3 ms·

Pessimistic outlook maybe, but on seeing that I tend to think it misses a sub-head. If that proportion of the population needs to relocate and that much is aban

Pessimistic outlook maybe, but on seeing that I tend to think it misses a sub-head. If that proportion of the population needs to relocate and that much is abandoned, something like: What the world will look like 4°C warmer For the 5% of humanity that survived World Wars 3, 4, 5, and 6. Maybe there'll be world government by then...

raxxorrax 7y ago
> Maybe there'll be world government by then... I really need convincing that a world government wouldn't be extremely inefficient. I believe this would be the most disappointing utopia ever tried with a guarantee for regular civil wars. I get that unity is required for dealing with global life threatening disasters waiting to happen, but it would just suck so badly if you think closer about it. Just my take to add to the pessimism.
- hadlock 7y ago
  My observation is that humans' ability to effectively self-govern maxes out around 100 million, maybe even closer to 70 million. If you look at the world happiness report/index, the top 50 countries are all under 100 million (exceptions: US, Mexico) and not especially large landmass (exceptions: US, Australia). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report Growing up watching Star Trek I always thought the idea of some benevolent global government running in a post scarcity future was the goal we should all be shooting for but in retrospect it looks about as flawed as traditional communist command economies.
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    Maybe the effect is countered by the relative autonomy of US states and perhaps money does indeed make happy: https://www.credit-suisse.com/corporate/en/articles/news-and-expertise/the-global-wealth-report-2016-201611.html https://www.credit-suisse.com/corporate/en/articles/news-and... But nevertheless I think that distributed and subsidiary governance is at least less less efficient. That said, I would instantly exchange my government for the united federation of planets.

raxxorrax 7y ago

> Maybe there'll be world government by then... I really need convincing that a world government wouldn't be extremely inefficient. I believe this would be the most disappointing utopia ever tried with a guarantee for regular civil wars. I get that unity is required for dealing with global life threatening disasters waiting to happen, but it would just suck so badly if you think closer about it. Just my take to add to the pessimism.

hadlock 7y ago
My observation is that humans' ability to effectively self-govern maxes out around 100 million, maybe even closer to 70 million. If you look at the world happiness report/index, the top 50 countries are all under 100 million (exceptions: US, Mexico) and not especially large landmass (exceptions: US, Australia). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report Growing up watching Star Trek I always thought the idea of some benevolent global government running in a post scarcity future was the goal we should all be shooting for but in retrospect it looks about as flawed as traditional communist command economies.
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  Maybe the effect is countered by the relative autonomy of US states and perhaps money does indeed make happy: https://www.credit-suisse.com/corporate/en/articles/news-and-expertise/the-global-wealth-report-2016-201611.html https://www.credit-suisse.com/corporate/en/articles/news-and... But nevertheless I think that distributed and subsidiary governance is at least less less efficient. That said, I would instantly exchange my government for the united federation of planets.