5 ms·

If we don't find a way to unify Terra for Terrans, how will we ever be ready to join The Federation?

by ryanmentor 5y ago

cblconfederate 5y ago
What if i don't want to join?
- ryanmentor 5y ago
  You have to choose where to draw the line for yourself. Today, what do you do if you don't want to join society? More broadly, what DO you want?
  - cblconfederate 5y ago
    > what DO you want? The freedom to do whatever i want. Societies don't really provide freedoms, they exist to curb them. Technology on the other hand is empowering individuals
- krastanov 5y ago
  I get that many people share your point of view, but I really do not understand it. Could you elaborate on it? Why would someone not want to join a post scarcity society where the only limits on your freedom is to not hurt other creatures and nature as a whole. A global government is necessary for that, in my mind mainly in order to fund blue sky research, respond to crises, and ensure monopolies are busted.
  - cblconfederate 5y ago
    Because it doesn't allow people to leave it. This is the recipe that gets you communism / nazism / all kinds of single-minded societies. Do people forget that millions died for the freedom from such regimes?
    - krastanov 5y ago
      That assumption in your first sentence is just wrong. What stops you from leaving and being your own island in such a story? Nothing, if you truly want it. In a post scarcity society you just go and isolate yourself or find like minded people. Just do not expect the "global government" to provide for you or to stand quiet when you damage "the Commons". Whenever I have had this conversation, people say "they would not let me leave" when they mean "they will not let me leave and start damaging our common resources". I think there is a gigantic difference between these two and the first is just wrong (I agree it would be terrible if it was true) while the second is a policy I would support. Am I missing something? TLDR: Being able to leave is of fundamental importance to freedom and it is in no way forbidden by the imaginary global government that prompted this discussion. But when you leave you should stop expecting to have the benefits of that society.
      - cblconfederate 5y ago
        Can you provide an example of an island that will be 'left alone'? Right now we have treaties extending the rights of countries to all the land, the seas and up in space. Even in international waters they are removing people who want to seastead there. There's truly nowhere to go because a global government expands itself until it fills the vessel.
        krastanov 5y ago
        Alaska for example? Get your own power generation and latrine. It does seem you have to pay taxes on owned land though. But living out of an RV seems to get around that. In my country you can be the custodian of a mountain hut (some of them with plenty of amenities). Again there are some minor taxes to pay (not unreasonable given that they provide for the upkeep of the road to the hut), but again, living from an RV gets around that. I guess the RV would require insurance too. So my examples do not fulfill a fundamentalist interpretation of your requirements, but it seems to me it fullfils the most important features (being left 99% alone, with 1% minor inconveniences). As I mentioned, the fact that the government would go after you if you damage the commons (e.g. hunt endangered species) is a feature, not a bug. Does this at least fulfill the spirit of your question?
  - Zuider 5y ago
    Surely a global government constitutes a monopoly that cannot be busted. The aspiration above seems to be assuming as a premise, without argument or evidence, that a global government is not just a necessary condition for a post-scarcity Utopia, but a guaranteed means of reaching such a goal. Given the magnitude of such a step, and in the light of the appalling outcomes of past attempts to create world empires, along with the level of coercion and misdirection required, notably in dealing with the inevitable dissidents, I would imagine such a premise ought to be subject to very careful scrutiny before it can be simply assumed. One cannot simply reverse the burden of proof!
    - krastanov 5y ago
      The thread started with "federation" which slowly turned to a "global empire" in your comment. Yeah, with that premise you are right, but that was not the premise of the OP. We were discussing democratic federations where member states have significant independence. This is also what makes it different from a monopoly: a big company or an empire would fit the bill, a democracy is not a monopoly. Sure, the EU, for instance, fails at that utopic view for now, because of how byzantine and convoluted its attempt at democracy is. But we are getting there and might even succeed, especially given that we have never before had access to today's "almost post scarcity" technology. But yes, you are right that it is not a guarantee. But it seems like one of the worthiest goals we can have.
      - candiodari 5y ago
        I think the issue discussed was different. Can you please explain WHY a global government would create a post-scarcity society? In fact, I'm quite curious what the connection is between global governance and post-scarcity at all. How does scarcity prevent global governance? How does abundance require it? How is it helped by abundance? Surely abundance would do the opposite: it seems to me this would amplify the desire for self-determination on ever smaller scales which seems to be at odds with global governance. I don't even think people will like the result. Surely the end result of an abundant society is 99% of people sitting in a room with Youtube + Netflix + Caviar and alcohol from the replicator. I'm sure they'll want to go for a walk every now and then but interaction between people will die off a LOT more than it already has. I of course can't be sure but I think people living such lives will have a very bad reaction to any attempt at governance.
Zuider 5y ago
Previous attempts to unify the world have been somewhat unedifying, to say the least, but let's not go there... The main problem with removing boundaries and autonomy, whether this happens on a small scale such as a family group, or on a global scale, is that the very worst actors and ideas no longer face obstacles to their influence, there is no means of escaping them, and no better alternatives by which to judge them. It creates a race to the bottom.

If we don't find a way to unify Terra for Terrans, how will we ever be ready to join The Federation?

cblconfederate 5y ago

What if i don't want to join?

ryanmentor 5y ago
You have to choose where to draw the line for yourself. Today, what do you do if you don't want to join society? More broadly, what DO you want?
- cblconfederate 5y ago
  > what DO you want? The freedom to do whatever i want. Societies don't really provide freedoms, they exist to curb them. Technology on the other hand is empowering individuals
krastanov 5y ago
I get that many people share your point of view, but I really do not understand it. Could you elaborate on it? Why would someone not want to join a post scarcity society where the only limits on your freedom is to not hurt other creatures and nature as a whole. A global government is necessary for that, in my mind mainly in order to fund blue sky research, respond to crises, and ensure monopolies are busted.
- cblconfederate 5y ago
  Because it doesn't allow people to leave it. This is the recipe that gets you communism / nazism / all kinds of single-minded societies. Do people forget that millions died for the freedom from such regimes?
  - krastanov 5y ago
    That assumption in your first sentence is just wrong. What stops you from leaving and being your own island in such a story? Nothing, if you truly want it. In a post scarcity society you just go and isolate yourself or find like minded people. Just do not expect the "global government" to provide for you or to stand quiet when you damage "the Commons". Whenever I have had this conversation, people say "they would not let me leave" when they mean "they will not let me leave and start damaging our common resources". I think there is a gigantic difference between these two and the first is just wrong (I agree it would be terrible if it was true) while the second is a policy I would support. Am I missing something? TLDR: Being able to leave is of fundamental importance to freedom and it is in no way forbidden by the imaginary global government that prompted this discussion. But when you leave you should stop expecting to have the benefits of that society.
    - cblconfederate 5y ago
      Can you provide an example of an island that will be 'left alone'? Right now we have treaties extending the rights of countries to all the land, the seas and up in space. Even in international waters they are removing people who want to seastead there. There's truly nowhere to go because a global government expands itself until it fills the vessel.
      - krastanov 5y ago
        Alaska for example? Get your own power generation and latrine. It does seem you have to pay taxes on owned land though. But living out of an RV seems to get around that. In my country you can be the custodian of a mountain hut (some of them with plenty of amenities). Again there are some minor taxes to pay (not unreasonable given that they provide for the upkeep of the road to the hut), but again, living from an RV gets around that. I guess the RV would require insurance too. So my examples do not fulfill a fundamentalist interpretation of your requirements, but it seems to me it fullfils the most important features (being left 99% alone, with 1% minor inconveniences). As I mentioned, the fact that the government would go after you if you damage the commons (e.g. hunt endangered species) is a feature, not a bug. Does this at least fulfill the spirit of your question?
- Zuider 5y ago
  Surely a global government constitutes a monopoly that cannot be busted. The aspiration above seems to be assuming as a premise, without argument or evidence, that a global government is not just a necessary condition for a post-scarcity Utopia, but a guaranteed means of reaching such a goal. Given the magnitude of such a step, and in the light of the appalling outcomes of past attempts to create world empires, along with the level of coercion and misdirection required, notably in dealing with the inevitable dissidents, I would imagine such a premise ought to be subject to very careful scrutiny before it can be simply assumed. One cannot simply reverse the burden of proof!
  - krastanov 5y ago
    The thread started with "federation" which slowly turned to a "global empire" in your comment. Yeah, with that premise you are right, but that was not the premise of the OP. We were discussing democratic federations where member states have significant independence. This is also what makes it different from a monopoly: a big company or an empire would fit the bill, a democracy is not a monopoly. Sure, the EU, for instance, fails at that utopic view for now, because of how byzantine and convoluted its attempt at democracy is. But we are getting there and might even succeed, especially given that we have never before had access to today's "almost post scarcity" technology. But yes, you are right that it is not a guarantee. But it seems like one of the worthiest goals we can have.
    - candiodari 5y ago
      I think the issue discussed was different. Can you please explain WHY a global government would create a post-scarcity society? In fact, I'm quite curious what the connection is between global governance and post-scarcity at all. How does scarcity prevent global governance? How does abundance require it? How is it helped by abundance? Surely abundance would do the opposite: it seems to me this would amplify the desire for self-determination on ever smaller scales which seems to be at odds with global governance. I don't even think people will like the result. Surely the end result of an abundant society is 99% of people sitting in a room with Youtube + Netflix + Caviar and alcohol from the replicator. I'm sure they'll want to go for a walk every now and then but interaction between people will die off a LOT more than it already has. I of course can't be sure but I think people living such lives will have a very bad reaction to any attempt at governance.

Zuider 5y ago

Previous attempts to unify the world have been somewhat unedifying, to say the least, but let's not go there... The main problem with removing boundaries and autonomy, whether this happens on a small scale such as a family group, or on a global scale, is that the very worst actors and ideas no longer face obstacles to their influence, there is no means of escaping them, and no better alternatives by which to judge them. It creates a race to the bottom.