A Divided Species is a Weaker Species

[sub_thug]

It really comes down to a choice, on some basic level. On one hand, you have innovation. Let's define innovation as the development of new technologies, methods, ideas, goods, or services. Let's define globalization as the proliferation of those technologies, methods, ideas, goods, or services to places outside of where they were created. If you assume all other things being equal, you have to decide to what levels you want each of these things. The scale is definitely not 0 for either (you wouldn't want to live in a world where only the inventor of something has it because then you'd have to always invent your own stuff, but nor would you want everyone in the world to have access to Tylenol before you started trying to figure out how to treat cancer because you'd cost a lot of lives with inefficiencies), so it's a question of defining where we are on this scale.

 

[IDL]

For pure efficiency you could make the case that a single government with the power to make decisions for everyone on the planet is better at getting things done and could even in theory be better than decisions being made closer to where the impacts actually are.

Sort of like the benevolent dictator idea.

Problem is the corruption and special interests which would run it. Why would you want to give power away to a tiny number of people who would be working on behalf of the worlds most powerful. A power monopoly and completion of world empire.

Could quite easily turn dystopian quite quickly.

A degree of global governance is inevitable and can serve a good purpose, but it comes with a high risk as the quest for more and more power is ever present, and the monopoly scenario would very likely turn tyrannical.

There is also the push to homogenize, or standardize the worker bees of the global system. That often means getting rid of cultures, peoples, traditions, beliefs, etc that can cause people to reject anything that the global powers would want to impose. They would want to engineer the entire population to serve the one system and there would be very little anyone could do to stop them.

 

[Teppodama]

These are just ideological assertions made with a religious certainty. You are entitled to such. But you are not offering reasoned arguments, much less compelling ones.

Name a society, either modern or from antiquity, that has been able to innovate on a large scale in the absence of conflict either from exterior or internal forces? Name a society, either modern or from antiquity, that has been able to remain viable in the absence of conflict, either exterior or internal, without the presence of draconian governmental or religious control exerting artificial stability?

The whole basis of our technology has its underpinnings in needs of protection and resource acquisition. To protect ourselves from harm whether environmental, inter-species or intra-species and to stave off starvation. In the absence of macro forms of conflict arising from struggles against these forces we become increasingly granular in forming new methods of conflict, generally in our thoughts and philosophies which are reflected in our societal struggles throughout the ages. The man who is starving has little time to ponder the intricacies of socialism vs capitalism, issues of gender identity or the merits of globalism vs protectionism. The same can be said for the man in imminent peril either from his environment or fellow humans.

"First world problems" are what develop in the absence of third world realities and are just a means of fulfilling that almost genetic and subconscious need for conflict and struggle in order to "feel alive" and energized, to fuel creativity and growth and to keep pushing the species forward. Environmental factors not withstanding, it's also at the heart of the reason most first world nations are likely seeing issues of infertility compared to third world nations who's environmental mastery and access to life enhancing technology isn't as great or developed as that enjoyed by most first world societies.

We already know of very real physiological changes that occur during periods of "fight or flight" in the human body. From hormonal changes, endorph and adrenal dumps, etc. *Here's the speculative part* What if the combination of the release of these elements over time are the genetic key to fertility and infertility not only in the individual but in their offspring as well? In a society of plenty with low levels of natural stressors that organically occur from survival, flight or fight signals the genetic imperative to produce offspring to continue the species wouldn't be as immediate as in more hostile environments or situations. Mothers pass along many many things to their fetuses as they develop. Maybe decreased fertility in offspring is linked to a lack of these stressors during development? Our bodies adapt to some degree to our environments and the stresses we put on it. Lift a heavy enough weight and your body develops muscle to make that task easier. Run a lot and the body learns to use its glycogen stores and blood oxy levels more efficiently etc etc etc.. There's really no reason not to theorize that the combination of chemicals the body produces under duress doesn't also affect fertility and could be at the heart of why first world societies are seeing a decline in theirs while third world nations enjoy what might be considered a more normal fertility rate. Given the chemical effects released by the body on the brain and its development I wouldn't be surprised if its not also having a cumulative effect on our mental perceptions of parenthood. In other words, maybe we're developing a certain amount of genetic apathy into our genes in the absence of this chemical cocktail.

It could also explain why Western nations have also seemed to enjoy and increase in fertility after major conflicts such as WW2 or Vietnam because I seriously doubt its was due to everyone just having more sex. It was likely due to the frequency and amount of the chemical stressors in the body keyed to our fertility potential driving our genes to reproduce and the infants gestated in that chemical and genetic stew would have enjoyed the benefit of "fully woke" fertility genes being passed on to them in turn.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Problem is the corruption and special interests which would run it. Why would you want to give power away to a tiny number of people who would be working on behalf of the worlds most powerful. A power monopoly and completion of world empire.

Humans are too emotional. I like the idea of creating an AI to run it. A program which specifically makes logical decisions for us without the issues that comes with power like corruption and needs. But when I bring this up people start talking about movies like terminator and Irobot. Its a little more complicated than that. We'd obviously have to do it in a smart way and be very careful.

 

[IDL]

Humans are too emotional. I like the idea of creating an AI to run it. A program which specifically makes logical decisions for us without the issues that comes with power like corruption and needs. But when I bring this up people start talking about movies like terminator and Irobot. Its a little more complicated than that. We'd obviously have to do it in a smart way and be very careful.

That is another version of the benevolent dictator idea. But who do you think would orchestrate the installation and running of such a system and how would peoples localized interests mesh with the demands of the desire of the single point of power. It could decide to just bulldoze entire cities if it deemed it 'logical' to do so. Complete tyranny could be deemed logical from an efficiency perspective. People having freedom could easily be deemed illogical because then they might disagree with whatever objective or measures were imposed. There is no avoiding the risk of catastrophe in such a scenario.

'The system' if it continuously builds in power would render the 'human' part of it problematic.

 

[IDL]

I too like the idea of an advanced AI running the world show. It's the most objective way to do it right. Humans would power trip and ruin it all, like humans always do. I would be for AI and robotics running and enforcing. May sound "scary" to some or whatnot, but it's infinitely better than some small group of all powerful dudes calling the shots.

Disregarding the fact than an AI system would still be installed and run by the same powerful groups that would be behind a human driven system, there is a reason why both scenarios aren't seen as ideal by many who weigh the perils.

The third possibility is to not let the power to concentrate into a single point, to try to keep a large degree of decentralization.

You could argue that that would be 'preventing progress' but that would be the point if a logical conclusion of power consolidation is too risky for the majority of people.

 

[M3t4tr0n]

Decentralized world power, such as the nation state, is what maintains individual freedom and liberty. Centralizing all power in the entire world under one single international authority will turn the whole world into slaves sooner or later.

It will also usher in the antichrist. Just a bad idea all around.

!!!

@ShinkanPo is gonna wanna know about this

 

[M3t4tr0n]

I too like the idea of an advanced AI running the world show. It's the most objective way to do it right. Humans would power trip and ruin it all, like humans always do. I would be for AI and robotics running and enforcing. May sound "scary" to some or whatnot, but it's infinitely better than some small group of all powerful dudes calling the shots.

I'm fine with having ai over lords. I welcome them.

 

[PubliusVentidius]

Humans are too emotional. I like the idea of creating an AI to run it. A program which specifically makes logical decisions for us without the issues that comes with power like corruption and needs. But when I bring this up people start talking about movies like terminator and Irobot. Its a little more complicated than that. We'd obviously have to do it in a smart way and be very careful.

This sounds a lot like the model envisioned in The Culture series by Iain Banks.

''The Culture is characterized as being a post-scarcity society, having overcome most physical constraints on life and being an egalitarian, stable society without the use of any form of force or compulsion, except where necessary to protect others.

Minds, extremely powerful artificial intelligences, have an important role. They administer this abundance for the benefit of all. As one commentator has said:

Investing all power in his individualistic, sometime eccentric, but always benign, A.I. Minds, Banks knew what he was doing; this is the only way a liberal anarchy could be achieved, by taking what is best in humans and placing it beyond corruption, which means out of human control. The danger involved in this imaginative step, though, is clear; one of the problems with the Culture novels as novels is that the central characters, the Minds, are too powerful and, to put it bluntly, too good.[2]''

Welcome to utopian anarchism friend.

 

[RockstarChris]

In some areas I view myself as liberal and in others I view myself as conservative but one area I've been thinking about for a while now is Globalism and the jump from our current type 0.7 civilization to a 1 civilization.

Globalism seems to be linked to a lot of negative conspiracy theories. Some crazier than others but pushing conspiracies a side is the idea of Globalism that bad?

IMO the world needs to become closer and less prejudice before we take that next step in evolution and start inhabiting new planets (if we ever get to that point). A segregated and nationalist mentality during that time will just end in wars over planets, resources etc like we've done many times before and thus making us weaker as a species. The majority of us are heading to a type 1 civilization but there are still many people who are against some of the ideas that come with that.

I am still not very educated on this subject so feel free to point out if I've said anything wrong but this is a good video of Michio Kaku touching on it whilst talking about planetary civilization:



Point out what your concerns are with Globalism and how you think those negatives can be turned into a positives (if they can).

America is by far the top dog so as soon as the rest of the world comes and bows down to us we can be globalized.

 

[mixcontactsport]

It requires balance. A sufficiently integrated and homogeneous species or society requires and equally or greater opposition from external sources such Inter-species or environmental challenge in order to continue evolutionary growth. Without that challenge we slide into stagnancy, regression and ultimately species death.

not just balance, but order. If we're a fully homogeneous species in the future, will we be grouped by class, religion, family surname, political affiliation, or maybe even our full genetic makeup? unless the World becomes a police state, I don't see how they can bring order to society?

 

[Teppodama]

not just balance, but order. If we're a fully homogeneous species in the future, will we be grouped by class, religion, family surname, political affiliation, or maybe even our full genetic makeup? unless the World becomes a police state, I don't see how they can bring order to society?

Welcome to planet Gulag comrade.

 

[IDL]

not just balance, but order. If we're a fully homogeneous species in the future, will we be grouped by class, religion, family surname, political affiliation, or maybe even our full genetic makeup? unless the World becomes a police state, I don't see how they can bring order to society?

There will always be group differences.

But as per the need for external competition, an example would be a configuration akin to Orwell's 1984 where the system is divided up into blocks which are constantly set at 'war' with one another. Perpetual war to maintain order, but it would be fake war with neither block gaining any ground.

So you satisfy the need to have an external threat while sustaining the system in an orderly manner.

 

[mixcontactsport]

There will always be group differences.

But as per the need for external competition, an example would be a configuration akin to Orwell's 1984 where the system is divided up into blocks which are constantly set at 'war' with one another. Perpetual war to maintain order, but it would be fake war with neither block gaining any ground.

So you satisfy the need to have an external threat while sustaining the system in an orderly manner.

forget about Orwell's 1984, that actually seems more akin to what we're having now in America. Identity Politics comes to mind. I guess there will never be true unity. Not possible.

 

[IDL]

forget about Orwell's 1984, that actually seems more akin to what we're having now in America. Identity Politics comes to mind. I guess there will never be true unity. Not possible.

Depends on what identity politics you are referring to. If it is of the NeoMarxist type I don't think that is its purpose, but the old divide and rule strategy in general is a pretty old one and is undoubtedly still used.

I'm not sure what 'true unity' would even mean. In theory you could have a global religion and an imagined external threat to keep people united. Like an alien threat or something. Or even the threat of global warming has been mentioned as a possible mechanism published by the Club or Rome here:

Spoiler

"In 1991, the club published The First Global Revolution.[8] It analyses the problems of humanity, calling these collectively or in essence the "problematique". It notes that, historically, social or political unity has commonly been motivated by enemies in common: "The need for enemies seems to be a common historical factor. Some states have striven to overcome domestic failure and internal contradictions by blaming external enemies. The ploy of finding a scapegoat is as old as mankind itself—when things become too difficult at home, divert attention to adventure abroad. Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one, or else one invented for the purpose. With the disappearance of the traditional enemy, the temptation is to use religious or ethnic minorities as scapegoats, especially those whose differences from the majority are disturbing."[9] "Every state has been so used to classifying its neighbours as friend or foe, that the sudden absence of traditional adversaries has left governments and public opinion with a great void to fill. New enemies have to be identified, new strategies imagined, and new weapons devised."[9] "In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome

Or you could hook people into a matrix of some sort once the technology advances where peoples thoughts could be monitored and tampered with and be done with it.

 

[Grenz]

If we make it out the population growth curve alive, we will eventually have something like a global society. That's still many years away, most probably will be at a time when AI is already playing a huge role in our lives.

 

[MicroBrew]

In some areas I view myself as liberal and in others I view myself as conservative but one area I've been thinking about for a while now is Globalism and the jump from our current type 0.7 civilization to a 1 civilization.

Globalism seems to be linked to a lot of negative conspiracy theories. Some crazier than others but pushing conspiracies a side is the idea of Globalism that bad?

IMO the world needs to become closer and less prejudice before we take that next step in evolution and start inhabiting new planets (if we ever get to that point). A segregated and nationalist mentality during that time will just end in wars over planets, resources etc like we've done many times before and thus making us weaker as a species. The majority of us are heading to a type 1 civilization but there are still many people who are against some of the ideas that come with that.

I am still not very educated on this subject so feel free to point out if I've said anything wrong but this is a good video of Michio Kaku touching on it whilst talking about planetary civilization:



Point out what your concerns are with Globalism and how you think those negatives can be turned into a positives (if they can).

The problem with the global elitist push - orchestrated by the West - to force countries and peoples to not retain visible homogeneity and cultural unity is that it is genocidal. Creating a borderless world and pressuring cultures to do away with their unity is cultural genocide. While now-a-days we attribute the resistance to open borders and the top-down push against homogeneity to the rightwing, it's a tactic that is very old and was used by Colonial powers to destroy indigenous peoples. The Europeans coerced / forced Amerindians to mix, with the intention being that Amerindians will eventually cease to exist. Now-a-days the grass-roots Europeans perceive that they are on the receiving end of this push to do away with genomic and cultural unity. And , apart from the global elite, these grass-roots Euros and North Americans think the liberal intelligentsia is behind this push to do away with old Europe.

 

[Chris Gaines]

America is by far the top dog so as soon as the rest of the world comes and bows down to us we can be globalized.

America bows down to Israel.

Look into it!

 

[RockstarChris]

America bows down to Israel.

Look into it!

they are like our puppy. There is nothing i wouldnt do for my cute little puppy.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

Wait until we've replaced human governance and resource distribution with AI.
Humans can't be trusted to lead a globally centralised system.