This is something I’ve been thinking about for a while, and it’s a huge problem, but I don’t really see a lot of discussion about it. We have the technological means now for every single person on the planet to communicate directly with every single other person, in near-real time. The only real barrier to it is logistical (and is mostly impeded by resource hoarding). That’s amazing. And the recent election in Nepal via Discord has me thinking again about how the internet could form the basis for a real, democratic, world government. There are a ton of problems that would need to be addressed, off the top of my head:
- not everyone has internet access
- not everyone that has access has unfettered access
- It’s hard to preserve anonymity and have fair elections
- it’s hard to verify elections haven’t been tampered with
- what happens when violent crimes are committed?
- how do taxes work in this system?
- how do armed forces work in this system?
I don’t think any of these problems are necessarily unsolvable, but I don’t know how. So, how would we get from where we are to where we want to be? How do we even define what the end state should look like?
Take a moment and think about what the global conditions were like 300 years ago, and think about how things improved every 50 years since then.
Around 1725, most of the world was rural, poor, and ruled by monarchies, with low life expectancy and little technology. By 1775, Enlightenment ideas and early industrialization began shifting societies. In 1825, machines and railroads transformed economies. By 1875, electricity and vaccines improved life. In 1925, cars, radios, and modern medicine spread. By 1975, civil rights, global trade, and computers reshaped the world. And today? Well, you can probably tell how our modern lives are better today than they were in the 1970s.
To put things in perspective, in the 1800s, only around the 10% of the world was literate, but today only around 10% are illiterate. Similarly, in the 1800s, more than 90% people were living in extreme poverty, but today that’s around 10%. The same goes for many other stats. What does this tell us? It tells us that things do get better with time. Even though we went through plagues, wars, famines, droughts, and genocides we did come out the other side better than we did before.
So maybe, just maybe, we don’t need a global government. Maybe vastly different people separated by culture, land, and history shouldn’t be forced into a system with people they don’t understand very well. Maybe it’s better for us to respect the concept of sovereignty that has persisted throughout history, and focus on strengthening the trends that have brought us tremendous progress over time… like improving the access and quality of education globally, developing and sharing new advancements in medicine, innovating new technologies to make our lives easier, pushing for and protecting civil rights and individual liberties, and generating wealth and prosperity through market economies.
The point is that maybe it’s better that we focus on improving what we know works from historical trends instead trying to create a global government, which will certainly create a whole new set of issues. Perhaps what we need is more dialogue and cooperation through forums like the UN instead of consolidation through a world government.
These don’t need to be mutually exclusive though. A lot of the progress in Europe the past 80 years is a result of the improved cooperation brought by the EU.
The EU isn’t like the UN, where everyone is equally represented (sans veto powers), but is a democratically elected super-national body with opposing super-national political factions. I can see a concept like that working on a global scale some time in the (relatively far) future.
The EU consists of a bunch of European countries that are similar culturally, economically, and politically. It makes sense for them to form a union that aims to achieve their common interests. A lot of similar unions exist like ASEAN, Arab League, African Union, etc. These are still different than having a single government for the entire world. There are way too many differences for that to work, different cultures, unequal economies, different religions, different politics, etc. This global government would end up trying to appease everyone to maintain the unity, but this would ultimately lead to have no teeth. In other words it’ll be reduced to what the UN is now.
Oh, I definitely meant far future. While the differences are far too big today, I can see gradually increasing cooperation between e.g. the EU and African Union at some point culminating in the construction of a governmental body that has some regulatory power over them both.
Once such a body exists, I can imagine that it over time accumulates power, bringing the two unions even closer together. The EU started out as a relatively small organ, and has grown gradually to what it is today over many decades. My point was that if some “global government” ever forms, I think that kind of gradual process is how it will happen. Starting out with trade agreements, and then gradually regulating more aspects of government.
I mean that’s a completely fair point of view. If we make the assumption that humanity will continue to progress with time, even if there are periods of regression, then I could see where you’re coming from. Humanity did evolve from being nomadic tribes to creating settlements of tribes to creating nations from settlements to creating empires from nations to today where we’re forming unions of empires and nations. It’s logical to think that with time we’ll have these unions merge and create a higher authority, and if we follow this trajectory it should eventually lead to a global government. I just hope we don’t go extinct before that happens.
I think we probably agree that OP is being overly ambitious and idealistic, but…
How do you read history and go “ah yes, everyone always respected borders”, or even “everyone respected borders the subset of the time they agreed to do so”.
I don’t just mean the famous historical war examples, either, but like, recent history and diplomacy.
That’s not what I meant, I meant that the concept of sovereignty has persisted over time. Different groups of people have sought out their independence and they go to great lengths to protect it. I obviously didn’t mean that sovereignty was protected throughout history because that’s clearly not true. The world is filled with empires and invasions. However, I think most people today agree that this was bad. I think a lot of people today would see a modern global government in a similar negative light as it would greatly favor regions in the world that are already rich, heavily populated, and strong. In other words, countries like the US and China would still end up dominating and poor regions would still be screwed over.
You’re probably right about that, although the reasons people want their own country to be independent are usually going to be less well-though-out or noble. Neither the US nor China are in favour of more global democracy. China prefers the ability to bully smaller states with no recourse built in, and the zeitgeist in the US is towards total isolationism.
But anyway, that’s a bit beside the point. I did think you meant there was some kind of traditional idea of who gets sovereignty, because it’s advanced that way sometimes. The real situation is more of a clusterfuck. Civilising the savages, liberating the workers and expansionism because god said so (or because good is dumb, for secular fascists) are just as often trotted out, and usually people don’t give their internal separatist movements the time of day even when they’re all about avoiding union with their culturally distinct neighbors.
A global government at it’s core is a form of imperialism. The idea is going to pushed by specific regions who stand to gain the most and it’ll opposed by region who stand to gain the least. No matter what shape the global government takes on, it will always be dominated by a select number of regions. Where the seats of government are going to be, who enforces its laws, who makes up the government, what ideals it would embody, how the voting system is set up, what degree of autonomy can be granted and who grants it, and so on these are things that have to be forced upon people by an authority that seeks to monopolize violence. Imperialism as a concept of where a nation spreads expanding it’s influence and power isn’t inherently bad, but based on human history this is an idea that can get bad pretty quick. I don’t think a global government can be implemented without a great deal of push back, resistance, and force to squash it all.
Imperialism is pretty much used as a snarl word on Lemmy, a lot of the time. When it does have a definition, it’s often more centered around the extractive aspect of the empires of the past. Examples of redistribution outwards from the cultural center, instead of inwards, have also existed, like the EU, USSR, or to a degree Canada. So, I don’t think it’s inevitable things work out that way.
Even now, international laws and agreements cover more and more all the time, because there fundamentally are just shared resources and concerns. If it continues, we won’t necessarily have OP’s thing, but you’re talking about something like a government, and there will be some use of force, like you see in international hotspots now. I wouldn’t compare it to, like, the British Empire, though.