5 ms·

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 w

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.

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.