Is it plausible that in the next century or so we create a united Earth with countries basically being the same as the states in the United States. Like the United Countries of Earth or something.
I think in order for that to happen, our world would need a common enemy or threat. Think we can drum up an alien invasion or something?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
In the next century, there will be changes that would astound most people now. We tend to think of life as going on the way it has gone on - which is why radical changes usually catch us completely unprepared, no matter how many forecasts we read. Climate change may be the uniting force: so many people will die, and so many will migrate to the north and south (though there is a lot less south); by the time the survivors sort things out, they may not bother with borders. Global economic collapse might start a similar major shift in organization. Let's hope it's not WWIII.
I asked about the plausibility of an alien invasion. The consensus was that there is no way. I think it possible though. I think global warming is the more likely threat. The world however already seems to be shifting to more of a global community with a global conscience. In my opinion.
I hope we never get a united earth. The big governments we have now are not controllable. Bigger ones would be worse.
Why an alien invasion? I would think that their mere unveiling of themselves would be more than enough to do the trick. Oh—and not bothering to broadcast "contact" while they're at it. Ha.
Technology. Eventually the tight-knit-ness of the world will be accomplished through technological integration. At that point the notion of a "nation state" will begin to fade in importance. Why do we fight so hard to preserve the USA as an entity? Because we think of ourselves as distinct, an island on the Earth. Once human beings cease thinking that way, once we see ourselves as part of something larger, we'll simply discard notions of nationalism. This won't come until we change our neurological engineering. My best guestimate is that somewhere between 2040 and 2060, once our technology begins to advance exponentially we'll simply move beyond the need for national boundaries. It won't be a political movement, merely a lack of any desire to respect the old concepts of race and nationality. ~String
For technology read the feminization of man. Then consider the natures of the ones who advocate this change. :wave:
The Internet does seem to be changing things and the language translators are getting much better. Some governments don't like that very much. Nobodies mentioned the international crime problem which will need more international cooperation to solve. The global warming problem will cause a shrinking of food and water resources and that's usually a cause for war rather than cooperation.
Not sure what you mean there, but your standards of "feminine" and "masculine" are largely arbitrary. In fact, I think both concepts are likely going to be out of date in the future. I think we're in the final years of "sexuality" altogether (gay, straight, masculine, feminine), but that's speculation. I'll likely live long enough to see. A man from a thousand years ago would take one look at you and the life you lead and declare you to be a complete "pussy" based on your comfortable lifestyle, access to pain meds, bathing habits, etc. The universe doesn't care one bit whether humans live or die. Our existence at this point in time is the result of millions of years of evolution. People get a case of the vapors of the notion that everything about us can and will change, but that's just nostalgia. We like our bits right where they are. But, given where we're heading, I don't think we can cling to what our forefathers thought was appropriate as a species. Neither advocacy nor opposition. A statement of fact. The two areas of greatest research on earth are nano-technology and bio-technology. We will have access to technology that is far too tempting to NOT apply to our own existence. Those technologies are likely forces that will require us to alter ourselves in order to remain alive and relevant in a world where the things we make will far outstrip us in ability. ~String
Absolutely. Twelve thousand years ago humans lived in extended-family units of a few dozen nomadic hunter-gatherers. Since agriculture had not been invented, there was no surplus food, so during a bad year the various clans regarded each other as hated and feared competitors for scarce resources. Then the twin technologies of farming and animal husbandry were invented. This both allowed and required our ancestors to settle down in permanent villages. But the surplus food also made it unnecessary to be hostile to other villages. But even beyond that, it became obvious that division of labor and economy of scale increase the productivity of human workers, so it became advantageous to invite the clan over the hill to move in and create a larger, more prosperous community, with a few people able to opt out of the food production industry and become inventors, musicians, shoemakers, explorers, etc. Soon it was discovered that making peace with all the villages within traveling distance was an advantage, because they could trade the various skills and artifacts that were unique to each of them. As Stone Age technology improved, and animals were domesticated to do heavy work, cities were built. People now learned to live in harmony and cooperation with total strangers. The discovery of the technology of metallurgy ushered in the Bronze Age. Empires were built, within which people in different cities paid tribute to the same lord and maintained friendly relations with each other. The next two major technological advances, the Iron Age and the Industrial Revolution, were mixed blessings. They were used to invent powerful new weapons, so the various empires made war on each other. Nonetheless, by the end of the Industrial Era in the mid-20th Century, many countries had become quite large; within their borders people lived in peace with other people whom they never even met. The largest countries (China, India, USA, USSR, Brazil, Japan, and perhaps I've forgotten one or two) had populations in excess of 100 million people, and for the most part they maintained internal peace. The Electronic Revolution promises to be a revolution like no other, because it has made every human being a neighbor of every other human being. Some of you may already be tired of my favorite illustration of this point, but for those who haven't read it yet... The U.S. government has spent three decades telling us that the Iranians are our mortal enemies. Yet when Neda Aga Soltan was gunned down in the streets of Tehran by her own government, onlookers quickly saturated cyberspace with real-time cell-phone videos of her dying moments. Americans wept for her: she was our daughter, our sister, our friend. We wrote songs about her. Governments be damned: we are all one people now. We already have trans-natioal hegemonies, the next step up in organization. Europeans were shooting each other in my own lifetime, now they're loaning each other money. It's obvious to me that this trend will continue until it reaches the point where even our shit-for-brains governments have to accept the fact that we're all one people. It will become impossible to rouse us to war because in any country we might be ordered to bomb, we have friends and colleagues.
But who would be controlling all of these new patented technologies? Who's laws would be applied to implement or defend intellectual properties? American? European? Chinese? It's so fucking stupid—man has had to expend hundreds of centuries' worth of pain and agony to conceive and develop the concept and reality of the individual, and now, in our technologically advancing world, all of that blood sweat and tears is being syphoned into self-contained trademarks and protected branding: the individual mega-corporation. If indeed borders dissolve, people will start identifying one another by their company allegiance: "Hey man, who goes there?? I'm an Apple—you'd better not be a fucking Samsung!!"
Masculine and feminine describe certain qualities which have evolved in males and females. These qualities have ensured millions of years of hominid evolution and will do so for the foreseeable future. It sounds like more of a hope. There are many men alive today, outside of the West, who would think that. Why the need to imagine masculinity as something already vanished? And yet you can't wait for what evolved from those blind, indifferent forces to disappear. It must be the source of much pain. Yes, the result of sexual reproduction, the union of two different sexes, male and female with their associated characteristics, themselves the result of evolution. I see no other possible pathway to this point. Where we're heading? Your every word is a desire to escape the past. What things? And what must be altered?
