We do not identify as a species, and so cannot be governed as a species. — counterpunch
What threats to sustainability would arise and how would you deal with them? — Marigold23
There are reasons isolated pockets of civilization are beneficial. Example, if a contagion is released or all-out war unfolds (ie. the place goes down the tubes) at least not everyone has to die or be afflicted by whatever as well. Corruption also, everybody can kind of "watch each other" and call out egregious abuses against those who commit it with no one entity ever being able to so easily or casually "overpower" the collective might of "everyone".
Transparency and accountability, best defense against the tyrannical and beastly abomination that is unrestrained human nature with all it's greed and indifference. — Outlander
Personally, I would start with a national government run by well-trained and well-behaved philosophers, give it 50-100 years and if that worked out then I might just consider it. And, ideally, it should be a Christian one. I don't think I'd fancy the idea of a worldwide Islamic State to be honest — Apollodorus
I am of the view that monopolies corrupt, and this does also apply to government. — PhilosophyRunner
Suppose it's an arm's length administrative structure, with diversified home rule, but no standing armies? Regional representation, like a senate, only without national borders, and a constantly changing elected parliament? An international court for transgressions against sovereign rights, and an arbitration process for inter-regional and inter-national disputes. — Vera Mont
Others have given different reasons that I think have merit, but mine is one against there being a monopoly, even if it is a benevolent monopoly. — PhilosophyRunner
So the solution as far as I am concerned, is not an even larger monopolistic thought orthodoxy, but rather more options. — PhilosophyRunner
Starting with changing the electoral system to one that allows minority parties more of a say (eg proportional representation), as opposed to the two party dominant systems in many countries. — PhilosophyRunner
How do you get them to do that? Start with the US. — Vera Mont
Global "one world" government will have to wait until the advent of an irreversible Technological Singularity that brings about a sustainable Post-Scarcity economy. — 180 Proof
Anyway it will be hell of a lot easier than forming a global government. If you are talking practical steps today, a global government has no chance. — PhilosophyRunner
I imagine a breakdown of all federations and dominions, so that relatively equal small states may form a pact where none dominate. — Vera Mont
Yeah I think you are right, though I would say that a post-scarcity economy is necessary for a single world government but not sufficient.Global "one world" government will have to wait until the advent of an irreversible Technological Singularity that brings about a sustainable Post-Scarcity economy. (NB: Iain M. Banks dramatizes this political-economic speculation in his acclaimed Culture series of space opera novels.) — 180 Proof
This is why I refer to it as an (optimal) effect of a (beneficial) Technological Singularity which, for me, is the sufficient condition for 'world governance'. Primates like us are mostly wired for – territoriality and forming dominance hierarchies – tribal eusociality, and so monopolistic social arrangements, as you've pointed out, are inexorably subject to moral hazards because of our atavisms. 'Human-level A.I.' (or more advanced) will not be constrained by primate glands and reproductive drives; provided we can engineer 'philanthropic A.I.'; it can govern us and all other planetary systems as an integrated whole. :nerd:Yeah I think you are right, though I would say that a post-scarcity economy is necessary for a single world order but not sufficient — PhilosophyRunner
I guess time will tell! — PhilosophyRunner
This is why I refer to it as an (optimal) effect of a (beneficial) Technological Singularity which, for me, is the sufficient condition for 'world governance'. Primates like us are mostly wired for – territoriality and forming dominance hierarchies – tribal eusociality, and so monopolistic social arrangements, as you've pointed out, are inexorably subject to moral hazards because our atavisms. 'Human-level A.I.' (or more advanced) will not be constrained by primate glands and reproductive drives; provided we can engineer 'philanthropic A.I.'; it can govern us and all other planetary systems as an integrated whole. :nerd: — 180 Proof
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.