5 ms·

There is so much gold in here. The human race would do well to explore how it's possible to turn hatred into love. It clearly happened here, and I've witnessed

There is so much gold in here. The human race would do well to explore how it's possible to turn hatred into love. It clearly happened here, and I've witnessed it on a smaller scale as a 16 year old in Vienna. As an immigrant, it was easy to find yourself in the wrong place at a wrong time. That finally happened one night, and the only thing that saved me was seeing a sign on one of the guys' jackets that belonged to a soccer club where I played in a young division (these guys were lifelong supporters, so my small achievement was enough to view me in a completely different light). Deeply embedded in our evolutionary story is the urge to protect people you have something in common with (and I suppose this works the other way around as well). How easy would it be to hack this trait and increase the chances of world peace by consciously exploiting it on a global scale? Think of it as next-gen UN, but instead of focusing on top-down conflict resolution, we would work from the bottom up and search for things we're passionate about and can connect with people from across the world to collaborate on. Rule #1: teams should not be divided on a country by country basis.

tobmlt 6y ago
I think we’d have this already/automatically as our interconnectivity has grown. It’s media and government propaganda stoking fear of the other for their gain which actively thwarts it. — up to the point which it can live organically once again in the greater populace. But that’s just like, my opinion, man.
TimTheTinker 6y ago
> Rule #1: teams should not be divided on a country by country basis. I don't think I agree. It's great for individuals and countries to be friendly, but I see two problems with a one-world-government system: 1. It concentrates an extreme quantity of power in the hands of a few people. Power has a potential of corrupting those who hold it, and I believe that potential increases on an exponential (or at least an algebraic) scale, not a linear scale. 2. If an evil personage gains power (think 20th century dictators), a single world country would suffer significantly. But having countries separated provides a limit and a check on the potential fallout of that dictator's actions.
- Arainach 6y ago
  What's the greater evil - the risk that checks and balances fail and an evil person takes over, or that a federated system is unable to reach consensus and address existential threats like climate change or even significant but not quite existential threats like overfishing, pollution, war, and nonrenewable resources?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - sgtnoodle 6y ago
    A more fair choice of options would be, "the risk that an evil person takes over" vs. "the risk that a federated system fails to address existential threats". The way you said it implies probability in the former vs. certainty in the latter. An explictly evil person or group dominating the world seems like the greater evil in terms of outcome. That would literally be hell on Earth. When you look at probabilities, there's tons of examples in history, across thousands of years, of evil people inevitably rising to power when the system allows for it. Meanwhile, there are relatively few examples of humanity going extinct due to self-inflicted environmental damage. Isn't federation one of the main checks and balances that keeps evil dictators from taking over the world?
- dustingetz 6y ago
  game theory coordination dilemmas are killing us now
- whatshisface 6y ago
  The OP was not proposing a one world government. They were proposing that there be huge number of overlapping social organizations, based on natural similarities. The International Association of Basket Weavers is not even comparable to a one-world government.
  - TimTheTinker 6y ago
    Thanks, and agreed with that — organizations that transcend country boundaries are great, as long as they’re not vested with political power. Perhaps the OP was talking about sports teams in particular? Forming sports teams based on geographic area fits well, and gives people someone to root for without alienating other groups for what would amount to wrongfully discriminatory reasons in other contexts. But if geographic region isn’t allowed, then finding other criteria can be hard. Who wants to root for the A’s to win against the B’s if there’s nothing besides the name that makes them different?
macspoofing 6y ago
>Deeply embedded in our evolutionary story is the urge to protect people you have something in common with Deeper than that is identity. In fact, after basic needs are met, your identity (cultural, ethnic, religious, and yes, even national) is one of the most important aspect of your humanity. Every nation in the world, has very tight immigration policies and border controls. That's not a coincidence. >Rule #1: teams should not be divided on a country by country basis. How should they be divided? How does a global government look like? Liberal Democracy with a market economy? You sure everyone is OK with that? Also, we live in a world where even 'regular' nation states number in tens or hundreds of millions of people. There is already an issue of the disconnect between the population and their representatives. I'm not sure how this would work if added another 1 or 2 levels up the hierarchy. Can you imagine how disconnected and 'elitist' representatives of your one-world government would be? Yieks.
- aerosmile 6y ago
  You took my next-gen UN idea too far. I am not asking for a government of governments (aka, a worldwide EU). I am just asking for another form of Olympic Games (or an expanded version of Monsters of Rock, or whatever comes to your mind).
- com2kid 6y ago
  Immigration policies were a direct result of the creation of social welfare programs. Remember, 200 years ago most European countries only existed in a proto form of what we recognize today.
  - macspoofing 6y ago
    And those ethnic identities were there ... Where do you think those nations came from?
derekp7 6y ago
This was actually a basis for the international Ham Radio scene back in the day I believe. I also see it playing out with FLOSS software development -- to me it is exciting when people from other backgrounds and countries download, comment, and improve on my software.
irjustin 6y ago
Amazing story and I believe it's happening. The world is connecting on a global scale and people are beginning to realize there's other ways than simply "us vs them". A way to see it is how diverse food has gotten around the world. One thing that really slows this progress is the nationalization of the news and specifically internet. It's much easier to keep the "us vs them" narrative going when the news outlets are controlled by the state.
cheschire 6y ago
I don’t believe war requires hatred, no more than sport. Some people wind up in war through machinations that have nothing to do with even the acknowledgment of the enemy’s existence. Go here, wait there, if your life is in danger, return the danger back at them.
- sneak 6y ago
  I think the world would be better off if people simply refused the initial "Go here" order from someone who cares nothing for their own life, or the lives of those "there". War cannot be waged without soldiers, and no one is born a soldier. This requires the cultural de-glorification of soldering-as-profession. Millions of tax dollars are spent on advertising to ensuring it remains, and many companies are complicit in furthering it (priority boarding, discounts, et c). I shop elsewhere whenever possible.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    First, good commanding officers do care for the lives of their soldiers. Second, those who don't have soldiers can still die by someone else's soldiers.
  - nradov 6y ago
    The US has had a volunteer military for decades. People who would refuse to fight simply never volunteer in the first place. Boycotting companies for extending a few minor courtesies to the troops is ridiculous and ineffective. If you want to make a difference then get active in politics.
    - lmm 6y ago
      > The US has had a volunteer military for decades. It gets those "volunteers" by putting the lower classes in a position where their only way of getting education and healthcare is to sign up for the military, and then high-pressure sales tactics to get teenagers to sign a contract that'll bind them for decades.
acct776 6y ago
> how it's possible to turn hatred into love. Remove yourself from the influence of the military-industrial-Congressional complex.
jki275 6y ago
War is almost never about hate or love. War is a tool of diplomacy. Both of these men were simply professionals doing their jobs. The one attacking, the one defending. It's unlikely they ever hated each other or even really thought a great deal beyond how to accomplish their respective missions at the time.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  > War is a tool of diplomacy. More often than not war is a means of pursuing business interests.
  - jki275 6y ago
    Certainly not in this case.

tobmlt 6y ago

I think we’d have this already/automatically as our interconnectivity has grown. It’s media and government propaganda stoking fear of the other for their gain which actively thwarts it. — up to the point which it can live organically once again in the greater populace. But that’s just like, my opinion, man.

TimTheTinker 6y ago

> Rule #1: teams should not be divided on a country by country basis. I don't think I agree. It's great for individuals and countries to be friendly, but I see two problems with a one-world-government system: 1. It concentrates an extreme quantity of power in the hands of a few people. Power has a potential of corrupting those who hold it, and I believe that potential increases on an exponential (or at least an algebraic) scale, not a linear scale. 2. If an evil personage gains power (think 20th century dictators), a single world country would suffer significantly. But having countries separated provides a limit and a check on the potential fallout of that dictator's actions.

Arainach 6y ago
What's the greater evil - the risk that checks and balances fail and an evil person takes over, or that a federated system is unable to reach consensus and address existential threats like climate change or even significant but not quite existential threats like overfishing, pollution, war, and nonrenewable resources?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- sgtnoodle 6y ago
  A more fair choice of options would be, "the risk that an evil person takes over" vs. "the risk that a federated system fails to address existential threats". The way you said it implies probability in the former vs. certainty in the latter. An explictly evil person or group dominating the world seems like the greater evil in terms of outcome. That would literally be hell on Earth. When you look at probabilities, there's tons of examples in history, across thousands of years, of evil people inevitably rising to power when the system allows for it. Meanwhile, there are relatively few examples of humanity going extinct due to self-inflicted environmental damage. Isn't federation one of the main checks and balances that keeps evil dictators from taking over the world?
dustingetz 6y ago
game theory coordination dilemmas are killing us now
whatshisface 6y ago
The OP was not proposing a one world government. They were proposing that there be huge number of overlapping social organizations, based on natural similarities. The International Association of Basket Weavers is not even comparable to a one-world government.
- TimTheTinker 6y ago
  Thanks, and agreed with that — organizations that transcend country boundaries are great, as long as they’re not vested with political power. Perhaps the OP was talking about sports teams in particular? Forming sports teams based on geographic area fits well, and gives people someone to root for without alienating other groups for what would amount to wrongfully discriminatory reasons in other contexts. But if geographic region isn’t allowed, then finding other criteria can be hard. Who wants to root for the A’s to win against the B’s if there’s nothing besides the name that makes them different?

macspoofing 6y ago

>Deeply embedded in our evolutionary story is the urge to protect people you have something in common with Deeper than that is identity. In fact, after basic needs are met, your identity (cultural, ethnic, religious, and yes, even national) is one of the most important aspect of your humanity. Every nation in the world, has very tight immigration policies and border controls. That's not a coincidence. >Rule #1: teams should not be divided on a country by country basis. How should they be divided? How does a global government look like? Liberal Democracy with a market economy? You sure everyone is OK with that? Also, we live in a world where even 'regular' nation states number in tens or hundreds of millions of people. There is already an issue of the disconnect between the population and their representatives. I'm not sure how this would work if added another 1 or 2 levels up the hierarchy. Can you imagine how disconnected and 'elitist' representatives of your one-world government would be? Yieks.

aerosmile 6y ago
You took my next-gen UN idea too far. I am not asking for a government of governments (aka, a worldwide EU). I am just asking for another form of Olympic Games (or an expanded version of Monsters of Rock, or whatever comes to your mind).
com2kid 6y ago
Immigration policies were a direct result of the creation of social welfare programs. Remember, 200 years ago most European countries only existed in a proto form of what we recognize today.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  And those ethnic identities were there ... Where do you think those nations came from?

derekp7 6y ago

This was actually a basis for the international Ham Radio scene back in the day I believe. I also see it playing out with FLOSS software development -- to me it is exciting when people from other backgrounds and countries download, comment, and improve on my software.

irjustin 6y ago

Amazing story and I believe it's happening. The world is connecting on a global scale and people are beginning to realize there's other ways than simply "us vs them". A way to see it is how diverse food has gotten around the world. One thing that really slows this progress is the nationalization of the news and specifically internet. It's much easier to keep the "us vs them" narrative going when the news outlets are controlled by the state.

cheschire 6y ago

I don’t believe war requires hatred, no more than sport. Some people wind up in war through machinations that have nothing to do with even the acknowledgment of the enemy’s existence. Go here, wait there, if your life is in danger, return the danger back at them.

sneak 6y ago
I think the world would be better off if people simply refused the initial "Go here" order from someone who cares nothing for their own life, or the lives of those "there". War cannot be waged without soldiers, and no one is born a soldier. This requires the cultural de-glorification of soldering-as-profession. Millions of tax dollars are spent on advertising to ensuring it remains, and many companies are complicit in furthering it (priority boarding, discounts, et c). I shop elsewhere whenever possible.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  First, good commanding officers do care for the lives of their soldiers. Second, those who don't have soldiers can still die by someone else's soldiers.
- nradov 6y ago
  The US has had a volunteer military for decades. People who would refuse to fight simply never volunteer in the first place. Boycotting companies for extending a few minor courtesies to the troops is ridiculous and ineffective. If you want to make a difference then get active in politics.
  - lmm 6y ago
    > The US has had a volunteer military for decades. It gets those "volunteers" by putting the lower classes in a position where their only way of getting education and healthcare is to sign up for the military, and then high-pressure sales tactics to get teenagers to sign a contract that'll bind them for decades.

acct776 6y ago

> how it's possible to turn hatred into love. Remove yourself from the influence of the military-industrial-Congressional complex.

jki275 6y ago

War is almost never about hate or love. War is a tool of diplomacy. Both of these men were simply professionals doing their jobs. The one attacking, the one defending. It's unlikely they ever hated each other or even really thought a great deal beyond how to accomplish their respective missions at the time.

jacquesm 6y ago
> War is a tool of diplomacy. More often than not war is a means of pursuing business interests.
- jki275 6y ago
  Certainly not in this case.