5 ms·

It seems awfully presumptuous to assume that a universal society is desirable in the first place.

silicon2401 6y ago
That was exactly my thoughts. The article comes to a conclusion I agree with (a universal society is unattainable) from a starting point I completely disagree with (a universal society is desirable). I was caught off guard by how it takes for granted its initial position with statements like this > While the erasure of borders may be laudable, Just last year we saw how the lack of strong borders can lead to fatal consequences if no entity has the authority or power to restrict movement and travel. Within the US alone, we've seen countless cases of people spreading the coronavirus simply by going to visit family, attend some political event, going on vacation, and it's all because of this universal free movement.
- mjburgess 6y ago
  Don't those consequences follow from precisely the impossibility of a universal society? Why have borders otherwise? It seems very hard to disagree with, in principle, either premise: "universal" or "multipolar"; if the premise is granted its relevant impossibilities. Would you prefer to live in a world which is necessarily maximally particular; or necessarily maximally universal? Well, in either world, there would be no human beings. And whatever species would exist there could be designed to be maximally happy, flourishing, etc.
- francisofascii 6y ago
  A universal society may not be desirable, but the freedom of movement is desirable. It is certainly high up the list of desired human rights.
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  This is a very common miscommunication regarding idealistic goals. When somebody has an idealistic goal, they don't mean that they think the practical downsides are worth living with forever. The implication is that they want to overcome those downsides. E.g. getting rid of the poisons of nationalism without getting rid of the differences in culture, or getting rid of the restriction of movement based on national borders without getting rid of the ability to restrict movement during a viral outbreak. These types of goals sound almost impossible, at least until a far flung future, but that's why we say these are ideals. Colloquially, "idealism" implies "almost impossible". The misunderstanding comes when one person speaks under the assumption that these downsides are surmountable, and the other person speaks under the assumption that these downsides are insurmountable, when really they should be arguing more directly about how to achieve the goal or how achieving it is unrealistic, instead of Team Idealism just saying "think about this future, wouldn't it be great?", and Team Realism just saying "we haven't achieved it yet, so I think it's impossible".
- ouid 6y ago
  With fewer borders, Chinese Bio-4 labs might have have had better oversight. Global externalities need to be addressed by global agreements. Pandemics and climate change are two such externalities.
bzb6 6y ago
This is what globalists have been working towards the past decades: shoving western liberalism into the rest of the world. Evidently, with terrible results. So they have been moving to plan B: move the third world into the first world. A plan that will backfire in a terrible way (we are already seeing a resurgence of the far right in many countries of Europe).
locopati 6y ago
Seems a better goal to work towards than the warring alternative that is the entirety of human history.
snikeris 6y ago
One major advantage of a universal society would be an end to the arms race. It's a colossal waste of resources to have countries endlessly trying to outspend eachother on technology to kill people.
danenania 6y ago
While it may have any number of undesirable effects, it would at least have a few extremely desirable ones: - We could stop wasting massive amounts of time and resources on militaries. - We could end the threat of global nuclear war. - We could more effectively deal with planet-scale catastrophes like climate change and pandemics. - We could get rid of all the inefficiencies caused by borders and trade barriers.
TeMPOraL 6y ago
Why? An universal society means we can all understand and get along with each other. To a large extent, we already enjoy it. I'm Polish, but I spend most my day (and by now, I spent half my life) dealing with people from all around the world, I consume predominantly American media, waste my time on an American message board, and hell, I know more about US laws and politics than about my own... and the same is true to quite a large chunk of people on the Internet. A subset of these characteristics is true to a good part, perhaps the majority, of the people living in Western countries. We're all living and breathing universal culture to a smaller or larger extent. Might as well have our organizational structures catch up with this reality.

That was exactly my thoughts. The article comes to a conclusion I agree with (a universal society is unattainable) from a starting point I completely disagree with (a universal society is desirable). I was caught off guard by how it takes for granted its initial position with statements like this > While the erasure of borders may be laudable, Just last year we saw how the lack of strong borders can lead to fatal consequences if no entity has the authority or power to restrict movement and travel. Within the US alone, we've seen countless cases of people spreading the coronavirus simply by going to visit family, attend some political event, going on vacation, and it's all because of this universal free movement.

mjburgess 6y ago
Don't those consequences follow from precisely the impossibility of a universal society? Why have borders otherwise? It seems very hard to disagree with, in principle, either premise: "universal" or "multipolar"; if the premise is granted its relevant impossibilities. Would you prefer to live in a world which is necessarily maximally particular; or necessarily maximally universal? Well, in either world, there would be no human beings. And whatever species would exist there could be designed to be maximally happy, flourishing, etc.
francisofascii 6y ago
A universal society may not be desirable, but the freedom of movement is desirable. It is certainly high up the list of desired human rights.
happytoexplain 6y ago
This is a very common miscommunication regarding idealistic goals. When somebody has an idealistic goal, they don't mean that they think the practical downsides are worth living with forever. The implication is that they want to overcome those downsides. E.g. getting rid of the poisons of nationalism without getting rid of the differences in culture, or getting rid of the restriction of movement based on national borders without getting rid of the ability to restrict movement during a viral outbreak. These types of goals sound almost impossible, at least until a far flung future, but that's why we say these are ideals. Colloquially, "idealism" implies "almost impossible". The misunderstanding comes when one person speaks under the assumption that these downsides are surmountable, and the other person speaks under the assumption that these downsides are insurmountable, when really they should be arguing more directly about how to achieve the goal or how achieving it is unrealistic, instead of Team Idealism just saying "think about this future, wouldn't it be great?", and Team Realism just saying "we haven't achieved it yet, so I think it's impossible".
ouid 6y ago
With fewer borders, Chinese Bio-4 labs might have have had better oversight. Global externalities need to be addressed by global agreements. Pandemics and climate change are two such externalities.

bzb6 6y ago

This is what globalists have been working towards the past decades: shoving western liberalism into the rest of the world. Evidently, with terrible results. So they have been moving to plan B: move the third world into the first world. A plan that will backfire in a terrible way (we are already seeing a resurgence of the far right in many countries of Europe).

locopati 6y ago

Seems a better goal to work towards than the warring alternative that is the entirety of human history.

snikeris 6y ago

One major advantage of a universal society would be an end to the arms race. It's a colossal waste of resources to have countries endlessly trying to outspend eachother on technology to kill people.

danenania 6y ago

While it may have any number of undesirable effects, it would at least have a few extremely desirable ones: - We could stop wasting massive amounts of time and resources on militaries. - We could end the threat of global nuclear war. - We could more effectively deal with planet-scale catastrophes like climate change and pandemics. - We could get rid of all the inefficiencies caused by borders and trade barriers.

TeMPOraL 6y ago

Why? An universal society means we can all understand and get along with each other. To a large extent, we already enjoy it. I'm Polish, but I spend most my day (and by now, I spent half my life) dealing with people from all around the world, I consume predominantly American media, waste my time on an American message board, and hell, I know more about US laws and politics than about my own... and the same is true to quite a large chunk of people on the Internet. A subset of these characteristics is true to a good part, perhaps the majority, of the people living in Western countries. We're all living and breathing universal culture to a smaller or larger extent. Might as well have our organizational structures catch up with this reality.