4 ms·
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,
by 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 agoThe 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 agoI 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.
- krastanov 5y agoThe connection I am suggesting is in the other direction: post-scarcity (thanks to technology) makes it easier to have a peaceful federated democratic global government. > 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 History seems to point to the exact opposite: much (not all) of scientific progress is driven by the privileged few that have their needs taken care off. Most (not all) scientists and scholars up until recently were of privileged background. Nor are the children of the rich today just living the lonely life of hedonism you suggest.
- candiodari 5y agoYes, because if there's one thing I've learned about "the privileged few" it's how much they like and respect governance limiting what they can do ... My point is that such people will fight against any and all attempts at intervening in their lives, whether or not they get a vote in it. But yes, some have hobbies. 1 in 1000 or so has useful hobbies, and there have been historical time periods where that really mattered.