue ad infinitum. Long before the species commits suicide, Mother Nature will intervene and thin the herd. I strongly suspect that a major world epidemic and/or famine will occur in the not distant future. Reduce human population by a third, and almost all of the trends that disturb folks will be at least mitigated, and may they may vanish entirely for many generations. Alteration of disturbing trends might also happen in less dreadful ways. If our species can discover a clean and inexpensive alternative to energy production, imagine how many of the world's problems would shrink to relative unimportance.

The danger that War will lead to human extinction I think is currently quite remote. Even during the height of the Cold War when nuclear arsenals and their delivery systems were many times greater than they are today, the extinction of life as a result of spasm nuclear war was low. For the best and most authoritative thinking on that subject see Herman Kahn's "On Thermonuclear War", and "Thinking the Unthinkable". Nuclear devices have been used only twice against human targets, and that at the beginning of the Atomic Era when understanding of the effects of nuclear weapons was almost non-existent. Today the only real danger of an exchange of nuclear weapons is by emerging nations, rogue states, or fanatical terrorists. In each of those cases, the weapons are likely to be small and limited in number. The effects, while locally devastating, would have almost zero effect even regionally. The use of biological agents by rogue states or terrorists actually presents a much larger danger than the spread of nuclear weapons. Unleashing Small Pox again on to the world could easily kill upwards of one third of the entire human population, but only a suicidal action by terrorists is worrisome ... especially now that Saddam is out of the picture.

2. As can be seen by my comments above, it is evident that I reject the second proposition (that only the creation of a single world government capable of enforcing world-wide policies designed to make the world safe, secure and peaceful) as being our only hope for escaping extinction.

Central Planning has a really terrible track record. The old USSR had central Planning, and it destroyed their empire. Human planners are often wrong, and it should be self-evident why that is the case. Not all relevant information is available to decision-makers, and othes important information isn't recognized until long after it can make a difference. People make mistakes, and when those mistakes are implemented on a world-wide basis the negative effects are potentially much worse than if we just "muddled through". Anyone whose dealt with the political complexities of even a small village can appreciate the difficulties in trying to master truly powerful politics on a world scale. Instead of having a small number of interest groups fighting for supremacy, the numbers of powerful contending forces would have to be balanced. The result of the process wouldn't be the "best" solution, but the solution favored by the most powerful interest group. Of course, that problem already exists at the national level, but if a nation goes wrong there are others that counter-balance it and provide an "escape" hatch if disaster follows. Where would one "escape" a really grand world screw-up if there was only one, all powerful world government? Where do dissenters escape to, if world government turns out to be a tyranny?

You say the world government must be, "(de)void of any possibility for corruption". Good luck. So long as humans remain human they will find a means of corrupting any system for personal, or interest group, benefit. Governments are headed by humans, and every human has the capability of doing really terrible things, sometimes with the best of intentions. Humans have been known to seek unlimited personal power, and to dominate all others. How would a world government so completely guarantee that never to happen? The best system I know of is based on the representational democracy established by the United States Constitution. Is it perfect?

Even when the Chief Executive is faultlessly performing his duties and responsibilities, perhaps half the nation is convinced that he is a blight who must be removed from office in a time of great trial. In our history strong leaders serving in times of crisis are often the target of sizable opposition. There was a serious effort to replace Washington as General of the Revolutionary Army and the accusations against this the best of all our Presidents during his terms in office were almost as bad as those we now hear against President Bush. Lincoln himself expected to be voted out of office, and replaced with the more pacific minded Little Mac, during the Civil War.

World government would, in my opinion be the worst solution possible, to problems that may not amount to a hill of beans in the long run.

Asherman,

Excellent points.

The one thing I wonder about is the angle of alleviating suffering.
Wouldn't the ideal be a world where we all worked in unison toward shared goals of alleviating suffering?

For example, instead of wasting so much of all of the world's resources on defense of individual nations, etc., if all of those resources could be used toward fighting disease, hunger, social problems...

I was just wondering how you fit your views of "its better to have separate nations" in with Buddhism ideals of alleviating suffering.

Wouldn't humanity have a better shot at alleviating suffering if we stopped wasting so much time & resources on defending separate nations, and instead used all that energy toward creating a better world with less suffering?

I wonder how Buddha would feel about the question of separate nations vs. One Nation Earth? I have a feeling he might say the question is somewhat irrelevant?

I'm envisioning a place where more of humanity would be free to choose to do things like follow the Eightfold Path and learn the Four Noble Truths, etc. if they so choose Right now, we do not have that.

Right now, we have a situation where billions of people are not allowed to do things like follow the Eightfold Path as well as they might in a more ideal world...

If we created a world where more people were free to do things like follow Buddhism is they so choose, wouldn't that ultimately lead to alleviating suffering more, more people evolving freely, etc.?

How do you hold both ideas in your philosophy: Alleviating suffering as much as possible, yet keep separate countries instead of having humanity work toward the common good? Buddhism & Nationalism? Especially when many of these countries have policies that don't allow people to choose their own religion, etc.

Please note I'm not attacking your views here, I'm just trying to see how Buddhism & Separate Nations all fits together in your mind.

When I try to think about having both Buddhism and a strong desire for separate nations, these conflicts start to develop in my mind. But obviously, you don't see any conflicts here?

"Wouldn't the ideal be a world where we all worked in unison toward shared goals of alleviating suffering?"

The key here is "ideal". Unfortunately, the world isn't an ideal place, nor do people alway, even often, do what the "ought" to do. The best and mot certain way to alleviate suffering is to work on improving ourselves. We can not do much to control others without grave risk of causing more harm and suffering than we might relieve. We can control ourselves to a large extent, and the outcomes will almost always be posititive. How can learning to control ourselves go wrong? If you are less attached to the world, you will feel less anger, less anxiety, and less greed. If you let the past bury the past, and are flexible about the future, it is easier to live fully in each moment. That will make you a lot less unhappy, and those around you will suffer less when you are focused on fully living whatever the moment brings. Live your own life fully and in moderation, and your family and friends will suffer less because of you. Live well with a minimum of suffering and others will want to live the same way, and in their turn they will increase the circle where suffering is minimized. That is how peaceful communities grow. To make a world where suffering is reduced to its minimums may take a very long time, but so what. One step at a time. Suffering for every sentient being will probably never be accomplished, because we are unable to as a whole Awaken from the illusion of multiplicity. So what, we can still do our best to mitigate suffering so far as it is within our control and that is an end in itself.

While the process is going on, the phenomenal world has to be treated as if it were real. If you try to deny gravity, you will suffer a lot of lumps. ignore that some will be angry, greedy, jealous, immoderate and willing to cause suffering only increases the amount of total suffering. Soldiers and policemen do kill and suffering is a product of their actions. For some Buddhists, and Christians for that matter, total pacifism is one of the highest values. When one refuses to violate their pacifistic values in the face of violence, those who have no compunction against violence go unchecked.

Say that a policeman refuses to use violence, because it is against his principles, stands idly by while a mass murderer goes about slaughtering a school of innocents. The policeman may sleep well at night secure in his refusal to use violence that would cause the murderer and perhaps innocent children to suffer and even die. That is "good" I suppose for the policeman, but the total suffering that arises because of it is much greater. Wouldn't it be better for the policeman to overcome his preference against violence? Kill the murderer, or batter him down and let the legal system punish or rehabilitate the monster. The net effect is less suffering all around. Leave Hitler, or Stalin, or Saddam unchecked and the suffering they cause will multiply and grow until someone violently opposes them. Wars kill and maim people, but they are sometimes necessary to protect innocent generations to come. The 600,000 deaths from the American Civil War caused terrible suffering, but the war was necessary for the greater good, and hence was justified.

So long as we live "in the world" and not within the sanctuary of the monastery, we are torn between our personal program of mitigating suffering by improving our own lives and "growing" values that are antithetical to suffering, and weighing our participation out in the world so that suffering is minimized so much as we reasonably can do so.

Asherman,

Thanks for that clarification.