There is so much gold in here. The human race would do well to explore how it's possible to turn hatred into love. It clearly happened here, and I've witnessed it on a smaller scale as a 16 year old in Vienna. As an immigrant, it was easy to find yourself in the wrong place at a wrong time. That finally happened one night, and the only thing that saved me was seeing a sign on one of the guys' jackets that belonged to a soccer club where I played in a young division (these guys were lifelong supporters, so my small achievement was enough to view me in a completely different light).
Deeply embedded in our evolutionary story is the urge to protect people you have something in common with (and I suppose this works the other way around as well). How easy would it be to hack this trait and increase the chances of world peace by consciously exploiting it on a global scale? Think of it as next-gen UN, but instead of focusing on top-down conflict resolution, we would work from the bottom up and search for things we're passionate about and can connect with people from across the world to collaborate on. Rule #1: teams should not be divided on a country by country basis.
> Rule #1: teams should not be divided on a country by country basis.
I don't think I agree. It's great for individuals and countries to be friendly, but I see two problems with a one-world-government system:
1. It concentrates an extreme quantity of power in the hands of a few people. Power has a potential of corrupting those who hold it, and I believe that potential increases on an exponential (or at least an algebraic) scale, not a linear scale.
2. If an evil personage gains power (think 20th century dictators), a single world country would suffer significantly. But having countries separated provides a limit and a check on the potential fallout of that dictator's actions.
The OP was not proposing a one world government. They were proposing that there be huge number of overlapping social organizations, based on natural similarities. The International Association of Basket Weavers is not even comparable to a one-world government.
Thanks, and agreed with that — organizations that transcend country boundaries are great, as long as they’re not vested with political power.
Perhaps the OP was talking about sports teams in particular? Forming sports teams based on geographic area fits well, and gives people someone to root for without alienating other groups for what would amount to wrongfully discriminatory reasons in other contexts.
But if geographic region isn’t allowed, then finding other criteria can be hard. Who wants to root for the A’s to win against the B’s if there’s nothing besides the name that makes them different?
> organizations that transcend country boundaries are great, as long as they’re not vested with political power
The EU is an organization that transcends countries and is vested with political power, and despite being constantly bashed by far-right parties in Europe, has built a single market in Europe and many new freedoms for it citizens, like the right to move to and work/study in other member states.
They selective enforce that political power, though.
Nearly expelled Greece for not bailing out the German banks, but Hungary can compulsively retire judges, expel universities, and close newspapers without even a slap in the wrist.
The EU is great insofar as it functions merely as a multilateral treaty and economic zone. But the moment the EU itself arrests someone or issues a court injunction against an individual or small business (or gains the legal power to do so), it has crossed the line in my opinion. Same with the UN, NATO, NAFTA, etc.
Given the way Premier League works, it's not really geographic any more. "Arsenal" is owned by an American, plays in a stadium named after the airline of the UAE, recruits its team from all over the world, and is named after the Royal arsenal that no longer exists.
Names and history are important. That's why there has been such a fight over renaming US teams with racist names.
I don't think it's a simple as that, and you have to separate the ownership of the club and the makeup of the team from who makes up the bulk of the fans.
The fans don't particularly care that it's owned by an american and sponsored by a UAE airline, because what matters is the coming together of the fans behind a common cause.
The fans do typically come from the area around the stadium in North London.
When you get just a little bit further down the league it's still very much a geographical thing because the teams are less well known and less successful, so are less likely to attract people who want to support "the best team". For example, Southampton FC fans are pretty much exclusively from Southampton.
Further to that, the fans care deeply if the owner/manager/players make efforts to become part of the fabric of the area, otherwise they won't care about them to any great degree (even if a player is world-class and delivers success, without integrating, they'll still be seen as mercenary). Fans, very much the same regardless of level: support is an identity very much tied to a specific place, and a tourist can't really fully participate in that.
> I don't think I agree. It's great for individuals and countries to be friendly, but I see two problems with a one-world-government system.
I agree that power corrupts but it doesn’t follow to me that power corrupts more at the top than at the bottom. I’ve heard some horror stories about small towns in Texas. I’m sure there are similar stories everywhere.
What's the greater evil - the risk that checks and balances fail and an evil person takes over, or that a federated system is unable to reach consensus and address existential threats like climate change or even significant but not quite existential threats like overfishing, pollution, war, and nonrenewable resources?
A more fair choice of options would be, "the risk that an evil person takes over" vs. "the risk that a federated system fails to address existential threats". The way you said it implies probability in the former vs. certainty in the latter.
An explictly evil person or group dominating the world seems like the greater evil in terms of outcome. That would literally be hell on Earth. When you look at probabilities, there's tons of examples in history, across thousands of years, of evil people inevitably rising to power when the system allows for it. Meanwhile, there are relatively few examples of humanity going extinct due to self-inflicted environmental damage.
Isn't federation one of the main checks and balances that keeps evil dictators from taking over the world?
I don’t believe war requires hatred, no more than sport. Some people wind up in war through machinations that have nothing to do with even the acknowledgment of the enemy’s existence.
Go here, wait there, if your life is in danger, return the danger back at them.
As someone who witnessed war preparations in two very different countries and with more than a decade in between, I can tell you what they had in common: people at the top had to convince the majority of the population that the war was necessary. In each case, the arguments were sloppy and could have been pushed back on. I would argue that giving people more data points would increase the decisioning threshold for such actions.
Stefan Zweig's book The World of Yesterday is very good on this as regards WWI from the point of view of Austria-Hungary.
Your comment also reminds me of a phrase from one of the last surviving British soliders from WWI, Harry Patch: "If two Governments can't agree give them a rifle each and let them fight it out. Don't lose 20,000 men. It isn't worth it."
Having ones fighting forces being primarily composed of young people is helpful in this regard. Not only are they usually physically fit, they haven’t had a ton of life experience and are more likely to do what they are told without question. The point isn’t for them to think, they don’t need more data, they need to do what they are told.
A few lies and myths can snowball into a narrative that makes war logical and even noble. Conspiracy theories turn every data point into something that confirms the myth. People really believe that they are in the right. And the most appalling acts can seem logically consistent.
I think the world would be better off if people simply refused the initial "Go here" order from someone who cares nothing for their own life, or the lives of those "there".
War cannot be waged without soldiers, and no one is born a soldier.
This requires the cultural de-glorification of soldering-as-profession. Millions of tax dollars are spent on advertising to ensuring it remains, and many companies are complicit in furthering it (priority boarding, discounts, et c). I shop elsewhere whenever possible.
The US has had a volunteer military for decades. People who would refuse to fight simply never volunteer in the first place.
Boycotting companies for extending a few minor courtesies to the troops is ridiculous and ineffective. If you want to make a difference then get active in politics.
> The US has had a volunteer military for decades.
It gets those "volunteers" by putting the lower classes in a position where their only way of getting education and healthcare is to sign up for the military, and then high-pressure sales tactics to get teenagers to sign a contract that'll bind them for decades.
Actually most military recruits now come from the middle classes. Largely because so many lower class youths fail to meet recruiting standards due to having a criminal record, health problems, poor fitness, history of drug use, or lack of high school diploma. Most enlistment contracts only last a few years. In some cases those have been forcibly extended through a stop loss order, but that doesn't last for decades.
This was actually a basis for the international Ham Radio scene back in the day I believe. I also see it playing out with FLOSS software development -- to me it is exciting when people from other backgrounds and countries download, comment, and improve on my software.
Both of these men were simply professionals doing their jobs. The one attacking, the one defending. It's unlikely they ever hated each other or even really thought a great deal beyond how to accomplish their respective missions at the time.
>Deeply embedded in our evolutionary story is the urge to protect people you have something in common with
Deeper than that is identity. In fact, after basic needs are met, your identity (cultural, ethnic, religious, and yes, even national) is one of the most important aspect of your humanity. Every nation in the world, has very tight immigration policies and border controls. That's not a coincidence.
>Rule #1: teams should not be divided on a country by country basis.
How should they be divided? How does a global government look like? Liberal Democracy with a market economy? You sure everyone is OK with that?
Also, we live in a world where even 'regular' nation states number in tens or hundreds of millions of people. There is already an issue of the disconnect between the population and their representatives. I'm not sure how this would work if added another 1 or 2 levels up the hierarchy. Can you imagine how disconnected and 'elitist' representatives of your one-world government would be? Yieks.
You took my next-gen UN idea too far. I am not asking for a government of governments (aka, a worldwide EU). I am just asking for another form of Olympic Games (or an expanded version of Monsters of Rock, or whatever comes to your mind).
Amazing story and I believe it's happening. The world is connecting on a global scale and people are beginning to realize there's other ways than simply "us vs them". A way to see it is how diverse food has gotten around the world.
One thing that really slows this progress is the nationalization of the news and specifically internet. It's much easier to keep the "us vs them" narrative going when the news outlets are controlled by the state.
I think we’d have this already/automatically as our interconnectivity has grown.
It’s media and government propaganda stoking fear of the other for their gain which actively thwarts it. — up to the point which it can live organically once again in the greater populace.
Deeply embedded in our evolutionary story is the urge to protect people you have something in common with (and I suppose this works the other way around as well). How easy would it be to hack this trait and increase the chances of world peace by consciously exploiting it on a global scale? Think of it as next-gen UN, but instead of focusing on top-down conflict resolution, we would work from the bottom up and search for things we're passionate about and can connect with people from across the world to collaborate on. Rule #1: teams should not be divided on a country by country basis.