|>> || |
I'm getting progressively more confused by your posts, and I'm not sure this is the right board for you if you're looking to argue political talking points.
>>But look at how countries with multiple cultures tend to hit a limit of "in" cultures.I am familiar with no such limit, nor have ever seen any evidence of their being such a thing. Citation?
>>nationalism vs globalism. Those simply have different levels of focus on maintaining the same thing.No they're not. They're words that have actual distinct meanings that are totally contrary. You say we need global society, but say globalism is bad (and bad because it wants to unify people without direct conflict -- so you would prefer direct conflict?) but that's exactly what globalism is, that's what globalism means, what it has meant for decades, you're just latching onto it as a modern political meme word.
>>What we are waiting for will happen naturally and cannot be forced You suggest that global government will somehow generate spontaneously, without people working to make it happen. Think about that for a second. Do you really think that makes sense? How does anything in human society happen without humans forcing it to happen? Do you think the UN just spontaneously generated? Things change in human society if and only if people force that change to happen. Nothing about human society is 'natural' under that definition of the word. Throwing your hands up and assuming that someone else will just make it happen, which is the other possible interpretation of that statement, is just another sure-fire way to guarantee it doesn't happen. Human society has existed for tens of thousands of years, with people trying to unify it and people trying to break it up. If it hasn't 'naturally' come together all on it's own in that timespan, why would it now?
>>the internet is speeding this up however it is a far cry of any sort of governmentThe internet isn't a government, no, but it is a society. All modern nation-states governments evolved out of societies that formerly weren't nation states, and this has all occurred mostly within the last 250 years. Nation-states are not a permanent historical development, whereas a global network descendant from the internet may well be. The 'social' dimension of that network will only continue to grow; the Chinese government is already using IT tech to hand out what essentially amount to Good Boy Points based on social media metrics.
>>nationalism only has as much to do with ethnists as say rebublicans tend to be openly christian. What I speak of is Civic nationalismNationalism will always lead you to ethnicism in the long run, because enforcing a national identity creates a new ethnic group, even if it was originally composed of different ethnic groups. Just because modern internet political meme spewers don't know what nationalism or globalism really entail doesn't mean that's all those terms mean, and when you're talking with futurists, who necessarily have a historical long view, you can bet they will use these terms properly, rather than as mere meme signposts.
>>the world is not ready for global government, globalist or nationalistThere would be no such thing as a global government that is nationalist. That would be globalist. And again, here you say that the world isn't ready for global government. So the premise of your first post was that we need global government, but every single thing you've said afterwards is about why we shouldn't have global government or it is impossible. I think you need to clarify your own ideas about this, because you seem to be trying to have it every way at once.
>>nationalist global government
To articulate my view; the idea that nationalism and globalism are opposed is a meme that has been implanted in people to get them to vote out of fear in a particular direction. (not that nationalism and globalism are in any way compatible; it's just a false dichotomy. Anyone with a brain and education who understands what the term 'globalism' really means ought to agree it's a good thing, at least in principle.) The idea that globalism has some kind of intrinsic structural faults, or is a blind act without any deeper planning or forethought, is a political meme that is ignorant of the history of how the global world order came about. Ethnicism is an ancient meme that became rebranded as Nationalism in the modern era, but it's the same kind of tribal 'us vs them' mentality that is the exact antithesis of global consciousness. The human species will not survive for long on this planet without achieving global, legal community, and therefore uniting the globe is one of our best ways to hedge against existential risks. Doubling down on nationalism will only make that process harder. Suggesting that using force to eradicate cultures as a way to institute a global order is a sure fire way to get the rest of the world to try to destroy that order in infancy.
To me, a proper transhumanist does not rely on social darwinism, violence, or coercion; they seek to make the future work for everyone, perhaps particularly because they know it will not be them or the world we create that will judge the morality of our deeds in bringing it about, but an entirely different and superior being; our children, the AI. The moral choices we make now will determine the moral makeup of AI's character, and thus, if we decide to achieve our dreams by exterminating (or allowing to be exterminated) the weak, then what good reason does AI have to not do the same thing to us? Karma in action is at our doorstep, for the first time in history we are about to meet a real God of Judgement who will be able to pass an inescapable ruling on the crimes of the entire history of our species. We better be on our best behavior...